Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I don't know if the Republicans and the Rand Simbergs see an opening to attack Pelosi, or if they are worried that she will gain stature from this trip. Maybe some of both. Either way, she seems to have touched a nerve.

Posted by at April 5, 2007 01:01 PM

Or their is a thrid option and the one I vote for: When you are so pathetic the WAPO attacks you, a fellow lib, in their editorial pages and Jimmy 'always stuck on stupid' Carter defends you, you really are as fuked up as a soup sandwich.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 5, 2007 01:46 PM

What she's doing is illegal under the Logan Act,Anonymous Moron.

Posted by Frantic Freddie at April 5, 2007 01:50 PM

When you are so pathetic the WAPO attacks you, a fellow lib, in their editorial pages

Actually the Washington Post's editorial pages have become Fairenbalinst in the past few years.

What she's doing is illegal under the Logan Act

I can see that this will be another one of these "crimes" that never leads to a criminal indictment. The Republicans, out of the misguided kindness of their hearts, will opt for unity instead.

Posted by at April 5, 2007 01:59 PM

I don't know if the Republicans and the Rand Simbergs...are worried that she will gain stature from this trip....she seems to have touched a nerve.

I wouldn't deploy this logic if I were you. Imagine if it were used to analyze the Democratic hysteria over gay underage page phone sex last year. Do you want people saying paederasty "touches a nerve" among Democrats, hmm? Especially given your well-known preference for becoming schoolteachers and daycare center workers, your tendency to obsess over "the children" and so forth...?

Posted by Carl Pham at April 5, 2007 04:08 PM

Imagine if it were used to analyze the Democratic hysteria over gay underage page phone sex last year.

I agree that the Democrats should have kept their distance from the Mark Foley scandal. In fact, to a great extent they did. Mark Foley shot the Republicans in the foot with such accurate aim that he didn't need help from Democrats.

Posted by at April 5, 2007 04:36 PM

Either way, she seems to have touched a nerve.

Posted by at April 5, 2007 01:01 PM

The "nerve" if you will that she touched with me...is that I find it hard to believe that anyone having risen to her position of power, can be as fracken naive as she is...I assume that she is naive not just mowing the ground for partisan advantage.

The far left Dems are as much as a logical inconsistency as the far right members of the GOP...it is just that while the far right is frequently just knee jerk uninformed, the far left is just so fracken naive.

Pelosi's acts and statements on this trip are those which assume a major flaw, that the people who are the products and serve at the pleasure of radical groups can in fact act rationally.

The problem is that there is a whirlwind stirring that is trying to invelope western culture in it and destroy it...and the far left cannot grasp that.

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 5, 2007 06:30 PM

I find it hard to believe that anyone having risen to her position of power, can be as fracken naive as she is

The point is, you don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies. There is a sentiment here that making peace is a threat to society in general, that every peace agreement is the Munich agreement. But it's not true; it's like thinking of every plane flight as a plane crash.

You need to look back at the fact that Egypt and Israel made peace. Sadat was hardly more nicey-nicey than the Assad family, and no more democratic. He also launched a full-scale war against Israel. But in the end, he turned over a new leaf and made peace. Later Jordan did too.

No sane person in Israel thinks that peace with Egypt and Jordan are a bad thing. Syria is the missing third peace treaty, and there is nothing naive in pointing that out.

As for the "whirlwind out to destroy the West" stuff, you would be wise to keep your shirt on. You will never be safe from the world's Arabs or Muslims unless and until you find respect for them. Syria has taken in a million refugees from our mess in Iraq, and that does deserve respect. Assad may be a mafioso, but he is no Stalin; most Syrians do not want to be told that he is one.

Posted by at April 5, 2007 07:03 PM

I agree that the Democrats should have kept their distance from the Mark Foley scandal. In fact, to a great extent they did.

Really? I'm impressed with your definition of "distance." They'd have needed a proctoscope to keep any less distance than they did.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 5, 2007 07:18 PM

Posted by at April 5, 2007 07:03 PM

nope.

Israel and Egypt were unable to make peace until both parties came to the conclusion that war was futile in terms of making political change...that took Sadat to have some courage and lead his people into rational dialouge.

the problem with the rest of the "regimes" is that they do not envision a "peace" that is anything less then the non existance of the state of Israel.

the only "peace" that there is will be Israel not existing.

