Was it worth it, or not?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Strawman from Brobdignagia.

Right on brother.

Actually, the "rest of the world" isn't so much "scared" as indignant.

Absolutely.

They had so much invested in the status quo, and such a carefully constructed and heavily featherbedded edifice of "diplomacy" working for them. All brought crashing down by those blundering Americans, who don't understand how things must be done...

See, you say intelligent stuff then you go off on the conspriracy theory. Why such disdain for diplomacy?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

In large part, no doubt you are right. But few things in the world of human interaction can be attributed solely to one cause. The Palestinians have also been deprived of one of their financial and logistical partners against Israel, and of one voice of support for its armed struggle; in its place they see an electoral process beginning to take shape, a possible alternative to incessant terrorism.

No they don't. See Israel has been considered the agressor in the region for some time now and the Palestinians as the chief victim. Depriving the victim of still more financial and logistical support just makes more people want to help them out. You want a real solution to the conflict? Get the US to threaten to invade Israel as an occupying foreign power of Palestine. Why limit the rhetoric to only Syria?

In Lebanon, they see the prospect of the closing of the "second front" as Syria and its client Hezbollah are weakened there. Egypt, pressured by the US but also by other Arab regimes, returns its ambassador to Israel and encourages the continuance of the peace process. And instead of a wan and reluctant ally for Israel, now they see one willing to use military might instead of just diplomatic pressure, economic arm-twisting and talk...which would they prefer arrayed against them, do you think?

The threat of US invasion is very real and I'm sure is something that is factored into much of the political accounting over there. However, I don't think that the major players in the area are going to take being pushed around for much longer. The longer the US occupies Iraq, the more likely it is that the regional powers will form a coalition against them and try to throw them out of Iraq. The more stable the US in Iraq becomes, the more of a threat to the sovereignity of every Arab state, and indeed all Arab culture, the state of Iraq becomes.

And there is still the fallout in the rest of the world. China and Russia are acting more and more belligerant because they know that the US is tied up in the Middle East (precisely the reason why actual invasion was withheld in the past). if I were China, I'd just invade Taiwan and be done with it. What's the US going to do? And I'd encourage North Korea to make the same foray in to South Korea. The opportunity is there, for sure.

James.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Strawman from Brobdignagia.

Bigger doesn't have to mean Better???

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

See, you say intelligent stuff then you go off on the conspriracy theory. Why such disdain for diplomacy?

Conspiracy? No such thing. Just the natural outcome of a certain ( flawed, IMO ) worldview, which maintains that everyone really wants to get along at base, everyone can be reasoned with, everyone craves being part of one big happy family of Man. To this way of thinking, it only wants enough "serious dialogue" to solve every problem and conflict...and that needs an infrastructure...budgeting...staffing...hey, my nephew would be perfect for that position we just created...bet he could really help, and I promised Sis I'd look after him...

There's nothing at all wrong with diplomacy, as long as it's seen as part of a Rooseveldtian whole: "Speak softly and carry a big stick". "And", not "only". Bush has erred perhaps too far in the direction of the cudgel, true. But realistically, there are a lot of people around to whom soft talk is something to be ignored, or worse, an sign of weakness to be exploited. Sometimes the stick is needed. Or at least the sight of it.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

No they don't. See Israel has been considered the agressor in the region for some time now and the Palestinians as the chief victim. Depriving the victim of still more financial and logistical support just makes more people want to help them out.

Got any evidence that this is the case? Or is it just your opinion? World events seem to me to be pointing in the opposite direction.

You want a real solution to the conflict? Get the US to threaten to invade Israel as an occupying foreign power of Palestine. Why limit the rhetoric to only Syria?

Maybe because "Palestine" is an invented state?

But if you want to carry this particular game to its conclusion, why don't we invade Canada, to liberate the native peoples from the yoke of European invaders and oppressors who stole their lands? How can you stand being such an imperialist usurper, man?

I don't think that the major players in the area are going to take being pushed around for much longer. The longer the US occupies Iraq, the more likely it is that the regional powers will form a coalition against them and try to throw them out of Iraq.

Yes... because unity and cooperation comes so easily to megalomaniacs like Assad and Qaddhafi, and to zealots like Iran's mullahs, and to teetering potentates like the house of Saud. But hey, it could happen. And I'm sure that the memory of what happened the last time they "combined forces" against a common enemy has completely faded away by now. I mean, the pain only lasted six days, surely it's been forgotten after all these years.

The more stable the US in Iraq becomes, the more of a threat to the sovereignity of every Arab state, and indeed all Arab culture, the state of Iraq becomes.

Come, now! Do you really think that the dictators, strongmen and kings clinging to power with mailed fists are concerned with "Arab culture"? At any rate, perhaps theirs is the sort of "sovereignty" their peoples could as well do without...

if I were China, I'd just invade Taiwan and be done with it. What's the US going to do?

That might be a valid gambit, if Taiwan weren't an island. The US fleet is not much occupied with Iraq, due to the overall lack of oceans there. In order to invade Taiwan, China has to mount a seaborne operation...which can be stymied by sea power...which we still have available in plentitude.

And I'd encourage North Korea to make the same foray in to South Korea. The opportunity is there, for sure.

James.

Never thought I'd say this, but perhaps there ARE those who'd make more disastrous rulers of NK than Kim Jong Il.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Bigger doesn't have to mean Better???

Aren't you women the chief propagators of the "size doesn't matter" theory?

[Maeve_Mari]

And you, ah, believed that?

[Inquartata]

You notice I called it a "theory.