user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
As I parse the statements she's making, I am not seeing actual claims of impartiality. Just to 'effect a solution.'
I believe that for the first time in decades, the US has shrugged off even the need to appear impartial in this conflict.
The US is as much to blame as Iran or Syria. The US is quick to criticise Iran and Syria for supplying arms to a group (Hezbollah) that have used them to target civilians. The US could also be blamed for supplying arms to a group (IDF) that have used them to target civilians.
by B_P on Mon Jul 24, 06 9:20am
[+]
This won't be a negotiation of the two fighting sides - Israel and Hezbollah. As I see it, she's here to coordinate the post war agreements of Israel and Lebanon, that will guarentee that Hezbollah won't be able to initiate further provocations, and won't operate inside Lebanon against their government will. The sooner Lebanon will be able to guarentee just that, the sooner the current fighting stops. The US has indeed stood behind Israel in its war against terrorism, and will ensure that their newly formed partners in this region - the government of Lebanon, will join the group of states that are against terrorism and don't harbour terrorist groups in their territories.
by Yosi on Mon Jul 24, 06 9:44am
[+]
Come on, lets be honest. You know her idea of brokering a peace will be to give Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora an unsolicited shoulder and neck massage...just like her boss did to Angela Merkel.
I'm sure before she left Geore W. told her "If all else fails, just rub his neck and shoulders...if that doesn't do the trick, at least the ensuing headlines will deflect off the real situation."
:)
I think there is a bit of a flaw in the ballot premise. You don't need to have an impartial negotiator to bring about a solution. The Mongolian foreign minister might be impartial, but Mongolia hardly has the influence to effect a solution. The USA has influence with Israel and Lebanon and wants both to succeed. Both Israel and Lebanon want Hezbollah out and both know Hezbollah is the problem. Most of the Arab countries agree; Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. Hopefully what can happen is that Hezbollah can be weakened enough where Lebanon can wipe the rest of them out and reassert control of southern Lebanon.
And, while we're in the vicinity of the issue, allow me to say this.
With tens of thousands of tax-paying American citizens stuck in Lebanon, hoping that a boat or a plane can squeeze them in, how does our Guv'mint justify being able to ship Good Doctor Rice into Beirut unannounced?
What FiddleFaddleOnLSD said.
The U.N is impartial but are either parties listening? This is hardly a better formula.
Hell No. She won't even be honest about her sexuality. She's a Lesbo!
No. The U.S. will continue to support Israel. That fact alone keeps her from being a 'fair' mediator.
^ oops.meant to vote no.
She says that a true cease-fire would have to be genuine. One as soon as possible would just lead to both sides regrouping and preparing for the next attack. Is she right?
Secondly, *should* she be neutral between Hezbollah and Israel? Why?
In the past, the U.S. at least made an effort to appear somewhat impartial.
Now, the U.S. is totally owned by Israel, and will only do what Israel approves, and that position is widely known and recognized.
Usually, in negotiations, there has to be some degree of trust by both parties in the mediator. How can Condi negotiate with the Muslim side if they assume that Condi will only represent the interests of Israel?
Or is the truth that by delaying the "cease fire" until Israel has destroyed Hezbolloh and Lebanon, that what she really intends to do on her return is simply dictate terms of surrender to the Muslim side?
cranky- Israel is a nation-state. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. Why would Condoleezza Rice pretend they are to be treated the same?
^ This USA-Israel-Hezbollah trilateral relationship is not unique. It is quite common in negotiations for the side that is a nation-state to have more favour.
For example, in Norway's negotiating role in nthe Sri Lankan crisis, it was obvious that the Norwegians were giving preference to the Sri Lankan nation-state. It was not a completely neutral negoitator, and was more critical of the Tamil Tigers.
leadership roles require an impartial stance no matter who is favored. Maybe it's me but I see a shortsighted approach to diplomacy on virtually every undertaking by this Administration. When you approve a disaster in the making it smacks of insanity. lack of reason or good sense: extreme foolishness, or an act that demonstrates such foolishness. (Encarta)
She will do just fine :)
|
|
