Bush will now celebrate by putting Falluja to the torch

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Bush will now celebrate by putting Falluja to the torch

The world is fated to four more years of brutal confrontation

Robin Cook
Friday November 5, 2004
The Guardian

If you imagine the rest of us have a problem living with George Bush for another four years, spare a thought for the 55 million Americans who voted against him. John Kerry is fated to be stuck with the label of a loser and is already being blamed for his lack of charisma, his absence of passion and his electoral misjudgment of being born on the eastern seaboard rather than the deep south. Yet in fairness to Kerry, more Americans backed him than supported Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, and some of them queued for two hours in their determination to vote for him. There may be more conservatives in America than ever before, but there are also more Democrats.

Unfortunately this does not add up to a case for a recount. The US does not run a proportional system and the winner takes all. In George Bush's case, he not only took the White House, but he also took a clean sweep of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and he will now have the opportunity to take a majority of the supreme court. All the checks and balances that the founding fathers constructed to restrain presidential power are broken instruments.

It is to be hoped that the obsession of President Bush with fitness will guarantee his health for the length of his renewed tenancy of the White House. Otherwise we get President Cheney. I met Dick Cheney immediately after he had been installed as vice-president in what was the most bizarre en counter of my time at the Foreign Office. He could not disguise his irritation that a European pinko had somehow wormed a way into his diary and for half an hour mostly confined himself to monosyllabic replies. By contrast, this week he was in full triumphalist flood, claiming Bush's election as the greatest "of any presidential candidate in history".

Cheney himself may not go the distance if the rumours about Halliburton continue to lap closer to his desk, but while he is in post it is hard to see an administration so dripping in contacts with the oil industry taking serious action on global warming. This is a real problem for Tony Blair, who has identified climate change as a major priority for Britain's presidency of the G8 next year. The dilemma for Blair will be whether he uses the role to lever the Bush administration towards the consensus among the other seven, or cajoles the rest to accommodate the idiosyncratic Washington position. If he wants to signal a break from Bush, he will not get a clearer opportunity to do so.

The first sign as to whether the Bush second term will be more flexible will be what now happens to the neoconservatives. Will Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon No 2 who lobbied for the invasion of Iraq, be promoted to the front rank? Will John Bolton, the No 3 at the state department who has overseen the Bush campaign to torpedo the International Criminal Court, survive in any rank? Bolton has been responsible for much of the sabre-rattling towards Iran and responded to a question about whether he would support Europe's attempt to offer Iran incentives with the terse one-liner: "I don't do carrots."

What makes this web of reactionary ideologues a menace to the world is that they believe complex, historic problems have simple, instant, military solutions. And it is an article of faith with them that America must acquire full-spectrum dominance of military capabilities in order that it can impose such solutions unilaterally. They are the product of an era in which America has emerged as the sole hyperpower, and they regard allies not as proof of diplomatic strength but as evidence of military weakness.

They will now celebrate their election victory by putting Falluja to the torch. Wolfowitz was furious last spring when the outcry among both Sunnis and Shias obliged the marine corps to abandon its siege; this time he will insist on military victory in Falluja regardless of the political cost across Iraq from civilian casualties. The administration remained sensitive enough to the potential domestic cost of another major offensive in Iraq to delay it until after the presidential polling day, but it will not give a second thought to the adverse impact on public opinion in Britain of escalating civilian casualties.


The unpopularity at home and abroad of his ally's reliance on overwhelming firepower will make it even more essential for Blair to obtain something in return for his support. The first test will be whether it is possible for him to engage the Bush administration in a serious effort to secure peace for the troubled peoples of Israel and Palestine. There has been some imaginative speculation that Bush might be more courageous in putting pressure on the government of Israel now that he does not face re-election.

The problem with such hopes is that they rest on the theory that the Bush administration has been indulgent to Ariel Sharon for reasons of electoral calculation. This is to underestimate the extent to which Bush identifies with Sharon's conviction that terrorism requires a military and not a political solution, and the religious faith with which the southern born-again Christians, of which he is one, believe in the right of Israel to its biblical borders.

