or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| It seems it's a victory for both sides? |
paraclete |
08/15/06 |
Perhaps victory needs the perspective of several thousand miles distance?
Bush: 'Hezbollah suffered a defeat'
President calls Lebanon a front in 'global war on terrorism'
Monday, August 14, 2006; Posted: 8:48 p.m. EDT (00:48 GMT)
President Bush blamed the monthlong conflict on Hezbollah, Iran and Syria.
Image:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush declared Lebanon a front in the "global war on terrorism" Monday, equating the Israeli battle against Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas to the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush said Hezbollah and its supporters in Iran and Syria were responsible for the 34-day war, and called that conflict "part of a broader struggle between freedom and terror." (Watch Bush blame Hezbollah, Iran and Syria for the crisis -- 2:06)
Bush said the U.N. resolution that took effect early Monday was an "important step that will help bring an end to the violence."
He said the conflict was a win for his administration's policy of encouraging democracy in the Middle East and a defeat for Hezbollah, discounting a claim of victory issued by the Shiite Muslim militia's leader earlier Monday. (Watch the president declare Hezbollah the loser -- :40)
"Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis," Bush said during a news conference at the State Department.
"There's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon," he said, referring to the U.N. force that will assist the Lebanese army in taking control of the area.
"How can you claim victory when you were a state within a state in southern Lebanon, and now you're going to be replaced by an international force?" he said.
Speaking after a day of meetings with Pentagon and State Department officials, Bush said the leaders of armed groups must choose between armed conflict and democracy.
He warned Iran against meddling in both Lebanon and Iraq, where U.S. troops are battling a persistent insurgency and trying to stave off a Sunni-Shiite civil war more than three years after the 2003 invasion.
"In both these countries, Iran is backing armed groups in the hope of stopping democracy from taking hold," he said.
"The message of this administration is clear: America will stay on the offense against al Qaeda. Iran must stop its support for terror," he said. "The leaders of these armed groups must make a choice: If they want to participate in the political life of their countries, they must disarm."
The president defended the U.S. role in settling the Israel-Lebanon conflict, saying Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice deserved "great credit" for the cease-fire agreement.
The administration resisted international calls for an immediate cease-fire, which it said would not have addressed the underlying causes of the conflict.
"We want peace," he said. "We're not interested in process. We want results."
Bush laid the blame for the conflict -- in which more than 1,000 people died -- on Hezbollah, Iran and Syria.
"America recognizes that civilians in Lebanon and Israel have suffered from the current violence, and we recognize that responsibility for this suffering lies with Hezbollah," Bush said.
"Responsibility for the suffering of the Lebanese people also lies with Hezbollah's state sponsors, Iran and Syria."
Bush said Iran "provides Hezbollah with financial support, weapons and training."
"Iran has made clear that it seeks the destruction of Israel," he said. "We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks."
The United States maintains that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. The Iranian government says its nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful purposes.
=====================================================
Now to the important question. Since Lebanon is now the front line for the war on terror, will the US be invading anytime soon? or is GWB going to let someoneelse do the dieing this time? |
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/16/06 3:02 pm:
>>>Bad thinking eliminate Hezbollah in Lebanon, this is doable, eliminate Iran, this is something else, the whole region would be at war<<<
I seem to remember people saying that we can't eliminate the Afghani and Iraqi regimes because it would "bring war to the entire region". The only thing that has brought war to the entire region is Hizbollah attacking Israel. Everything that has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan has remained small-scale and within confined areas. It has cetainly not set the whole region at war. And I don't think that eliminating the Iranian regime would cause a regional war either.
In fact, I believe the exact opposite is true. By eliminating Iran as a threat, we would eliminate a major terrorist supporter, which would weaken Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It would also cut the support of the Shia militias in Iraq and help the government in Iraq maintain peace and security within their borders. If, as so many people have argued, Iraq is a "failure" because the Iranians are supporting the Shia militants, then eliminating that support will bring things under control again. I happen not to believe that this support has been a major factor in Iraq, but if you do believe it, then the elimination of Iran is a solution to that problem, isn't it?
