Iraq, Syria, Iran, & the US
I read with interest in the Washington Post today that Secretary of State Rice has said that we don't need to have talks with Syria or Iran to have peace in Iraq or in the Middle East. Her comment was that what we would have to trade away would be so great that we just simply wouldn't want it and so we will not pursue it. What planet is Condelezza Rice living on? The shear arrogance of her statement is staggering.
First, for peace, we do not have to fixate on what we have to give or lose. There is such a thing as mutual peer to peer relations. There is such a thing as a coalition effort where everyone gives equally for a cause outside of themselves. What we would have to give them is a statement that shows from Rice that any talks would clearly not be successful as the US would come in telling the other parties what to do for peace, not asking for assistance, for solutions, and coalition support.
This type of arrogant "I know what is best for you" attitude with Middle Eastern countries will never work. This also shows a serious lack on the part of the Bush administration to be able to create collations. If we feel that we are better than everyone, more powerful, and that our ideas are the best, and the only one to pursue, is doomed to create strife in any possible negotiation. With that kind of approach, of course we would have to pay off Iran and Syria to be able to have them swallow our plan.
If the approach instead would be coalition building with a humble approach, consensus could be achieved on a diplomatic level. We Americans, have become so arrogant about our democratic vision for the Middle East that we are sabotaging our own possible success in the region. Our administration needs to take a fresh look at the Iraqi report, swallow their pride, and embrace some of the thoughtful approaches for success using the countries who are located in the Middle East as partners.
First, for peace, we do not have to fixate on what we have to give or lose. There is such a thing as mutual peer to peer relations. There is such a thing as a coalition effort where everyone gives equally for a cause outside of themselves. What we would have to give them is a statement that shows from Rice that any talks would clearly not be successful as the US would come in telling the other parties what to do for peace, not asking for assistance, for solutions, and coalition support.
This type of arrogant "I know what is best for you" attitude with Middle Eastern countries will never work. This also shows a serious lack on the part of the Bush administration to be able to create collations. If we feel that we are better than everyone, more powerful, and that our ideas are the best, and the only one to pursue, is doomed to create strife in any possible negotiation. With that kind of approach, of course we would have to pay off Iran and Syria to be able to have them swallow our plan.
If the approach instead would be coalition building with a humble approach, consensus could be achieved on a diplomatic level. We Americans, have become so arrogant about our democratic vision for the Middle East that we are sabotaging our own possible success in the region. Our administration needs to take a fresh look at the Iraqi report, swallow their pride, and embrace some of the thoughtful approaches for success using the countries who are located in the Middle East as partners.
Listen, Condi is living on Planet Cheney and is saying what Cheney wants her to say. Who thinks any differently. What can a woman do anyway in that part of the world since women are treated as abominations and not permitted to interact with men, except those in their families. So what CAN she do. Nothing! The US foreign policy in the Middle East is a farce and the world should just stop thinking anything else. it won't be until Bush and his adminstration is finally deposed that there is any hope for rational people making decisions in the US.
Posted by Anonymous | Sat Dec 16, 03:35:00 PM EST