President George Bush’s tour of the Middle East in his final Presidential year is somewhat different to his other trips. I am not talking about his excursions on ranches in Texas, but what in the past has been a reluctant flight overseas- especially the Middle East of all places. Way back in 2000, before the 9/11 era, George demonstrated how little he knew about international political figures, and his understanding of world politics was debatable. One issue and region which would dominate his presidency was that of the Middle East. So why has it taken a good seven years for him to make any little significant headway in the region?
His supporters may argue that he has attempted to bring peace in the form of democracy, examples being the regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq through democratic elections. They may also argue that he also took a leading part in the Road Map for Peace- which kinda backfired when Hamas were elected. He has also taken the lead in standing hard against Iran and its nuclear ambitions & international defiance. But one thing is for sure, is that throughout his reign he has applied little or no pressure upon the Israeli’s. The support of Israel’s policy: of assassination, ‘Security Wall’, treatment of the Palestinians, the military support of Israel’s army and most importantly the support of the 2006 Lebanon war- which many countries condemned and the UN called the actions “War Crimes”. Many analysts (such as Chomsky and Fisk) believe this support is partly due to his strong Evangelical belief- that the second coming of Christ will follow the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. However this week Bush has spoken in a tone which is not familiar towards Israel before- that they have to return the lands taken from Palestinians in 1967. This may seem not significant (to many it is a bit of common sense), but compared to anything he has said to Israel before this is probably the most outstanding, especially for the Middle East. In fact Bush wants viable progress towards peace within a year. But why take this stance now?
Many of you know the answer already- that he has under a year left as president. Like his former, Bill Clinton, Bush is trying to seal his presidency by broking a peace in the region. When Clinton hosted the Camp David summit in 2000, he too was leaving office in that year, he also needed to try and go down in history by creating peace- not for the Lewinsky affair or missed opportunities such as in Rwanda. If one was to name what George Bush does not want to go down for, then a fairly long list could be produced- but I shall only mention Iraq. This is similar to our (well my) former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has become a Middle East Ambassador, a move because he feels that his time in office has not brought peace to the region and being his only downfall in office? My question is for what purpose has George Bush taken a revived stance in the Middle East?
•For his legacy?
•Is it to start a new policy that his successor will continue?
•Does he finally feel that his reign has done more bad than good?
•Try and create a positive that will overshadow his failure that is Iraq?
•Or do you feel that it is nothing new?
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
format_quote Originally Posted by minaz
[CENTER][B]...
I look forward to your opinions.
-MINAZ-
No you don't. If you were interested in genuine understanding, you wouldn't front-load your "question" with insulting characterizations and you wouldn't trot out what your opponents arguments are to be in order to play in your little sand box.
Here is my opinion. You are a close-minded automaton seeking to get a dose of happy juice by basking in the glow of what you perceive to be the lesser automatons as they shower approbation upon you. Everyone...get out your rose petals! Huzzah!
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
Every president wants to take a crack at the Mideast peace deal. Yes, it is for legacy, but also because peace between Palestinians and Israelis is good for the whole of the region...except for those who profit from it.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Hopefully both Palestinian and Israeli gov. will be able to finally reach a compromise and stop friggin' killing each other.
Palestinians will never recognize Israel, for Israel is their stolen homes and lands. By recognizing israel you are betraying your own people and not least religion, so you should take back your filthy words.
The palestinians will just have to keep fighting back, and one day they will if god willing return to their homes and the graves of the brave warriors who fought and died for the palestinian freedom and revolution.
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
Cognescenti
Thank you for your opinion- I do indeed look forward to hearing my robots opinions :P
Krypton6
I get the impression that you feel that Bush’s attempt for a 2 state solution is not compatible with your beliefs of the return of Palestinian lands pre 1947.
But I fail to see the filth in:
“Hopefully both Palestinian and Israeli gov. will be able to finally reach a compromise and stop friggin' killing each other”
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
format_quote Originally Posted by minaz
[CENTER][B]His supporters may argue that he has attempted to bring peace in the form of democracy, examples being the regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq through democratic elections
I don't call selling a fortune in weapons to all sides a roadmap to peace. It seems to me, he's trying to trigger an Armegheddon...
and make a very tidy profit in the process!
And while Palestine might have lost a few battles, the cause of the WAR remains... and this is far from over.
The Ninth Scribe
Last edited by Ninth_Scribe; 01-17-2008 at 07:42 PM.
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
format_quote Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
I don't call selling a fortune in weapons to all sides a roadmap to peace. It seems to me, he's trying to trigger an Armegheddon...
and make a very tidy profit in the process!
And while Palestine might have lost a few battles, the cause of the WAR remains... and this is far from over.