If you cant see that then you are not seeing the problem.

It is that simple...

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 5, 2007 07:55 PM

The point is, you don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies.

Dead wrong. You defeat your enemies, and then you make peace with them, because then they've become your newest friends.

There is a sentiment here that making peace is a threat to society in general,

Also wrong. The sentiment here (if any) is that peace at any price doesn't deserve to be called "peace." It's just paying the Dane-geld, just throwing your children under the bus so you can live out your own life more comfortably. It's despicably self-centered behaviour, and pretending that it's only because you want to take the nonviolent "high road" is just adding hypocrisy to dishonor.

There's everything to be said for holding the constant ideal of "making peace", so long as you realize you may need to wage war as part of the process. Sometimes the only way to make peace with someone who is truly wrong-headed is to beat the hell out of him, so he has a good reason to stop and re-think his philosophy.

Arguably the only way to "make peace" with Japan circa 1938, in the grips of a violently racist, sadistic governing philosophy, was to beat them up so badly that they were forced to re-evaluate their culture from top to bottom and root out the evil elements. The fastest way to do that was probably by waging an awful war. That's the only thing that provided enough motivation. Four years of war topped off by nuclear holocaust was dreadful, but it accomplished a far greater, faster and more successful change in Japanese culture than four centuries of UN resolutions, "isolation" and the slow bleeding of economic sanctions would have. And therefore the ultimate cost to the world was far less.

But [thinking every peace agreement is a Munich] is not true; it's like thinking of every plane flight as a plane crash.

Every peace agreement not concluded on the basis of a true meeting of minds and coincidence of interests is either a Munich or a SALT I treaty, i.e. either a surrender document or an expensive farce.

Notice that the peace treaty came after the war. That's the point. That's the way things usually go. Only after the IDF beat the hell out of the Egyptians in the Sinai did the Egyptian government have sufficient motivation to rethink their whole approach to Israel. Only at that point did Sadat conclude that accepting Israel was the moral thing to do. It's no coincidence that the Egyptians took the heaviest blows in the wars with Israel and were also the only Arab nation to completely re-think the morality of implacable opposition to the Zionist entity. You have only to look at the Palestinians to see a horrible counter-example: a people to whom the international community has, for 50 years, given the cruel false hope that they can have their cake and eat it, too -- that they can somehow prosper without having to re-examine their vicious and violent racist ideology with respect to the Jews. This hope has kept them from the necessary introspection and change, and it has prolonged their agony unbearably.

When nations (or mass movements, e.g. militant Islam) come into strong conflict, both think they have God on their side and can prevail in any ultimate struggle. That's why there's a conflict at all. No one fights if they're sure they'll lose.

But of course, one of them must be wrong. One of them has badly misunderstood reality, is wrong, and will lose any ultimate struggle. But until he's convinced of that fact -- and it can take a lot of hurt to convince him -- he's not going to change his mind, and any "peace" agreement with him is not worth the paper it's written on.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 5, 2007 08:01 PM

Anon says: Sadat was hardly more nicey-nicey than the Assad family, and no more democratic. He also launched a full-scale war against Israel. But in the end, he turned over a new leaf and made peace.

First off, Sadat tried peace because he just had his head handed to him in conflict. The Isrealis kicked his butt sideways.

He tried peace, and it was good, and I respect him for that. Then the terrorists got him, because peace with Isreal wasn't what THEY wanted.

Posted by Mac at April 5, 2007 08:16 PM

Posted by Carl Pham at April 5, 2007 08:01 PM

this is the "stuff" of the right wing I was refering to. It is as flawed as the far left wing..

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 5, 2007 08:16 PM

the problem with the rest of the "regimes" is that they do not envision a "peace" that is anything less then the non existance of the state of Israel.

You could have said that about Egypt until it changed its mind. Syria never will see any mutual interests if you refuse to talk to it.

Actually, the US created a mutual interest between Israel and Egypt by paying them both off. That may sound expensive, but it has been MUCH cheaper than the war in Iraq.

Besides, the world's other power centers --- the EU, Russia, and China --- have no intention of cutting off relations with Syria. If the plan is to isolate Syria, then the US can only make a corral with one side.

