What a pathetic stooge

[HoreTore]

Hamas has held up his visit as a sign of their own importance

Uhm. Hamas is important...

Like it or not.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm, maybe, just maybe, giving a terrorist group dedicated to the destruction of a democrat state international recognition and legitimacy isn't such a great idea.

What did Carter gain, hmm, for his pandering to terrorists? Hamas was treated as though they were a legitimate state of sorts, and did they act anything like it, or just continue as the murderers they are?

Oh, but wait! They were talking, and talking is always good. Talk, talk talk, it's like a inherent good in itself. You're a morally better person if you talk. The actual results don't matter, heavens no. That'd be much to demanding. And we should never question if perhaps talking was counterproductive.

Like, by giving the impression a bunch of terrorists are some sort of partner in peace. Or if Hamas never really wants peace at all.

CR

[Husar]

God loves the terrorists as well.

[Adrian II]

Talk, talk talk, it's like a inherent good in itself. You're a morally better person if you talk. The actual results don't matter, heavens no. That'd be much to demanding. And we should never question if perhaps talking was counterproductive.

I totally agree that too much peace talk is bad for your political health. Peaceniks and Christians in particular have a tendency to overdose on it. I don't think it hurts to negociate with anyone and everyone in a given conflict, though, as long as it's not being done from a position of weakness or with an eye to the appeasement of foces that, as a consequence of being appeased, become all the more agressive and greedy. Hitler became more power hungry for it, Sadat and Begin were brought together by it. It failed in Lebanon in the 1970's, it recently succeeded in Northern Ireland.

Where is goes wrong is when negotiation becomes an ideology in itself.

For professional reasons I have a lot of really crappy books, reports and related stuff in my personal library. Every now and then I get rid of a hundred or so, to make a clean slate. Some I keep. Among the worst (and worth keeping as a warning) is a booklet from the Nobel Foundation, The Words of Peace (2001). It contains extracts from the speeches of all Nobel Peace Prize winners since 1901. They're all in there, from Bertha Suttner to Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama. And let me tell you, it's one huge load of vacuous, superficial, irresponsible, sentimental crapola. There is not one sensible viewpoint, well-wrought piece of analysis or interesting snippet of information in the entire booklet.

Not even from, say, an Andrei Sacharov, who apparently froze like a bunny in the headlights when he was awarded the Prize in 1975 and started blabbering about parallel universes and a 'community of hope'. Sacharov was a courageous man who suffered from a humongous lack of judgement during most of his adult life and tried to make up for it afterwards. He was a prominent scientist who helped develop the Soviet atom and hydrogen bombs before discovering his conscience. Yet even as a brilliant scientist he had nothing worthwhile to contribute to 'peace thinking'. What makes this all the more disappointing is that he could be truly visionary in other areas, as witness this passage from 1974: 'I foresee a universal information system that will give everyone access at any given moment to the contents of any book that has ever been published or any magazine or any fact. The UIS will have individual miniature-computer terminals, central control points for the flood of information, and communication channels incorporating thousands of artificial communications from satellites, cables, and laser lines. Even the partial realization of the UIS will profoundly affect every person, his leisure activities, and his intellectual and artistic development. But the true historic role of the UIS will be to break down the barriers to the exchange of information among countries and people.'

In short, I can recommend this booklet to everyone.

[LittleGrizzly]

If britian had decided to stop the peace talks becuase the IRA was part of the goverment the bombs would still be going off today, thank god at least someone is trying to talk to Hamas.

[Furious Mental]

Well if he achieves nothing he still hasn't made the situation worse, so who cares?

[Beirut]

I totally agree that too much peace talk is bad for your political health. Peaceniks and Christians in particular have a tendency to overdose on it. I don't think it hurts to negociate with anyone and everyone in a given conflict, though, as long as it's not being done from a position of weakness or with an eye to the appeasement of foces that, as a consequence of being appeased, become all the more agressive and greedy. Hitler became more power hungry for it, Sadat and Begin were brought together by it. It failed in Lebanon in the 1970's, it recently succeeded in Northern Ireland.

Exactly. Communication with a perceived enemy is not weakness, it is a powerful tool for change.

Where it goes wrong is when negotiation becomes an ideology in itself.