Besides, if the region fell into war, would you erally have a problem with that? Not me. Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out.
Elliot Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 08/17/06 1:33 am:
Elliot
"Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out." I still say that's bad thinking, the same sort of thinking Hitler applied to the Jews.
Islam is a problem and it's not just militant Islam, becuase we can't tell what will tip the thinking over beyond what a reasonable person would do. Therefore we should eliminate the problem in a step by step way. Right now Hezbollah is the symptom and a problem becuase their thinking is over the edge so eliminate them as a threat. If Lebanon is the "front line on terror" how is it any different from Afganistan. I don't like politicians, or Presidents, grand standing, either Bush says what he means and means what he says or he does not.
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/17/06 11:04 am:
>>>I still say that's bad thinking, the same sort of thinking Hitler applied to the Jews.<<<
No its not. The differences are twofold:
1) The Jews of Europe were innocent bystanders, productive members of society, and no threat to anyone. The terrorists of the Middle East and those who support them are not innocent bystanders, and those who make war just because thee is no government in Iran are not innocent bystanders.
2) There is a world of difference between calling for and taking part in the extermination of an entire race of people who have done nothing to you and letting warring factions of terrorists fight themselves into oblivion.
>>>Islam is a problem and it's not just militant Islam, becuase we can't tell what will tip the thinking over beyond what a reasonable person would do.<<<
That is why I say that "Islamofascism" is the problem, not Islam. Islamofascists are unpredictable, and you never know what is going to set them off, and indeed that problem must be eliminated. But moderate Islam, those who neither advocate nor support terrorism just because they disagree with someone else, is not the problem and doesn't need to be changed... with the possible exception of giving moderate Islam a louder voice to counter the Islamofascism.
>>>If Lebanon is the "front line on terror" how is it any different from Afganistan. I don't like politicians, or Presidents, grand standing, either Bush says what he means and means what he says or he does not.<<<
I happen to agree with you there. That is why I am so disappointed with Ehud Ohlmert. He didn't let his troops finish the job in Lebanon, didn't cause a change in either the way the Lebanese government handles Hizbollah or a change in the government itself. And he didn't eliminate Hizbollah as a threat to Israel. It shouldn't be treated any differently than Afghanistan, and in my opinion, that is where the failure was in Lebanon.
>>>either Bush says what he means and means what he says or he does not.<<<
I'm confused here: where did Bush not mean what he says or say what he means on Lebanon?
Elliot Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 08/17/06 12:58 pm:
Elliot
understand this, if the Lebanon is the front line on terror it is no different to Afganistan. Bush ordered an immediate incursion into Afganistan, but sighting Lebanon as a front line on terror is political rhetoric, where I come from we call this political bullshit. There is no intention to act, just grandstanding, therefore he does not mean what he says.
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/17/06 1:30 pm:
>>>but sighting Lebanon as a front line on terror is political rhetoric, where I come from we call this political bullshit.<<<
I'm sorry, did I miss something about the rockets that Hizbollah has been firing at Israel for the past 6 years, the 3 kidnaps, the fact that Hizbollah was operating openly in Southern Lebanon, etc.? Are you saying that Lebanon was NOT a front in the war on terrorism? Because it seems to me that it was (and still will be).
>>>There is no intention to act, just grandstanding, therefore he does not mean what he says.<<<
It was ISRAEL'S responsibility to act in this particular case, not the USA's. Bush backed up his "rhetorric" by not tying Israel's hands and allowing them to do what they needed to do while the rest of the world was screaming about Qana and "disproportionate response" (the fact that they didn't do so wasn't Bush's fault, but rather Ohlmert's fault). That is how Bush backed up his rhetorric with action... by giving Israel the breathing room they needed to do the job.
Iran is the USA's problem. Hisbollah and Lebanon are Israel's problem. The USA had no reason to invade Lebanon. Israel did. There's no political bullshit there, just the realities of Middle Eastern politics and the military situation. And in no way did Bush's statements differ from his actions.
Elliot
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
