Who thinks Bush (jr.) is a good president?

Interesting;

No wonder I haven't seen anything, I was at a weekend long Halloween party. I read that and wonder what exactly Bush is thinking in regard to the new leadership on the Palestine side.

It says that US pressure to Israel has had a very limited impact and they continue to build it. Maybe the thinking is; if we can't force them to stop it then maybe the wall will have a better route through the city with US intervention. Apparently Israel is not caving on the issue. A pre-1967 route would predate Israeli occupation, which is an interesting twist. The wall is a bad thing, and so is the weekly barrage of suicide bombing and retaliation attacks and torn apart cease fires. It appears as though Israel has called our bluff? And perhaps said “we aren’t stopping so now what?”

The state department is still denying dropping support, but usually good inside sources are reliable. We live in a democracy and the Jewish people have a strong voice, unfortunately I am not always in tune with that voice. The wall will most likely stop the violence but at a cost to isolation of 2 very different cultures.

The Israeli/Palestine thing has gone on since I was a tiny child and never a month has gone by without something going on over there. They have actually come a long way from the beginning. But does it have to end with a wall dividing two cultures? Bush is only the latest president confronting a 36 year old conflict.

Paulie,

my point was not about the Palestinian-Israelian cause. My point is that Bush changes his opinion every time he can make money/votes out of it. Before October 25, Bush was opposed to the wall (primarily thanks to foreign pressure). Now he doesn't mind the wall anymore.

And I have to remind you that the land I'm talking about is Palestinian land, not Israelian (1967 agreements). Even Israeli officials will admit that the land is Palestinian. Bush admitted it. Nobody would care if the Israeli's would decide to build a wall on their own property. This issue is major because the territory is officially Palestinian.

I also have to remind you that Sharon - not Arafat - is the one facing international trial for deeds of terrorism. We both know that Arafat is just as much a terrorist as Sharon is, but they both have things on their palmares that are considered warcrimes and terrorist activities.
Remember Sabra Shatila?

Eat **** terrorists? Sure... both of them should eat ****.

Perhaps a wall is the best answer when yu consider the alternatives to the situation. I see very few solutions, since Israel will not stop targeting terrorists until the Hammas and the other terrorist groups stop targeting innocent civilians, which is extremely unlikely to occur. Yes, Isreal kills plenty of innocent civilians itself, but they are not the primary targets. These are the solutions I forsee:

1. Build the wall and guard it until the Palestine Authority fixes it's own internal problems with terrorism.

2. Build the wall and guard it until the Palestine Authority declares war against the Nation of Israel. - Results in Israel wiping Palestine off the map.

3. Don't build the wall, let the bombings continue unheeded. - Results in Israel wiping Palestine off the map.

What do you do when your children are fighting? You separate them and put them in the corner to let them contemplate the reprecussions of their actions. Why not let Israel build the "corner/wall"? Nothing else has worked.

Quote:

---

We both know that Arafat is just as much a terrorist as Sharon is

---

Ok, let's say that I except your premise for second. Who is the man who continues in terror, Sharon or Arafat?

I'll help you out, Arafat!

Quote:

---

Why not let Israel build the "corner/wall"?

---

Like I said: nobody would have a problem with Israel building a wall on their own property. There is another nice example of a wall like this: the one between the US and Mexico. I don't hear anyone complain about that, and why not? Because the wall is on US territory. Don't you think it would be wrong if the US would build that wall on the Mexican side of the border?

And Paulie: it's a vicious circle... Palestinian terrorists kill some Israeli's, the Israeli's kill some Palestinians in revenge (most of the time it's a 10 to 1 ratio, but anyways).
You only call the Palestinians terrorists, I call them both terrorists...
Would you call yourself a terrorist if Canada would invade the US by building a wall on its territory, and you would go to Canada to kill some Canadians? Or would you call yourself a freedom fighter...?

I am with you negative, the border has been disputed since 1967. That border has been under Isrealu modification for 36 years. But what if this was true and the US is shifting focus on keeping the border as close as possible to the pre-1967 route? I quote the artical you posted.

Quote:

---

... Israel itself. Officials insist the Bush administration is seeking to keep the barrier close to the pre-1967 border.

