Articles from the members

Category
  General Knowledge   தமிழ் மொழி   Career Counselling
  Technology   Power of Creator   Religious
  Moral Story   Medical   Kids
  Sports   Quran & Science   Politics
  Poetry   Funny / Jokes   Video
  Golden Old Days - ம‌ல‌ரும் நினைவுக‌ள்   Others   சுய தொழில்கள்
  Stars of Eruvadi
 
You're lying, Mr Bush
Posted By:peer On 7/27/2006

cialis 5 mg

cialis helyett link


By Nicholas Coates, Associate Editor; GulfNews
  

Hand on heart, George W. Bush told the media on Tuesday he is in favour of democracy in the Middle East.

He expressed his comment with all the sincerity of a second-hand car salesman, knowing he is selling his prospect a dud.

For if, as he so often likes to remind us, he is a sincere and devout man, then he will know in his heart of hearts he is lying.

I have a problem with that. For in all the speeches I have heard the president of the United States of America make, I cannot but believe he is insincere.

Or at least reading from a script he has no belief in. I have great sadness for the many Americans who did not vote Bush back into power (or even into power the first time round).

It is getting to the point now, as in the last days of Margaret Thatcher's reign, to find anyone who will admit to voting for Bush at the last presidential election.

The American public are beginning to see through all the hype and hoopla, all the media spin, and trying to determine exactly what has Bush done for America. Other than take it to war and drive it into debt.

For Bush to claim he believes in democracy in the Middle East is not only arrogant, but a blatant lie. What he believes in is some form of elected leader, by any means, who will represent US policy over the country and, if possible, the region.

If Bush does believe in Middle East democracy, then why does he not get his representatives to meet the democratically elected leaders of the region?

He and his administration may not like Hamas and Hezbollah, but the countries in which they reside do.

Palestinians have voted Hamas into power, and in Lebanon, Hezbollah have representatives in the government.

It is fruitless to say these parties are "beyond the pale" and are enemies of democracy.

If that is so, why did both parties decide to stand for election and, what is more, get voted into power?

It is stupid to say you will not sit down and talk with parties or nations you perceive to be enemies: Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran.

Abject failure

You do not sit down and talk of a cessation of hostilities with your friends; you can only talk peace with your enemies.

Failure to recognise this is an abject failure in the art of diplomacy.

But then the US has, of late, decided to opt for the gunboat diplomacy it chided European countries for centuries ago.

The acquisition and running of "empires" by various European nations was always determined as anathema to Americans.

Now, compare and you will see there is very little difference between how the US is going about its foreign policy now, and how the Europeans did all those years ago. Yet call it "empire building" and Americans will recoil in horror.

We in the Arab world, whether born in the region or of expatriate origin, see things very differently to most Americans.

For most Americans are fed a diet of fodder for the masses based on anti-Arab, pro-Jewish bias, spearheaded by a right-wing Administration that sees only the Israeli "solution" to the Middle East conflict as being the correct course of action.

America claims it carries the banner of neutrality. How can that be, when daily, on a ratio of 10:1 10 Lebanese to one Israeli people are dying and injured?

What is the US Administration's response, and horrifyingly that of the British government? To allow the present attacks on Lebanon to continue until such time as a meaningful ceasefire can be determined.

Meaningful to whom? Let us not forget that while Israel shells Lebanon, every so often they also lob a few in the direction of Gaza, thereby killing and injuring Palestinians and causing destruction to property.

If ever there was evidence of bias by the US (and the UK), then surely such appalling comments as those stated over the past few days are ample proof.

When is the Arab world going to wake up? When are Arab leaders going to arouse from their stupor and take more positive action than merely sending money and aid to the displaced and injured in Lebanon and Gaza?

For many Arabs it is easy to salve one's conscience by sending money, but making a more positive commitment to the devastation their brethren are suffering takes courage and total dedication to the cause.

It was the late Shaikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, UAE President and Ruler of Abu Dhabi, who called for an Arab oil embargo in 1973, a visionary call that brought the West to the realisation that they cannot stumble into Middle East affairs and bludgeon their policies on an unwilling people.

In the words of Madeleine Albright, former US secretary of state: "Imposed democracy is an oxymoron."

Perhaps Bush did not like the comparison because he thought Albright was being personal.

But it would be appreciated if he could get to understand what it means, and what it means to the Arabs when outsiders talk of imposing democracy in the region.

For Arabs know, and have known for years, that in the eyes of the various American administrations, democracy in the Middle East is only acceptable to the US if the leader is acceptable that is, malleable to America.

 http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10055269.html


 




Politics
Date Title Posted By
The view points and opinion solely those of the author or source. nellaiEruvadi.com is not responsible for the posted contents..