George Bush has outbreak of common sense!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by chieftiff, Jan 10, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    George Bush has probably made the most sensible statement of his Presidential career: BBC News Link

    Bush urges Israeli occupation end

    Mr Bush's statement is the diplomatic highlight of his visit
    US President George W Bush has said Israel must end its occupation of some Arab land to enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state

    Still, I don't suppose he is worried about the Jewish vote anymore.
  2. Pity he didn't say that 7 years ago eh Chief?
  3. It's a PR stunt, if you notice in the article he's hoping it will be signed by the time he leaves office in Feb 2009...something smells of "legacy repair"..., I mean why should that date matter, why not say Mar 2009 when Hillary or John McCain are the sitting President.....hmmmmmm...politics...when the rest of the world leaves this planet to colonise space, hopefully we can leave them (politicians) behind, along with the lawyers... :bball:

  4. A PR stunt!!!! SSE, how could you say this. I am shocked and stunned.

    Funnily enough though........ this article from the Israeli Daily Ha'aretz seems to agree with you:-


    Despite all its power, the U.S. is finding it hard to deal with local forces in the Middle East and Pakistan that threaten its position, forces which are only growing more powerful. Pakistan is shaky, Afghanistan is on fire, Iraq is disintegrating, Iran is continuing with its nuclear development, Lebanon is divided and Hamas controls the Gaza Strip. Even friendly Israel, which depends on Washington for nearly everything, ignores America's repeated calls to remove outposts and alleviate the Palestinians' lives in the West Bank.

    Is this just local phenomena taking place at the edge of an empire (like little Vietnam)? Or is this a fundamental shake-up of the regional order the U.S. put in place?

    This question is the basis for President George Bush's tour of the Middle East, which will focus on the petroleum-producing states of the Gulf. Bush has come to reassert American hegemony in the region against the forces threatening it. That is what is motivating him - not the evacuation of outposts, Palestinian freedom or rescuing his "pal" Ehud Olmert from the Winograd Committee to prevent a political crisis in Israel.

    These goals are obviously important to him, but they are secondary. From Bush's point of view, the diplomatic process he put in place for Israel and the Palestinians is meant to restore America's standing in the Arab world and curb the criticism against him for his lack of involvement and pro-Israel bias. Bush may express himself in an unsophisticated manner, but he has no illusions that a Palestinian state will be established during his tenure, or that the Arab states will suddenly become liberal democracies.

    Bush's tour of the region became necessary following the publication of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which played down the seriousness of the nuclear threat and was interpreted in the area as America withdrawing from its commitment to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia from an Iranian atomic bomb.

    It was no coincidence that the trip was announced a day after the intelligence estimate was released, as the need to assuage America's allies in the region climbed to the top of Washington's list of priorities.

    What can Bush gain? The U.S. president will try to give a booster shot to the pro-American regimes of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, in order to slow their fall into Iran's sphere of influence, and isolate the regional implications of the fiasco in Iraq. Bush will try to keep the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations alive and leave his successor at least the semblance of a peace process, and maybe some progress toward a final status agreement. Beyond this, and a demonstration of friendship for rulers in the region, Bush can do little more.


  5. Actually your right, what am I saying, the runt has been a stunt from day one... :rendeer:
  6. Politician... Common sense...? Surely that's an oxymoron!

    In the case of Bush, he's just a MORON!
  7. Voted in by the electorate in the good ol' USA - or - returned for a second term on the strength of manipulated election results.

    Democracy in action!
  8. No .. No No No................Shurely not!!!!! You must be a conspiracy theorist.

    Just because Bush won in 2000 by:-

    The single state of Florida.
    Where brother Jeb was Governor.
    And that Florida was carried by only 535 votes.
    And that Katherine Harris the Florida Secretary of State and the person responsible for all Florida voting was also the Chairwoman of the re-elect GWB committee.
    And that 200,000 mainly Democrat voters were secretly dis-enfranchised prior to voting.
    And that 20,000 mainly Democrat votes were voided during the election.
    And that the Federal Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court and banned a re-count.
    And that all records were destroyed.

    You must have a suspicious mind. As for the 2004 elections for Prezdint............... which Bush won mainly on the Ohio State results.. well only in Amerika:-

    Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
    Published on Thursday, August 28, 2003 by the Cleveland Plain Dealer
    Voting Machine Controversy
    by Julie Carr Smyth

    COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

    The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.


  9. And worryingly Bergs, what the US does now, we emulate later!

  10. That is because we have the training manual :thumright:


  11. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    But Dubya reads this instead:


    ...or these perhaps?

  12. I take it then that Dubya hasn't got the "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli(real politics for control freaks) on his book shelf. F--k me it's only 71 pages long you could knock it off in a coffee brake.Problem is it would take him more time than he has left to understand it.
  13. I'm willing to bet that if he cannot pronounce the name of the author, let alone spell it, then he hasn't read it.

Share This Page