It is notable that all the comment this week from the Bush camp on prospects for the Middle East has built on the failing health of Yasser Arafat, as if he alone had been the obstacle to peace. But it is a delusion to imagine that a peace agreement can be established by the simple strategy of finding a more pliable successor to sign up to it. There will be no lasting peace or viable Palestine unless Israel withdraws from its settlements on the West Bank. Far from pressuring Sharon for such a concession, there is no evidence that Bush even supports dismantling the settlements, or that he could get agreement to it from the neoconservatives in his administration, who regard Likud as the nearest thing they have to a sister party.

The paradox may be beyond Bush, but the best way he could make progress in his war on terror would be by winning peace in the Middle East. When Osama bin Laden launched his attack on the twin towers he intended it as a demonstration of his malign belief that the only relationship acceptable between the west and Islam was one of violent confrontation. As George Soros has argued, the Bush administration walked into a trap by responding in a way that accepted the terms of the relationship set down by its enemy.


Now the world is fated to four more years of confrontation, which will widen rather than narrow the gulf between the west and the east. It is ironic, given that terrorism played such a central role in the election, but Osama bin Laden must be as gratified as Dick Cheney that George Bush is back.

r.cook@guardian.co.uk
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire,we don't care let the Motherfscker burn!

Should we just let those terrorist wags have a safe haven to kill more Americans and Iraqis?
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,425
478
126
Originally posted by: syconub
s

first...they dropped leaflets telling women and children to leave fallujah

second...they are giving them a chance to surrender.

third...its seems this is where the roadside and suicide bombs are meade

fourth...al zarqawi might be here

fifth...its time to finish it.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire,we don't care let the Motherfscker burn!

Should we just let those terrorist wags have a safe haven to kill more Americans and Iraqis?

See the first quote in my sig for your answer, Red. I'm sure GrGr agrees.

 

Luck JF

Senior member
Sep 4, 2004
203
0
0
We need to kill all the terrorists in Fallujah so that Iraq can hold elections in 2 months.
It's about time we took it back.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
The Guardian .... nuff said. :roll:


The former British foreign secretary who resigned over the illegality of the Iraq invasion. Nuff said.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Luck JF
We need to kill all the terrorists in Fallujah so that Iraq can hold elections in 2 months.
It's about time we took it back.

And what about the Iraqis in Fallujah?
 

Luck JF

Senior member
Sep 4, 2004
203
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Luck JF
We need to kill all the terrorists in Fallujah so that Iraq can hold elections in 2 months.
It's about time we took it back.

And what about the Iraqis in Fallujah?

Well the Iraqi terrorists will hopefully get killed along with any foreign terrorists.
Any civilians should have left Fallujah already. Anyone still there is supporting the terrorists efforts. It's not like any actual civilians had any reason to stay in Fallujah. There are no jobs there at the moment. Although I am sure a few innocents will be killed and some of our troops among them, that is the price we have to pay for a free Iraq and to further the ultimate end of global terrorism.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Luck JF
We need to kill all the terrorists in Fallujah so that Iraq can hold elections in 2 months.
It's about time we took it back.

Yes make an example out of Fallujah. Raze it to the ground and then bounce the rubble a few times. That will get the US lots of love at the ballots. There are now refugees from Fallujah in many parts of Iraq. I'm sure they are spreading the word of US love. :roll:


 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Luck JF
We need to kill all the terrorists in Fallujah so that Iraq can hold elections in 2 months.
It's about time we took it back.

And what about the Iraqis in Fallujah?
Let Bushes God sort them out!

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Luck JF
We need to kill all the terrorists in Fallujah so that Iraq can hold elections in 2 months.
It's about time we took it back.

And what about the Iraqis in Fallujah?
Let Bushes God sort them out!

I think there are two sort piles when you talk about the offensive in Fallujah:

Dead Civilian

Future Insurgent
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire,we don't care let the Motherfscker burn!

Should we just let those terrorist wags have a safe haven to kill more Americans and Iraqis?

See the first quote in my sig for your answer, Red. I'm sure GrGr agrees.


Well you can always PM me when Iraq celebrates the same independence from an evil foreign Empire the Founding Fathers demanded for America.

Oh and see my sig, the bolded part. I'm sure you can appreciate the fine irony.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Actually why send in the Marines? Why not simply send in the heavy bombers. That will take care of it and the Marines can focus on smoking out the remaining survivors.
 

seawolf21

Member
Feb 27, 2003
199
0
0
Not really news. You know that the gloves are being removed from the military after the election. Didn't want the risk of body bags before Nov 2.