Negotiation is certainly an art unto itself. And amongst those who practice it, not on behalf of the state, but simply for the sake of keeping the lines of communication open, it can be an ideology in itself and that is not a bad thing. In the same way, I think, that it is good to have avowed pacifists in society. When everyone seems on the verge of some form of antagonism, I like the idea that there is a man somewhere who, regardless of circumstances, says, "I will not kill another man."

It takes a lot of guts to loook like a coward sometimes.

[Vladimir]

it´s called trying....nobody said he was successful.

Just like I'm trying not to laugh.

Beirut you're missing his point entirely. At best Carter is communicating from a position of weakness. Communication with an enemy can also be perceived as a weakness and the meaningless platitude for change sounds like an Obama speech. Change to what? It also makes you sound like the people Adrian sites in his last paragraph. If during a period of conflict you're able to force you opponent to the negotiating table, it is an admission of weakness on his part. I suggest you read about the negotiations between the US and Vietnam in Paris. The shape and size of the table matters.

Carter has noting to negotiate with other than goodwill.

[drone]

Hmm, maybe, just maybe, giving a terrorist group dedicated to the destruction of a democrat state international recognition and legitimacy isn't such a great idea.

What did Carter gain, hmm, for his pandering to terrorists? Hamas was treated as though they were a legitimate state of sorts, and did they act anything like it, or just continue as the murderers they are?

Isn't Hamas the democratically elected majority party of the PA? Sure they're terrorists and all that, but aren't they the result of what we wish for in the Middle East?

Isn't there another democratically elected state in the region that certain members of our administration want destroyed? So far, our Middle East democracy policy consists of not speaking to democratically elected governments. Doesn't sound very sensible, especially given our dependence on the region. If we spread democracy across the Middle East, we won't be able to get oil from anywhere!

Carter probably is being taken advantage of, but at least he's making an attempt. He's probably not going to solve anything, but I don't expect much from a guy that dropped out of my alma mater.

[Adrian II]

Carter has noting to negotiate with other than goodwill.

And so has George Bush, who is yet again made to look like a fool by Israel, in public, this time over a letter he sent. Or didn't, as the White House claims.
Or did, as the Israelis say.
'Didn't', says Rice.
'Did,' says chief of stafff Weissglas: 'and Rice even confirmed it'.

You know what I believe? I believe that Israel is speaking the truth, that George Bush is lying again, and that nobody cares anymore because nobody believes this guy anyway.

Speaking of pissing away credibility...

[Vladimir]

Just a touch or hyperbole there. Currently he has over 100,000 things to negotiate with, and then some. Carter has...?

[Beirut]

At best Carter is communicating from a position of weakness. Communication with an enemy can also be perceived as a weakness and the meaningless platitude for change sounds like an Obama speech. Change to what? It also makes you sound like the people Adrian sites in his last paragraph. If during a period of conflict you're able to force you opponent to the negotiating table, it is an admission of weakness on his part. I suggest you read about the negotiations between the US and Vietnam in Paris. The shape and size of the table matters.

If Carter was communicating from a position of weakness I doubt this kerfuffle would have erupted. It is precisely because his communication skills and openess are feared that people are ranting and raving. Personally, I think this is great. You've got the US and Israel, a strategic cross-ocean mega-nuclear superpower, and they're all a flutter because one guy is having tea and talking to another guy. It's like watching a dictator with a huge army and media machine (Hello? China?) tremble because one guy with a pen is willing to tell the truth.

I love guys who can do that.

Nobody is being forced to do anything here. There is no table shape to hold a grudge over. Carter is talking to a group of people as an individual, not a state representative, and his only intention as far as I see is to determine if there is any middle ground that will lower the cycle of violence. You need to talk to do that.

Carter has noting to negotiate with other than goodwill.

I won't condemn a man for having goodwill. Goodwill saves lives.

[HoreTore]

Every time I read one of Beirut's posts, I get an urge for a holiday in Canada...

[Vladimir]

Nobody is being forced to do anything here. There is no table shape to hold a grudge over. Carter is talking to a group of people as an individual, not a state representative, and his only intention as far as I see is to determine if there is any middle ground that will lower the cycle of violence. You need to talk to do that.





I won't condemn a man for having goodwill. Goodwill saves lives.

Whoa, stop. He most certainly is not talking to "a group of people" as an "individual." What is this group of people? Who is this individual? I know you're a big lumber, beaver eating Canuk but step back from that tree once in a while. We can also see what good has come out of the talks: Nothing.

