fire struck ramallah.

fire struck ramallah.

yasser arafat's passing is probably going to lead to a tumultuous period of palestinian history. think about it this way: the palestinian state has been dependent upon his leadership ever since he rose to power. now, with him dead...well, it's really a free-for-all. so who's going to save the day?

dubya.

george w. bush has decided to get involved, bringing along that caddy, tony blair. personally, i like blair...i really do. firstly, he's english. and secondly, he's genuine. why he's determined to play america's sidekick is beyond me, but...

let's look at it this way. bush says that he's commited to spend a part of america's capital on the securing of a palestinian state and a safer israel. that's all good, but...what about the securing of iraq first? launching a heavy assault on fallujah does not amount to securing the nation whom you so liberally freed over a year ago.
and for fuck's sake...where's osama?

back to the matter at hand: bush states that violence is going to erupt in iraq as it gets closer to the january election period. how true is that? and who's fault is that? i remember watching bbc last night, and we had dubya in all his glory, answering questions from the british press. among his quotes, and i'm paraphrasing here, was the need to be united in affirming that democracy is established in iraq.

so...would unity include invading the place without the support of the UN? if you go at it alone, then...you go at it alone. bush also has to travel through europe to garner support for his cause...a cause that should be looked at with more than reasonable doubt. be it as it may, regardless of whether or not the current american administration has ties to the middle east, logic should be the rule of the day...clean up the mess that's already been started in iraq before rubbing your nose someplace else.

though it's like he'd listen to anything i'd say.