MY FIRST FISKING: For those who couldn't tell (and you must be rather ignorant if this is the case), I loooove sarcasm. And I love "Fisking". What is Fisking you ask? It stemmed from what is possibly the most outrageous article ever
written by one, David Fisk. Just take a look, it's a real hoot. Of course, Mr. Fisk was repeatedly made fun of for such moronic statements, and his article was dissected line by line to show its inaccuracies and idiocies. And so, the Fisking began. Here's my first one, from an article
by Charley Reese from the Saudi Arabian government- sponsored newspaper:
President George Bush continues to act as if he were a ventriloquist's dummy sitting on the lap of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Really? I would say he looked more like a sock puppet, but to each his own, right?
Sharon says he doesn't like Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
You heard right.
Bush says, I don't like Arafat.
Not after Arafat keeps bullshiting that he is a man of peace, but only days later, an intelligence report lands on Bush's desk clearly showing that Arafat has allocated more funds to the Al-Aqsa Brigades, a known terrorist organization.
Sharon says he won't talk peace. Bush says, It's not time to talk peace. And so on and so forth.
And your point is...?
Most Americans don't give a hoot about the Middle East one way or the other, just as they don't give a hoot about Asia, Africa or Latin America.
Most Americans don't even know who the Vice President is. Seriously. Go look it up.
Americans should understand, however, that as long as the U.S. government assists the Israelis in brutalizing the Palestinians, denying them the protection of international law and denying them their basic human rights, then the supply of terrorist recruits will be infinite.
Actually, I think they should learn who the Vice-President is first. Then, they can find out the truth about the Palestinian Authority and its links with terror. And the school systems brainwashing kids to become martyrs and promote death. By the way sir, are you aware that Palestinians who live peacefully among Israelis (we call those "civilized people" down here in the states) are given more of the "human rights" you bitch about, in Israel, than they do in Arab states?
Why American presidents are so willing to risk American lives, to jeopardize America's national interests, to give away American taxpayers' money by the billions in order to cater to the Israelis and their powerful American lobby will no doubt fascinate future historians.
I'm guessing it's because we prefer living to blowing ourselves up.
In the meantime, Bush is proving to be totally incompetent in the conduct of American foreign policy.
Really? How so?
His ignorance of the world at large is astounding. Apparently, he was not kidding when he joked about never reading any books. He probably demands that his staff give him one-paragraph summaries of complex issues with multiple-choice options.
Heheh, good one.
His entire policy, if you can call it that, about the Middle East seems to be dictated by the Israelis and their American agents.
In other words, those evil people who prefer living to blowing shit up.
The entire Arab world at last is willing to make peace with Israel, and Sharon and Bush are flatly turning their backs on the opportunity.
If funding terrorism and blowing up buses if "making peace", then they're doing a mighty fine job.
Sharon is doing so because he has no intention of ever making peace with the Palestinians and says so frequently.
Got any proof? Examples maybe?
Bush is doing it because he does whatever Sharon tells him to do.
In doing that, Bush is sending a clear signal to the Arab world that he looks upon it with the same racist, colonialist attitude of Sharon.
Still no proof...
Arab suggestions and advice count for nothing.
And the proof for this theory is...
Bush seems to think he can always bully and/or bribe the Arab countries into going along with whatever Sharon decides to do.
This guy really doesn't like proof!
That is an extremely dangerous assumption.
Yeah, those were some really "dangerous" assumptions. But you had a plural amount of assumptions, so you should phrase your sentence like so: "These are some extremely dangerous (stupid?) assumptions."
Among the many subjects Bush never bothered to study is general semantics, and its most important lesson is that today is not yesterday.
Wow, that's deep stuff.
The Middle East in 2002 is not the Middle East in 1948. The United States in 2002 is not the United States in 1991. The age of the Western stooge is coming to an end in the Arab world. A new generation of Arab leaders is in the wings. Mr. Bush is, vis-?-vis the Middle East, like the old segregationists in the 1960s who refused to recognize that American blacks had finally said, "Enough is enough."
Exactly right. Except African Americans didn't try to blow up buses to get people's attention. They boycotted 'em. And America listened.
America's (and Israel's) military superiority rests entirely on its high-technology Air Force.
Yeah, technology is cool. You guys should try it sometime.
It is only a matter of time before the Chinese or the Russians make an air-defense breakthrough that will erase that superiority.
I would argue they already have. It's too bad they're our
allies though. They don't teach much current events down there in Saudi Arabia, do they?
And once we have to go man to man, tank to tank, without domination of the sky and ground by air power, Americans will learn that we are not the superpower our politicians claim we are. The day will come when we will not be able to bomb defenseless people with impunity, and on that day, Americans will wish they had relied more on diplomacy than on force.
Umm, I believe we did. They were called the Camp David Accords. Remember those? They took place at Camp David. IN AMERICA. Remember how Arafat responded? Oh, that's right, he turned them down, proposed no counteroffer, and responded with the 2nd Intifada. So much for diplomacy.
George Washington's farewell address is the greatest statement that was ever made about what America's foreign and domestic policy should be. He warned against "passionate attachment" to another nation, which, he said, produces a variety of evils — the illusion of common interests where no real common interests exist; adopting the enmities of the other; and participation in the quarrels and wars of the other without any justification. Still another evil is that such a passionate attachment gives to "ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens the facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country."
When all else fails, quote a smart guy I guess. I think he used the wrong quote though, because it seems that George Washington would have supported Bush's tactics. We are not fighting a war for Israel, we are merely defending a democratic nation whose ideals are similar to those of our own. And we still often disagree with them, but remain true allies. I bet this guy wouldn't mind if we dropped in American UN peacekeepers into the region. You know, we probably shouldn't get involved and stuff, but that
would be ok. But talking bad about Arafat. That's a no-no.
Too bad Bush isn't a reader.
Heheh, damn this guy is good.