Or will he continue to face one annus horribilis (a term made famous by Queen Elizabeth II during her own "horrible year") after another?
2006-07-24 03:40:03 · 13 answers · asked by In Honor of Moja 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I don't think Bush can bring peace to the Middle East because Israel and Lebanon have been fighting since the end of WWII, and the actions we are taking now probably won't help(that is giving Israel weapons to use against Lebanon). At the same time i think his ratings will go up because most people in the United states sympathize with Israel and by supporting them his ratings in the United States will climb. However his ratings around the world (public opinion) will plummet because we're taking sides instead of trying to bring peace by negotiating with both sides. Many moderate Islamics around the world will be turned off against or actions as well and in turn support terrorism.
Peace. Love. Unity. Tim D
2006-07-24 03:49:32 · answer #1 · answered by Tim D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, there is no way that Bush can be seen as a peacemaker after this war that he has gotten us into. He will face another horrible year because that is his choice. He is not going to solve the crisis in the Middle East anyway, so give up the idea of seeing him as a peacemaker. They have to solve their own crisis and many don't seem to want to do so.
2006-07-24 03:44:47 · answer #2 · answered by debbiec1423 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
serious theory in the U. S. looks to hidden in the back of political rants on Bush (its the election 3 hundred and sixty 5 days). the middle East has not made lots progression in the previous countless an prolonged time inspite of who's President. The greater contemporary wildcard is Islamic terrorism that violently opposes any sort of non violent contract so i don't supply Bush lots risk to choose for something. even although maximum leaders who had stood up for peace in the middle East have been killed via terrorists there is a few desire. There does look some indication that greater average Arabs are rising in the middle East, possibly recognizing which you in simple terms can not kill anybody so it's time to stay. There are some Arab scribes who have faith that the violence of terrorists has spawned a desire to locate peace as no you may develop a kinfolk because it stands now. Bush has as lots risk, or possibly even slightly greater perfect than people who've long gone earlier him. ultimately, peace in the middle East isn't the responsiblity of Bush or the U. S., it fairly is in the ideal activity of the international locations there and whilst they attain area of tiring on radical politics, they make seek for peace. I on no account carry my breath on the middle East. lots of your question is an attack on Bush, in my opinion, yet although I replied the question without the anti Bush ingredient factored in.
2016-11-02 21:40:47 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nobody can predict the future, but isn't it strange that Saudi Arabia and Syria have asked Bush to intervine in the trouble over there. Countries that never miss a chance to run America into the mud admit that they can't do anything themselves. Nothing seems to get done without America.
Everybody needs American help. But nobody likes to feel indebted to America, so they continually try to put us down.
2006-07-24 04:12:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is beyond redemption - he is the reason why countless numbers of people around the world have seen their loved ones die, and yet he was voted by the American public for a second term. I think im going to go drink some ice tea.
2006-07-24 03:55:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
By the time Bush leaves office the situation in the middle east will be so bad that only a fool would take his job.
2006-07-24 03:55:19 · answer #6 · answered by ranger12 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't even mind if he took the credit for it if the situation was resolved permanently in a positive way, and very few more people got killed. The problem is that he and his "team" are incapable of solving the problem or even putting a serous dent in it. I hope I'm wrong about that.
2006-07-24 03:45:29 · answer #7 · answered by Zelda Hunter 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bushit can't solve what's 1+1! Middle East? Fat chance!
2006-07-24 05:31:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No other President has succeeded, and Bush will not either...
However, he has brought to the forefront the fact that extremist Islamic fascists want all "infidels" dead... That means you, me, and everyone we know!
Liberty Over Liberalism!
2006-07-24 03:44:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hate to say this but probably not. It seems like he doesn't want to intervene for a reason (to get rid of Hezbollah). Therefore, it is unlikely that he will get involved if Hezbollah has not been destroyed!
2006-07-24 03:45:08 · answer #10 · answered by 360sameh 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