France tries to become the Stalin Malone of the EU
At this point France is just disagreeing to disagree. Chirac refuses to vote to include Hezbollah in EU's list of terrorist organizations. I get that France wants to be the counterbalance to the US in international affairs, but this is getting out of control. Really, I just feel for Hezbollah. While they have the good fortune to rhyme with ebola, always a plus when you're trying to be menacing, they have to wonder what they have to do for a little recognition. I guess suicide bombing is so yesterday. I can just see them crowded around a small t.v. waiting for a shout-out from Chirac, only to be left out. Truely a sad day for the Hezbollah faithful. Maybe not as sad as Gary Payton hearing he's been traded to the Hawks, but still, pretty gloomy.
Posts
13 comments:
I finally made a headline! Some men wait until they are twice my age before having such an honor bestowed upon them. Thank you, U Blo.
Many people see Hezbollah as legitimate because they don't just fund murder and destruction, they also give some money to the needy and build schools. There are also some people who feel the UN is legitimate for equally silly reasons.
Show the Glove some love. It's not like he went from somewhere to nowhere. Was he going to win a championship in Boston? Not unless he switched sports.
Gotta love the way Stalin stays on message. Excellent job of bringing the UN into a completely unrelated post. However, until the UN's responsible for sending teenage girls to their deaths as suicide bombers, the phrase "equally" as silly doesn't apply. But it gets to a larger question. Why does any given US citizen waste anytime getting worked up over the UN. I get why folks like Rush, Hannity and the gang bother with it, they have four hour shows to fill. If I were them I would too, its a great, easy target. But the rest of us? I honestly can't remember the last time I looked up from the funny pages when I heard the line "the UN announces..." (I tried to come up with an example here, but I pay so little attention to the UN that I couldn't.) The UN should be viewed like the United Way. They do a decent job with aid, and their statistics are fantastic. But the WTO does a much, much better job with trade (as a side, how come Bush gets such a pass from the freemarketeers on his anti-WTO stance?), and their military use is useless. But it seems like everyone allready knows this. In the end, I just can't work up enough care about the UN to attack it.
First of all, U Blo is a brilliant nickname. I giggle every time I see it. All schollyard quality. My compliments to the creator of it.
As far as Hezbollah is concerned. France may be onto something here. Syria leaving Lebanon is going to create a power vacuum and if Hezbollah can disarm and go the Sinn Fein route and transform itself into a politcal movement, it may be the least bad option there for the time being.
While I would like to see retribution for the lives they have taken and the chaos they have created I also want to see a stable democratic Lebanon and unlike Hamas and Islamic Jihad and even Al-Quida. Hezbollah does have a social, political and charitable infrastructure that may translate well into politics.
Being voted into office often has a transformative power on movements and leaders. That said, if they fuck up, then you gotta release the hounds on them but giving them a shot at cleaning up their act may be a needed evil.
Mike3000 coined U Blo. I coined No shirt, No shoes, No service.
That which appears unrelated is often connected by a finer thread...try squinting...The UN is a supporter of tyranny and oppression as it consistantly stands by the thugs that run the third world. However, many see the UN as merely a charitable organization. That duality is what generated the comparison. You can find "duality" in any standard dictionary.
I certainly don't feel it is mandatory to get hot and bothered by the UN. However, it is clear that the UN is antagonistic to the US just as the EU is. That's why patriotic types are always taking swipes...the UN is a rival.
MC makes a good point about Hamas, and I'll compare it to (hang with me U Blo) Pinochet. There was the idea that letting off criminals who run organizations was a good way to encourage organizations to change. Those who persected Pinochet disagreed. However, if Hamas is encouraged to reform into a legitimate political party (is there such a thing?) then is amnesty a reasonable price to pay for future peace? I'm not sure what I think about that...so I'll just wait to see what U Blo says and take the other side.
First to MC Lman, when you say "Being voted into office often has a transformative power on movements and leaders" can you give me another example of where bad guys turned good after getting voted into office? I hate to be the pessimist, but I can only come up with examples of where it got worse. I think that idea is the rallying cry of the liberals, but its based on hope, not reality. Sinn Fein is a very complicated group, and I don't think it’s a correct parallel. Once you can send your girls to their death with bombs strapped around themselves, I have a hard time believing you're going to lead with the best interest of the people at heart. Great message to send too. Hang around long enough, kill enough, help a few, make a big deal out of helping the families of suicide bombers, and you too can get a pardon. Get stuck in the middle and you toast. Maybe I'm a stick in the mud, but giving evil more power just seems like a bad idea. Plus, they just love America don't they? I’m really surprised Malone’s even thinking about this.