The Ninth Scribe
yeah, i agree.
also, i think he did it for the sake of his legacy (appearances). still, i was surprised to even hear that much re: israel returning the territories.
somehow, i cannot see bush as a peacemaker!
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
format_quote Originally Posted by minaz
But I fail to see the filth in:
A compromise will under all circumenstances result in israel being recognized as a country, and I am against the idea of palestinian lands being recognized as israeli and changed into israeli.
By asking for a compromise you are accepting and recognizing the barbaric imperialistic terror acts of israel, for acts of gooodness and that is not only against your own people but it is also against your religion.
There is no compromising regarding this conflict, Israel simply cannot exist!
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
format_quote Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
I don't call selling a fortune in weapons to all sides a roadmap to peace. It seems to me, he's trying to trigger an Armegheddon...
and make a very tidy profit in the process!
And while Palestie might have lost a few battles, the grounds for the WAR still exist.
The Ninth Scribe
Hamas and Hizbollah are getting US weapons now ?????
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
No you don't. If you were interested in genuine understanding, you wouldn't front-load your "question" with insulting characterizations and you wouldn't trot out what your opponents arguments are to be in order to play in your little sand box.
Here is my opinion. You are a close-minded automaton seeking to get a dose of happy juice by basking in the glow of what you perceive to be the lesser automatons as they shower approbation upon you. Everyone...get out your rose petals! Huzzah!
Not that the dear brother needs a defense, I think your attitude speaks volume.. I don't think the members here have a better opinion of you than you do of his, further I personally think you a fraud..
let me demonstrate:
pls give me the diagnosis of each of the above...
I see you online now, and don't have more than ten minutes to wait around for you to consult google, any carribean trained nurse's aid can get the above in less than three minutes of straining.. let's see how well you do!
cheers
Last edited by جوري; 01-17-2008 at 08:23 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
Quoted by AvarAllahNoor He made it clear, to drum up support so before he can leave office he can have one last swipe at Iran (attack them)
Ah good point I forgot to mention. Iran does pose a threat to whatever balance of power that does exist in the region. In another thread in this section is an article of Robert Fisk's in yesterdays Independent where it mentions a $20billion arms deal to Saudi.
I think he does not want another war before he leaves as that would currently cost the Republicans the White House in 2009, however maybe one way of leaving office for him is to keep Irans neighbours strengthened for the near future.
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Hamas and Hizbollah are getting US weapons now ?????
Whenever there's a huge shipment, it's a given that the lower rungs will pick up 10% of the shipment. That's what happened in Iraq a couple years back. Maliki's government still can't account for all the missing AK47s - but they're the weapon of choice in a lot of the Mujahideen movies kay:
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
format_quote Originally Posted by minaz
Ah good point I forgot to mention. Iran does pose a threat to whatever balance of power that does exist in the region. In another thread in this section is an article of Robert Fisk's in yesterdays Independent where it mentions a $20billion arms deal to Saudi.
I think he does not want another war before he leaves as that would currently cost the Republicans the White House in 2009, however maybe one way of leaving office for him is to keep Irans neighbours strengthened for the near future.
i hope you're right, but i think he is insane enough to attack iran.
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
format_quote Originally Posted by minaz
Iran does pose a threat to whatever balance of power that does exist in the region.
The U.S. government continues to form alliances with the governments in the Middle East, only to dispose of them later on when they no longer meet U.S. expectations. They did that with Saddam Hussein when it suited them. Then they disposed of him. They worked with several Iranian shiite militias, when it suited their purpose, and now they're trying to dispose of them too. This excerpt taken from an interview with Abu Musab al Zarqawi:
And those who entered with the Americans, they had no other aim except getting rid of the Ahl-as-Sunnah. The slogan of one unit (Badr, meaning to deceive) was, “Revenge! Revenge! from Tikrit to Anbar”.
He was referring to the invasion of Tel A'far which involved an air assault to chase Sunni insurgents into an awaiting ground army.
Now think carefully. The Badr brigades... they're an IRANIAN shiite militia, remember? So the U.S. used the Iranian militias to rid themselves of the Sunni fighters, and now that they feel confident that there aren't enough Sunni fighters left, they're going after all the Shiite ones, except those who can do tricks like: roll over, beg, and play dead. And yes, I'm referring to the Mahdi Army.
The Ninth Scribe
Last edited by Ninth_Scribe; 01-17-2008 at 10:16 PM.
Re: Why beat about the 'Middle East Bush' so late?
format_quote Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
And while Palestine might have lost a few battles, the cause of the WAR remains... and this is far from over.
The Ninth Scribe
Well the violence path has been going great so far for the Palestinian people. Only 500 more years and nuclear armed Israel is a goner. Good luck with that.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
?????
kay:
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks