WAR: Bush aims responsibility for peace at Palestinians

George Bush has changed course and has placed responsibility for peace in the Middle East on the shoulders of the Palestinians, noting that he would increase pressure on them to democratize. During his first term, Bush made it Israel�s responsibility. Bush�s trip to Canada has also given him a platform to criticize Canada�s reluctance to cooperate in a continental missile defense system, citing a divergence from looking beyond their shores to protect themselves.



Bush is taking advantage of the changing of leadership in post-Arafat Palestine to pressure the new leaders to seek a democracy and make peace a priority. This pressure had been on Israel but Bush has now redirected it, making Palestine responsible for it. I disagree in that Israel needs to put the same amount of effort into it and should be just as responsible for making peace in the region. Somewhere along the line, they need to meet in the middle.

As for Bush�s comments to the Canadian government, Ill leave that to the Canadian members, as I feel that Bush is running about, giving unwanted advice and criticism.


[edit on 2-12-2004 by Banshee]

PREFACE
The following is IMHO.

---------------------------

When it comes to the current administration, I know my opinions aren't 100% objective (cough, cough...), but 99.9% ain't too shabby.

I read nothing in the article from the Washington Post that gave me even the slightest indication that Bush is willing to work in an atmosphere of cooperation with other countries for "multilateral" and "multinational" solutions to the world's problems. My take on it is just the contrary. The tone and content of the article shouted, "Do as I say, and together we'll accomplish my goals ...". Some people can handle power; others get sloppy drunk with it and pee in front of the guests. I'll leave it to you to decide the type George is ...

George's latest brainstorm, to put the ball of Middle East peace in Palestine's court, is a real jewel. Of course, "democatic reform" is the key, and, of course, it must be "on his terms". This administration's foreign policy is very simple, having only 2 options: It's either George's way or the highway. Your choice.

Bush's agenda hasn't changed a bit in lieu of another term. If anything, I would expect it to accelerate over time. He likes to preach about spreading "democracy" around the world as the path to peace and harmony. I'm not convinced his ambitions are so benign, though. He's too fixated on military might and global control. His arrogant remark about sleeping "next to the elephant" makes that clear. It seems to me that his real desire is to have the biggest, baddest, most efficient killing machine ever conceived. Global peace is just an excuse; global domination and oppression is the goal (IMO). If you don't believe it, just ask God; it was His idea first. George just stole it.

Seriously, it (the article) sounded to me like George, driven by colossal ignorance (IMO), feels good about being able to throw his weight around and play bigshot. The next 4 years will likely be hexed by this sort of unpresidential-like behavior. If it's true that representatives of the U.S. assured Canadian officials that George wouldn't bring up the subject of missile defense while there, and he did so twice, then it sounds like he can't control his urge to defiantly do whatever he damn well pleases.

As far as Middle East peace goes, it will shock me if it's achieved via George Dubya's agenda. And I mean this in more ways than one. I made a bet with a friend that if Dubya brings peace to the mideast, then I will agree to be dropped at 2:00 pm on a Saturday afternoon (I live on the beach and it gets crowded on Sat afternoons), 3 LONG blocks from home, and will make my way back to my place wearing only my watch and a pair of black socks. The socks weren't my idea - I was forced to agree to it.

I'm not too worried, though. I have a lot of confidence in George. He's a man you can count on.


[edit on 12/2/2004 by netbound]

Thanks for the insightful analysis netbound. I don't think your modesty is in any danger here, unless Bush claims credit when the Israelis / Palestinians finally achieve peace when you're age 70 and then nobody's gonne look at anything but your socks and watch as you streak naked from the beach to your home.

Thanks for the support, dubiousone.

You know, it's hard being torn in 2 directions. War/peace, chaos/order, anarchy/dictatorship, etc. Considering the consequences, though, I hope I lose that bet, and I hope it's long before I hit 70 ...