Speaking of love, if the UN is a "rival" then Malone must think that the US is in terrible shape. In order to be a rival you must be a threat. China's a rival, the EU is a rival, Japan’s a rival, and even Russia is still a rival, but the UN? No way. The UN is a rival to the US like I'm a rival to Mike Tyson. I may say mean things about him, mostly behind his back, and root against him when he fights, but I'm certainly no rival to him. It’s a “patriotic” waste of time. Kill every fly at the picnic and you’re too exhausted when the wolves come.
As far as "duality" I'm curious where you draw the line. Is the US like the Hezbollah because we also prop up malevolent dictators when it suits our needs? How about our relationship with Saudi Arabia, or the way we kept supporting, and turned a blind eye to Hussein when he was our boy. It’s not like he was an angel back in the day. There is every indication that we support just as many Third World thugs as anyone. How about you, you buy gas that funds the terrorists, are you culpable? Of course not. Until you send in suicide bombers, that thread you seek is cut. True, you can find duality in the dictionary; you can also find it anywhere.
Comparisons can be specific or general depending on the point you are making. Bats are like doves in that they both fly. Bats are also very unlike doves in other ways. If I compare them as both being fliers, it would be silly to disagree with the comparison since they both don't become Vampires at night.
I find it silly to be a supporter of Hezbollah simply because they fund some schools. They also kill people which makes them usupportable. In much the same way, I find it silly to support the UN because they feed some hungry people. They also prop up brutal dictators and turn a blind eye to oppression. I hope the point is now clear. The comparison was to the good/bad behavior of both groups, not the moral equivalency.
Are there similarities between Hezbollah and the US? Of course. But does that make them equivalent? No. Similar is not equal.
I'm with U on not wanting to reward evil (re: legitimize Hezbollah), but I can't help wondering which would lead more quickly to peace. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of Isreali liquidation of Hezbollah leadership, but would taking away their reason to kill be more effective? You can kill the dragon or take away his ferociousness...which is more beneficial? My guess is there are times for both and a good strategy should include both options.
I wonder what your patriotic friends would think of you siding with France against US wishes? I fear that MCL has some sort of hippie love potion on you. I agree that good strategy should include all options. But hope is not a strategy. Looks good on paper, feels great, but in order to be a strategy, it must be practical. I can hope to be an Olympic gold medalist sprinter, and I could sit here and hope all the other sprinters come up lame and I get the call. But is that a strategy? Again, please show me some examples of when this worked. If you do, I'll convert.
I got lost on your good/bad behavior point. How can you single anyone or anything out with that as an example? Under your example, every nation in the world is comparable to Hezbollah, as are most international organizations. Using what you said certainly makes supporting the US silly, which I know isn't where you were going, and I would never accept. At such a level, what good is the comparison? Again, I know I missed your point, ranking fourth in intelligence at this blog and all (I kill at howtotieyourshoesblog.com though), so please help.
In South Africa when Mandela's ANC took power they did so with an understanding that the white Afrikaners would not be treated punitively for their apartheid abuses. They chose peace over justice to speed up the transfer to black rule and do it without bloodshed. Can this work everywhere and in every circumstance? I don't think so. Is it valuable to wonder out loud if forgiving Hezbollah evil would marginalize the redicals and move the party toward civility? It is worth considering.
My point about comparisons was just this: saying that the US is like Hezbollah may or may not be reasonable depending on what point you are making. If I say you remind me of Adolf Hitler you would assume I meant morally and get mad. I may just mean that you are under 6 feet tall and have dark hair. One comparison is ludicrous and one is accurate. When I compared the thinking that supports the UN with the thinking that supports Hezbollah I was not drawing a moral line between the two organizations, you assumed I was and I was just trying to show that the assumption was incorrect. I tried to make a general point out of it and most likely did not communicate it very well. Which means we'll just have to settle this in May at the Ultimate Fighting Championships.
I think we're on the verge here and it shows why I think comparisons are completely useless in most cases. I just need to know if the US falls comparable to the UN because according to your post, "I find it silly to support the UN because they feed some hungry people. They also prop up brutal dictators and turn a blind eye to oppression." I can substitute "US” for "UN" in that sentence and it would still be true. By way of your comparison, is it then silly to support the US?
Using comparisons the way you do, I could say that you remind me of Jennifer Garner because you both have noses. Then, I could ponder, "Could Stalin Malone date Ben Affleck? Clearly Ben likes people with noses, and Stalin Malone has a nose, I think they'd make a great couple." In order for comparisons to mean anything, it must be close, relevant, and unique. Only, then you can take a chance on basing a decision or stance on them. Its the Charles Barkley phenomenon. Every time a team drafts a 6’6” power forward, the fans all say, “Well, Charles Barkley was 6’6” and look what he did.” Only to be shocked when it doesn’t work out. Also, loose comparisons cost more money in business than just about any other single “strategy.” I also want to be clear; I'm not saying that because I think comparing the UN to Hezbollah is off-base, I therefore think you must like the UN. There are a slew of reasons to rail against them on their own. My point is that when talking about "threads" of linkage, people often mean "reach."
But since you also compare the ANC to Hezbollah I'm starting to understand your logic. One fought for freedom largely though demonstrations and political pressure, the other murdered thousands. But I think in your mind, all opposition groups are terrorists, or at least "similar." I believe that there is a world of difference between Mandela and whatever sociopath runs Hezbollah, and that the ANC never strapped bombs to teenage girls to go kill civilians. That alone shatters any useful comparison. Sorry, but that example doesn't do it.
But you and MCL lead me to a point that I'm moving to the main section.
This is a correction. I missed Smf's point about the ANC and Hezbollah. I now get that it was about the power of forgiveness, but I still don't see how it applies here. I think that idea came as part of a negotiated transfer of power, and it put the Afrikaners out. While this Hezbollah thing is about giving the killers power, not the peaceful forgving the killers when a peacful organization takes over. So my point about not excepting it still holds. But, I'm not real up on South African history, if I'm wrong please let me know.
Your points about comparisons are well taken. They can be either illuminating or confusing, just like analogies or other means of communication. We once argued over the meaning of ignorant, you hear it one way and I use it another. Who is right? Both of us, but we have to understand each other to communicate.
The application with the ANC example is that a peaceful solution can sometimes be achieved by not holding people accountable. Many would have had good reason to want some heads to role in South Africa, but that would have only kept the whites from giving up power. Hezbollah is not just a group of killers, there are also pragmatists in the the ranks. The point is to empower the pragmatists while taking away the need of the extremisits to stay in control.
The extremists in Hezbollah are the scum of the earth. I would not shed a tear if they were wiped out by Israeli or US missles or baynonets. But more important then revenge is the protection of the people. Would we end despicable Hezbollah murdering more quickly by hunting them all down and killing them? Or by empowering opposition within Hezbollah itself. If it were my war? I'd try both methods and go with the one that proved most successful.
Given that theory, what can we do in the war on terror that is of a similar philosophy?
I think we are already using this strategy. Iran is a good example. We have long been trying to support the democrats in their struggle against the terrorist supporting mullahs. We haven't gone to guns, but we have given everything from money to high priced consulting. The objective is to strengthen "good" Iranians (within the current power structure and without) so the "bad" are weakened and eventually marginalized.
When there is a hot war with daily casualities I say you put the bulk of your efforts into proactive strikes, much like Isreal does and the US did. But since it is hard to kill all the bad people in the world a time comes when you shift to other methods. Eliminate the incentives for people to join the terrorist cause. You can co-opt terrorist goups in this phase, especially if they have a pragramatic, political wing.
The reason the leftwing peaceniks are ineffective in the current terrorist struggle (and why John Kerry was never a reasonable choice for commander-in-chief) is that they only consider the second option. The left, throughout the comfortable world, is loath to spend resources on war that could be spent on social programs. Sadly, they are a very strong force in our Democrat party (it appears they are the majority). If you don't inflict casualties on these groups you will never weaken the militants and give the pragmatists a chance to take over.
With a functioning Iraq democracy it will be much easier to marginalize the Islamic fascists throughout the Middle East. Iraq, at the moment, is looking like a remarkable success. If it stands and strengthens the dividends will be enormous. The status quo tyrannies will be forced to liberalize if they aren't toppled. Freedom will improve the lot of the people and terrorism will become much less attractive to a youth with a future. This will strengthen the pragmatists.
The war against terrorism is going very well because we have employed all options. War first and politics after that. But let me say that the point you made to start this discussion, that France was being rediculous by taking Hezbollah seriously, is a good point. I'm not arguing that France is employing a sophisticated strategy to help win the war on terrorism. I think they are being cynical and small. It just so happens that there is some merit to the argument they are making, but I don't think they are making it because of those merits.
Post a Comment