---

Why is it that hearly every reply to this question seems to centre around war? The question originally posed was whether or not Bush Jr. is a good president. Somehow the conversation then got shifted to whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified, and then to a Palestine-Israel wall. Funny how people associate Bush with war.

Speaking as a Canadian, I am glad the Americans ousted Saddam. And Bin Laden. And Mobutu. The world is a better place without them. I just wish the American government would stop lying to its people. Where are the weapons of mass destruction which were the entire justification for the war in the first place? I don't believe there were any. Since 9/11 Americans have been in a crusade mode, making it possible to justify almost any war to Americans with the right propaganda. These attacks were simply used as an excuse for a war the government had always wanted to start. If you want to know whether the war in Iraq is justified or not, then answer to yourlelft why we are fighting it. It obviously wasn't fought over weapons of mass destruction. So why are we fighting it?

Iraq is a very strategically important nation in the world, both for its geographic location and for its natural resources. This is very good for the Iraqi people, as it has eventually led to the occupation of thier contry by government which does not gas them. Serbia was bombed for the same reasons Iraq was. How many people can remember the name of the president before he was ousted by the US? How many people are following his trial in the Hague? I'll bet you had a really strong opinion about what's his name three years ago. Funny how most people don't remember him anymore now that a more interesting war has started. How many people can even remember what that war was fought over? If you can't remember it three years later, it probably wasn't fought for a good reason.

But that point aside, the Mediterranean is a safer and better place without him. The world is a safer and more stable place without him, and the same is true of Saddam Hussein. We live in a better world now without him. However, the desire to make the world a better place is not a good enough reason anymore. Now you must be stopping the production of nukes or suicide bombers to justify a war; feeding a country isn't enough (I know there are a lot of starving Iraqis right now, but they'll be far better off in 5 years than they would have been with Hussein). Like I said earlier, it's lucky for the Iraqis that Amercans get oil and control of the Persian gulf in return for ousting Saddam, just like the Amercans got a safe shipping route through the Meditteranean for ousting... what's his name?

As for whether or not Bush is a good president, the only thing I can think of that he has done which is not directly attributable to the economic climate or the state of the world in which he governs is the Patriot Act, a desperate grab for power by a government without the intellectual resources to think of a better solution than limiting its peoples' freedoms. It was enacted with by using the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify its necessity, a tactic which I find deplorable. It is on this one facet alone that I oppose the Bush government, not only for its foriegn policy but also for its national security policy as well.


(Milosevic)

You hit a point. Most Americans get their political thinking from the network news broadcast or highly biased internet locations. If it's not on TV chances are they won't have an opinion or care about it. That's why I bring up the media a lot. Yugoslavia has been mentioned before on AO but you are right. I bet a poll of people strictly outspoken opponents or proponents in the entire Serbian affair, have no clue about Slobodan or even where Serbia is on a map and the relation to the political landscape that was shaped during the conflict.

The constant reply is about "WAR" because a weapon of mass destruction is a media buzzword right now and a lot of Americans are force fed thought through television. Half the people I know can't name the top 4 positions in the United States government while at the same time spouting the latest popular news snippet and chewing what they believe is democracy or lack of depending on the slant. In a nutshell... clueless.

Nice point of view and post Striek.

dont u think that bush also sucks . he is the biggest sucker in the world
he s fighting where no fight is required . in iraq they had no wmd's & still bush shown them the hell
the ****ing pakis alwaya kills lots of people & there is no reaction there

so so he is a sucker & biggest of all

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by paulie walnuts


Ok, let's say that I except your premise for second. Who is the man who continues in terror, Sharon or Arafat?

I'll help you out, Arafat!

---

Lets look at who has the most to gain by the terrorists continued actions, Arafat coninues to controll his littel fifdom tenuasly as long as they act, as soon as they stop he very well may lose power. Sharon continuies to controll his fifdom as long as they act, as soon as the terrorist threat is gone he and the rest of the hardliners lose power....hum it seems that neither side has a vested interest in peace, untill taht changes israle should not get our suport.

question for the conservatives, you are for smaller goverment and less govermental intervention in your privet life correct? Then how can you support a administration that has expanded the goverment, striped you of your privacy and freedom, and attempted to insert goverment controlled religion into schools and nonprofit organizations?