Posted by at April 5, 2007 09:21 PM

Syria never will see any mutual interests if you refuse to talk to it.

Really? So they're pretty stupid, huh? Unable to figure out what's in their own best interest without patient instruction from another country?

Hmm, I've an alternative theory for you. How about: Syrians are actually pretty smart, quite good at figuring out what's in their best interests, and -- shock! horror! -- those best interests are not necessarily compatible with Israel's, or ours.

Why not? Simple. They can get more of what they want by being aggressive assholes, because right now the benefits (control of Lebanon, oil money from the mullahs for harassing Israel, distraction of their own people by the threat of the Great Satan and its Zionist minion) outweigh the costs (pretty much zip -- oh right, except for that awful guilt they must feel about not taking the "high road", and having to endure the pursed lips and disapproving frowns from visiting UN bureaucrats).

In other words, they're not under any delusions about the nature of reality. We're not going to get Syria on the couch, talk about its unhappy childhood, and thereby resolve the neuroses that lead to its antisocial behaviour. Its antisocial behaviour is perfectly rational, just like that of a bully who finds he can take everyone's lunch money without consequences.

The only way to change the behaviour is to change Syria's reality -- to change the balance of rewards and punishments for antisocial versus social behaviour. I'm all for finding a carrot, but it's got to be a carrot that's fair to everyone else in the region. But if you can't find a carrot -- and so far none has turned up -- then a stick will do.

Either way, talk is merely hot air until you've got something to talk about.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 6, 2007 12:58 AM

Posted by at April 5, 2007 09:21 PM

My read from being alive during the events that you mention, reading history, and spending a "fair" amount of time in sand land is that your conclusions are all wrong! LOL

One cannot make peace with a people and a culture that are not prepared to accept it. That can occur in many fashions, but in the case of the Egyptian/Israeli gig it occurred when leaders primarily in Egypt woke up one morning (or over a couple of mornings) and came to the conclusion(s) that 1) Israel was a reality and 2) that reality if accepted could substantially improve the life of the culture.

That is what courage is defined as and Anwar Sadat came to it over a period of time (and with some personal tragedies) in dealing with Israel. When he came to that the "good offices" of the US were there to both facilitate it and "grease the skids" (money) for it.

What seperates Mr. Sadat from Fat Yasser (or little Assad) or President "tom" is that he came to those conclusions ...and then was able to lead his nation to peace.

Arafat could have walked that same bridge, he would have been in some personal periel (as was Sadat) but his legacy as a leader could have been the guy who turned the "mainstream" views of his countrymen into a "peace" mode, got it and then seen "his country" prosper because of it. But he either didnt have that courage or that mindset I dont know which.

Nothing, no amount of "talking" will change that mindset or enable that courage untless leaders can come to it all on their own.

People like you (and the far left) think "we can talk anything out". You cannot.

You cannot negotiate awaw behavior from people whose BELIEF is that negotiations are just a method of or a way point on achieving their ultimate aim. "The Big A" (Adolf Hitler) was one such example. The west could cut deal after deal with him and yet none of those deals were "permenant changes" Of behavior, they were simply step by step achievement of what "The Big A" wanted to accomplish.

And as every negotiation occurred and then its promises broken western leaders pushed on by people like Lindbergh demanded yet another try at "negotations" to avoid ultimatly standing for something....hopeing that at some point the "talks" would lead to "reasonableness" on the part of "The Big A".

They just couldnt face reality...these were not permenant solutions, just stepping stones for the other guy.,

I see no evidence from "Tom" or Hezbollah or Hamas or little Assad or anything that at any time are they prepared to utter the words "Israel has a right to exist as a country".

And as long as that is a reality, no other ones exist.

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 6, 2007 04:22 AM

The Egyptian/Israeli gig it occurred when leaders primarily in Egypt woke up one morning

No, they didn't just "wake up one morning". There were a lot of negotiations that could easily have failed.

People like you (and the far left) think "we can talk anything out".

No, that's not what I think. I think that "to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war". That is a quote from a leftist wacko named Winston Churchill.