Yes, it also paves the road to hell.

[HoreTore]

We can also see what good has come out of the talks: Nothing.

What good has come from a decade of bombing?

[Vladimir]

What good has come from a decade of bombing?

Very shortsighted. They reason they resorted to suicide bombing is that they can't dislodge Israel by military force. These people are in it for the long haul. A decade is nothing.

[HoreTore]

Very shortsighted. They reason they resorted to suicide bombing is that they can't dislodge Israel by military force. These people are in it for the long haul. A decade is nothing.

And yet you don't think it's shortsighted to disregard talks because of a few failed attempts...

[Vladimir]

And yet you don't think it's shortsighted to disregard talks because of a few failed attempts...

Define a few. And don't think that "talks" aren't held at less than official levels. Carter has nothing to add but words. No one supports him and it only serves as a political capitol for Hamas. People really overemphasize his contribution to the camp David accords. What is the guarantor of that treaty? The constant presence of American troops in Sinai.

[HoreTore]

Define a few. And don't think that "talks" aren't held at less than official levels. Carter has nothing to add but words. No one supports him and it only serves as a political capitol for Hamas. People really overemphasize his contribution to the camp David accords. What is the guarantor of that treaty? The constant presence of American troops in Sinai.

Nobody supports him? What? A lot of europeans certainly support what he has done.

[Beirut]

Whoa, stop. He most certainly is not talking to "a group of people" as an "individual." What is this group of people?

Far as I understand the group of people is Hamas.

Who is this individual?

James Carter, former President of the United States.

We can also see what good has come out of the talks: Nothing.

Too bad. Don't care. Try again.

We celebrate the soldier who tries again and again and overcomes overwhelming odds to take the enemy postion and kill on behalf of the state. Fine. I am also willing to celebrate the person who tries again and again and overcomes overwhelming odds to reach the enemy's viewpoint and stop the war itself.

Yes, it also paves the road to hell.

Yeah, it might pave it. But the guys walking on it are the ones who are too afraid to talk and always go for the guns. They who paved it are sipping champagne with the gods.

[Vladimir]

Dude, you missed my crude innuendo.

[Beirut]

Dude, you missed my crude innuendo.

I saw it.

[Tribesman]

Very shortsighted. They reason they resorted to suicide bombing is that they can't dislodge Israel by military force. These people are in it for the long haul. A decade is nothing.

Hold on there Vlad , wasn't Fatah big into the old suicide bombing thing ?didn't they want the destuction of Israel ?
They were talked to weren't they , and since they lost the democratic election they really have been flavour of the month for the democracy loving freedom mongers .

[LittleGrizzly]

Very shortsighted. They reason they resorted to suicide bombing is that they can't dislodge Israel by military force. These people are in it for the long haul. A decade is nothing.

Very shortsighted. The reason the IRA started bombing is that they can't dislodge Britian by military force. These people are in it for the long haul. A decade is nothing.

Well thankfully someone didn't think that and negotiations were allowed to continue with the IRA

[Tribesman]

Oh dear , Bush is a pathetic stooge who has just pissed away all his credibility .
Yes indeed , he met the leader of a terrorist group and made some rather upbeat comments about what he had achieved in the talks and how it was going to be all OK .
Straight away Abbas contradicted everything he had said and said no progress was made and the sticking points are the same as they have always been and the US will not address them , also saying that when in the past they have said they will address them have done absolutely nothing about them .

So now then , is it worse when someone contradicts the "leader of the free worldTM" who is acting in his official capacity for his country or when someone contradicts an ex-leader who is acting as an individual ?

[Adrian II]

Oh dear , Bush is a pathetic stooge who has just pissed away all his credibility.

You don't say.

So now then , is it worse when someone contradicts the "leader of the free worldTM" who is acting in his official capacity for his country or when someone contradicts an ex-leader who is acting as an individual ?

That's not a very tough one, Mr Tribesman. I'd say the first one since both Israelis and Arabs nowadays call him a liar to his face, which, as a matter of fact, he is - and not a very good one either, which makes him even less reliable as a partner in an sort of negotiation. All politicians are liars and have to be liars if they want to be successful, but when a politician's lying is at odds with the very negociations he is conducting and the very aims he pretends to be pursuing, I would say he is a total failure.
Hm, yes, I think that about sums it up.