Monday, August 14, 2006

And Another Thing...

Where do all these divorced people who work in human services – therapists, social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists – get the idea that negotiation is going to work in the Middle East? You can reason with Nasrallah but sometimes you just have to just stop negotiating with the father of your children?

You gotta love this reasoning. Colleges have to be forced to have diversity, states have to be forced to grant certain rights, insurance companies have to be forced to grant some types of coverage, corporations, hospitals, clubs… but you can negotiate with Hezbollah.


copithorne said...

To me, it is far more strange, irrational, dangerous and inconsistent with the most cursory knowledge of history to believe that war will solve the problems in the Middle East.

ELC said...

Well, negotiating did solve problems with Nazis, Fascists, Japanese Imperialists, and Leninist/Stalinist Communists, to name a few. It beats me why anybody would think we need to resort to something else now that we face others intent on genocide and conquest.

copithorne said...

I think the Nazis, the Japanese imperialists and communists were all very wrong to believe they could solve their problems through war.

If you are familiar with their history, there is no reason to believe we can solve our problems through war either.

jlbussey said...

So copithorn, why aren't you in the Middle East right now saying this to Hezbollah and the leaders of Iran and Syria? They're the ones that want this war and are taking every possible action to promote/continue/expand it. Tell them.

jw said...

War is always a failure of government. The failure may have occured many many years ago, but it is always there.

For the middle east ... the failure probably traces to the British of the WW1 era ... probably.

At any rate, we now have war. We'd better make up our minds about what to do with the situation we now have.

Woody said...

jw wrote: "War is always a failure of government."

Why does war have to be considered a failure?

Maybe war means success when government uses it as a proper response to an outside situation over which it had no control and is needed to suppress tyranny and repression against innocent people (e.g., Germany).

Also, maybe government knows what is best in the long run to avoid conflict but has to respond to the short term desires of voters. So, government may be right by doing what is popular to the voters (e.g. Spanish-American War) while, at the same time, one might consider it right by taking the opposite course of avoiding war and ignoring the voters.

Maybe government can be right to assassinate other world leaders to avoid war--but, would that really be right?

I think that it comes down to what the objectives (and limitations) of government are, and avoiding war is a secondary objective over primary objectives that might be accomplished through war.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I believe the original quote was "War is always a failure of diplomacy."