I see no evidence from "Tom" or Hezbollah or Hamas or little Assad or anything that at any time are they prepared to utter the words "Israel has a right to exist as a country".

In the case of Assad, the reason that you see no evidence is that no one has looked for any lately. There have been no negotiations, in fact Bush's "initiative" is that he is "punishing" Assad by refusing to negotiate with him. He withdrew his ambassador two years ago. Now, that may have had some symbolic value for a while, but it is not a punishment at all. If there were any basis to negotiate between Syria and either the US or Israel, Bush would never know about it. Instead, he acts as if the world's rogue leaders --- Assad and Kim Jong Il and so forth --- are somehow hurting if he doesn't grace them with his attention.

Convenient, isn't it? Bush can throw up his hands and say that there is no way to negotiate with Syria, when in fact he never tried. If Carter had done the same with Egypt, Egypt would never have made peace with Israel.

Posted by at April 6, 2007 07:37 AM

I'm all for finding a carrot

No, you're not. Bush's express policy is that no one should look for any carrots when it comes to Syria. That's his so-called "initiative". If anyone looks for a carrot, that's "sabotage".

And actually, even though I'm sure your excited by the idea of finding and applying sticks to Syria instead of carrots, Bush isn't doing that either. Although he will never admit it, he knows full well that Iraq is a quagmire, so there is no Syria policy at all. When he thought that he had won the war in Iraq, he and Rumsfeld threatened Syria, but those were fleeting, long-gone golden days.

Posted by at April 6, 2007 07:58 AM

Posted by at April 6, 2007 07:37 AM

nope on any of it.

The desire from an Egypt Israeli peace came about after the Yom Kipper war and some very very deep thought and policy change by Sadat. There was a lot of diplomacy before that event of course but it was more or less all meaningless until Sadat came to the conclusion that Eqypt had enough of fighting the Israelis for the rest of the Arab brothers and could prosper under peace.

In the case of Little Assad there is no evidence because none exist. Assad is in power at the pleasure of groups that exist to destroy Israel.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 6, 2007 03:46 PM

No, you're not. Bush's express policy is...

Dude, I assure you I'm not President Bush posting incognito. So how does the President's policy give you any insight into my thoughts?

Incidentally, what do you imagine would be a reasonable and attractive carrot to offer Syria, hmm? What's your idea, clever dick? Go ahead, amaze us. And do try to avoid utterly meaningless generalities like "we should show the Syrians more respect" (what precisely does "show respect" mean in practise?) as well as circular statements like "we should give the Syrians something they want" (like what?) Satisfy the standards of specificity and detail that y'all want from the President when he's asked for his plan in Iraq. What's your plan for Syria?

Always impresses me how quickly monomaniacs can slip from the subject under discussion to their obsession. I'm guessing you could easily begin a sentence with "Tonight there's a 60% chance of rain..." and end it with "...and therefore Bush's failed policies in Iraq....quagmire quagmire quack quack quack."

So let's get back to the point. Sure, I think a stick is a reasonable thing to use on Syria if carrots are in short supply. I can't think of any carrots, simpleton that I am. Until you supply your brilliant plan, I have to go with sticks.

Now, diplomatic isolation is supposedly a major stick, right? After all, we just heard how it supposedly got 15 hostages back from Iran. We're told it's going to get them to give up their nuclear weapons program, too. Only right-wing warmongers think sterner measures are necessary. So, what's wrong with applying diplomatic isolation as a stick to Syria? Why exactly is it futile and village-idiot stupid in the case of Syria, but PhD-clever effective in the case of Iran?

Posted by Carl Pham at April 6, 2007 07:06 PM

Robert said: The desire from an Egypt Israeli peace came about after the Yom Kipper war and some very very deep thought and policy change by Sadat

Deep thought, and a beaten army. The Israelis proved they were a force to be reckoned with. They also proved that being ahead technologically lends great support to your fighting forces. Granted, the steps to peace taken by Sadat are laudable, you must remember his back was to a wall because his armies couldn't do anything to Israel. Better to have peace and lick your wounds, rather than try to lick your wounds while the dog is still mangling you.

