Justus For All

Would America seek peace by total capitulation?

Why should Syria? Just because you think Syria is wrong?

There are plenty of (non-arab, non-Islam) states that think the US is wrong too…

I think we have been way too polarizing on this entire front. The whole “You are with us or against us!” thing was insulting. If I spend two years of my life fighting your war then don’t deny me the right to question its validity. Set ground rules, and if a country will meet these rules then start a dialogue with them. I don’t see what we have to gain by alienating.

Probligo,

I suggested Syria stop supporting Hezbollah in Lebannon and insurgent groups in Iraq. How is that ‘total capitulation’?

Sandcastle,

You are with us or against us was in a speech addressing the problem of world terror and explaining that governments that support terror will be considered to be terrorist. It was NEVER a you have to agree with everything America, Republicans, or President Bush says and does, and certainly was never saying that people can’t disagree with particular means in how to further any given effort or the overall struggle.

We do of course have some pretty simple ground rules for dialoguing with a country. Front and center is not supporting terror. Pretty much, if a country has chosen to support terror, we don’t have anything to talk about with them.

“Thankfully, Bush (unlike some) knows enough not to talk with extortionists. What they have to sell isn’t worth buying. ”

Dave, the principle of diplomacy by extortion is as abhorrent to me as it is to you.

You pre-define the Syrians as “extorionists”, and conclude with the comment above. What does that mean? Well, the implication that I took from it was this -

“Bush should (rightly) only talk to the Syrians on his own terms; in other words only if they are prepared to agree to the US terms in full and in total.”

That to me is an expectation of total capitulation. It is not negotiation, it is not diplomacy. It is nothing less than domination by implied threat.

Sandcastle, I agree. The “with us or against us” perhaps was written as “with US or against US…”. Makes little to no difference in its arrogance.

That is a stupid implication to take from what I wrote. There are plenty of things that can be talked about and resolved in many ways. However, some behavior is simply not tolerable, and it is not useful to try and buy off people in order to get then to cease that behavior. All it means, is you either have to keep buying them off or they resume that unacceptable behavior.

I don’t believe that supporting Iraqs insurgents is a legitimate subject for diplomatic talks. It is, bottom line, unacceptable behavior (and the same applies for Hezbollah.) Should Syria demonstrate that it wants to act like a mature, reasonable nation, then I do think we should talk with them. I would support all sorts of things under those conditions, including Israel working with them to resolve the Sebaa farms dispute.

Until and unless though they demonstrate that they are willing to live under a civilized framework, the usefulness of diplomacy is, in my opinion nill, which leaves us with the uncivilized option of pure naked force.

” which leaves us with the uncivilized option of pure naked force. ”

Yes, we know…

One of the points here is that there are causes important to the Arab nations, and which are non-negotiable and immutable to the US. Prime and most fundamental is the relationship between the US and Israel. (Let us NOT go down that path again. I mention it only to make the point that there are things the US will not talk about or discuss or negotiate). Syrian support of Hezbollah and Syrian interference in the affairs of Lebanon would be non-negotiable until and unless that matter was on the table.

Impass.

And so we have more bombs and bullets to “solve” the problem.

“I don’t see what we have to gain by alienating.”

What about the cost of talking to the country? There are potentially costs for alienating and for not alienating.

I personally, don’t see what he have to gain by talking to a small thrid rate terror nation. They don’t even have nukes, though they do have all of saddam’s chemical weapons. Our guidle lines are clear. Lybia is an example of that.