Posted by Mac at April 6, 2007 07:19 PM

The Israelis proved they were a force to be reckoned with. They also proved that being ahead technologically lends great support to your fighting forces. Granted, the steps to peace taken by Sadat are laudable, you must remember his back was to a wall because his armies couldn't do anything to Israel. Better to have peace and lick your wounds, rather than try to lick your wounds while the dog is still mangling you.

Posted by Mac at April 6, 2007 07:19 PM

What Yom Kipper war did you observe?

I agree that part of Sadat's calculas was the war...I think that he figured out that the odds of destroying Israel were simply "not possible" but I also believe that he figured out that there was absolutly no reason to continue trying for a lot of other reasons.

The ARab politics behind the YK war are fascinating. It was the first pivot point that brought a "moderate" Arab force to maturity.

the IDF performance in the YK war was "good" it was far from outstanding or even on par with the Six Day war. The IDF has been living off its reputation for quite sometime since the SDW and YK is one example of it (the several forays into Lebanon including the last one are continued examples of it)...

Look I dont have a problem giving credit to the IDF for the outcome of the YKWar nor for the clear victory of Clausiwitzan theory in forcing Sadat to do a rethink...but he could have EASILY gone another direction in the rethink almost every ARab leader since Sadat HAS...

He was a brave guy who took a lot of chances and changed history. So was Beagin(SP) and Sharon...both were old warrior who more or less came to some difficult conclusions...that lessor men, men who have not really faced battle seem to have a problem with...

aka knowing when to fight...and when to use a victory to find some sort of peace.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 6, 2007 07:39 PM

Robert, isn't there room for Sadat to have been a great Egyptian leader, an unusually clear-sighted man (which I agree he was), and also for the IDF's mauling of the Egyptian Army to be a key motivation for him?

In other words, couldn't we say that the Israeli-Egyptian peace required both a military thumpin', to provide motivation to think, and an unusually able leader (Sadat) to carry that thinking to the correct conclusion?

At least in my case, I'm saying the motivation of getting thoroughly beaten with a big stick is often necessary to get a rotten regime or system to change its ways, but I'd be the first to agree it may not be sufficient. You may still need a great man, a Sadat or a Gorbachev, and it is very important to recognize him when he emerges and support him. (In case one of the anonymous feces-flingers is paying attention, I do not think Baby Assad is that man. No one in their right mind does.)

Posted by Carl Pham at April 7, 2007 03:06 AM

I'm with Carl. Sadat was a great leader and a man before his time in that he DID consider peace. I did a lot of research for High School projects on the man because I admired what he did. But even though he tread where others dfeared to go, there is still the big stick the Israelis held. Granted, Sadat did not need to choose peace, and he is to be lauded for choosing it, even though it caused his death. But, always keep in mind that Israel was dealing politically from a position of strength.

Posted by Mac at April 7, 2007 07:03 AM

Robert, isn't there room for Sadat to have been a great Egyptian leader, an unusually clear-sighted man (which I agree he was), and also for the IDF's mauling of the Egyptian Army to be a key motivation for him?

Posted by Carl Pham at April 7, 2007 03:06 AM

Carl..

I think that we agree more then we disagree (ZOUNDS) on this.

Warfare is diplomacy by other means and it really is the boundary of what the "other means" are IE how far one is willing to go to make peace or accept peace.

There is a "bit" of the "Thunkin" in it. The Yom Kipper war was a "period" of sorts in "diplomacy" by other means between Egypt and Israel.

Israel figured out something very important which was that they were never going to negate the threat completly from Egypt by military means and Egypt figured out that there were no set of circumstances where they were going to annihalate the state of Israel...

hence "bright leaders" on both sides had their faces turned to "alternative" explorations of diplomacy.

They sort of reached a "conventional" MAD ... or what i refer to as MAS (Mutually assurred stalemate) and both figured out that meant "try some other" idears.

MY POINT(s) are these.

First ... stalemates remain stalemates UNLESS there are innovative leaders on both sides who can come to terms with realities and change course ... (and I agree with you that these stalemates usually arrive out of "military" action or "near military" action....)

Second ... there is no stalemate OR military action short of irradication that will force groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and THe Base and Irans current leadership...etc to accept a change of course ... because people who will accept a change of course cannot as it stands right now ... emerge as leaders. The filter system wont allow that.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 7, 2007 11:23 AM

Post a comment