Bush: "Every nation has the right to defend itself against terrorism". Should we help Lebanon defend itself?

Question

Nobody is more terrorized right now then millions of Lebanese.
Hundreds killed, thousands injured, one-fifth homeless. Does it matter to them that Israel has "good intentions of eliminating Hezbollah"?

Answer 1

I think this latest round of fighting in Lebanon brings questions about whether America and Israel have achieved such a high level of civilization that we cannot do what is necessary to win wars against stateless terrorist foes. Some other questions - harsher ones - also deserve to be asked:

Is the impulse to fault America and Israel for failing to achieve a pristine standard of civilized conduct in war, always rooted in deep humanitarian concerns? Or, are many of those who are quick to point fingers doing so, actually seeking to blame America and Israel for choosing to use military means to defend themselves and defeat a conscienceless and evil enemy?

Is the impulse to publicize, dwell on and make a lascivious show of disgust for a few horrible-but-isolated war crimes and prison incidents based in the liberal-democratic principle that the individual is paramount and every life has meaning? Or are those who do so themselves actually themselves guilty of moral preening?

Are such people, in fact, just crying crocodile tears for the victims and for the reputations of their countries to hide the strictly partisan nature of their opposition, either to the underlying war policy or to the party affiliation of those designing and implementing the policy?

Do they actually oppose this administration and Israel's government for reasons having nothing to do with the war - say, the administration's view of gay marriage or the Israeli government's attack on socialist economics? Have they allowed their views of the matters about which they care more than the war to distort their vision and see the worst in everything done by governments they do not agree with?

Would many of those who approvingly quote and cite the prewar claims that America needed several hundred thousand more military personnel in Iraq as justification for their view that we are losing or have lost the war be standing at the ready to defend the size of those deployments against those who would have said we were using too heavy a hand in Iraq?

Are those in America who compare Iraq to Vietnam and Israel's 2006 Lebanon incursions to the 1982 Lebanon incursions doing so because they fear their nation's defeat and humiliation - or because they are longing to experience or relive the thrill of being part of an anti-war movement?

Is the oft-expressed concern that America was attacked because it cast too intimidating a shadow an honest one? Or do those who say so hold an essentially solipsistic and narcissistic view of the world, according to which America is to blame for the hostile acts and actions taken against it? Is the sole problem we face that we are fighting against an unscrupulous enemy using insufficient means - or is that problem compounded by the fact that we cannot see our way clear to fighting this war decisively to victory, in part due to disingenuous, partisan and fundamentally un-serious domestic criticisms?

Indeed the conundrum is how to fight and win, while at the same time strive for that higher sense of civil freedom.
I think you must do the winning first or there is no chance of the second.

Yours: Grumpy

Answer 2

Lebanon should have evicted Hezbollah a long time ago but either didn't or couldn't.

In my opinion the target should remain Hezbollah, not Lebanon but I think the Israelis are listing the Lebanese as collaborators for allowing them to control a huge part of their country for so long.

Anyone who is only looking at recent events in this region is blind to the truth of the depth of this conflict. One needs to look at the history of the middle east region over the last several thousand years to have a true understanding.

There are deep rooted wounds and hatred on ALL sides. There is no resolution until the return of Jesus.

Answer 3

That is his pretext for aggressive war.... What Israel is doing is wrong... but that is the Bush plan...Next Syria and Iran

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders, that is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
Hermann Goering
(Nazi planner)

pinkstealth: You are so %10000 wrong! Bomb and let the chips fall where they may? They are killing women and children by the hundreds...You have no problem with that? Hezbollah is not Lebanon and the Lebanese who are on the whole against Hezbollah are paying for the kidnapping of two soldiers with their lives....You are misinformed dear...Hezbollah should be eradicated perhaps, but innocents must not be killed to do it

Answer 4

Your missing the point. Israel is not a terriost group. They've been attacked routinely for years. They waited two and a half years for the UN to disarm Hezbollah. The UN's inaction coupled with Hezbollah taking Israeli soldiers is what is forcing Israel to defend itself. Study the actual facts and you'll get a better grasp of the situation then you have now.

Answer 5

Hezbollah and lebanon are one and the same. Lebanon attacked Israel first and continues to attack them. Israel has offered repeatedly to a cease fire if only Lebanon stops attacking them. Lebanon's response is to chant "Death to America", "Death to Israel" and to say in no uncertain terms that they will not stop until every jew in Israel is dead.

Further, 100% of the civilian casualities have been caused by Hezbollah holding civilians at their rocket sites at gunpoint. Many if not most of those civilians have actually been killed by Hezbollah as they tried to flee.

But, you know all of that already. Your sole reason for making this post is to support genocide against the jews and support terrorists.

Shame on you. What kinda of monster are you?

Answer 6

Bush is full of crap. He doesn't mean that at all. When he says "Every nation has the right to defend itself against terrorism" He really means "The US has the right to bully any nation that has lots of oil, is unfriendly to us, and might hold out from us".

I know someone might defend him by saying that the reason Bush went to war against Iraq and would not against the people terrorising the Lebanonese (uh... Israel) is because Bush thought (or said to defend his purposes but really knew better) that Iraq was behind the twin tower terrorism. So we were defending OURSELVES. But that's crap, he used it as an excuse to go in there.

Answer 7

I agree that the deaths of so many innocent people is a horrible thing. But is Israel simply supposed to put up with terrorist actions within their country? They are reacting to a terrorist group that stations themselves among civilians....i happen to think they did that on purpose, just so if a nation (like Israel) happens to attempt to make a come back, there will be controversy about it. So should Israel simply ignore the fact that they were infringed upon? If America was attacked by terrorists, we'd do something about it too. In fact, we did.

Answer 8

NO but we should help Israel defend itself against the terrorism group in Lebanon. I say give Israel the means to kill/disable all terrorism and those that back them.

Answer 9

I guess that doesn't include Iraq, where Bush has illegally and unconstitutionally invaded another sovereign nation all because he had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, and Dick Cheney wants all the OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands.
While Bush originally claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he then changed his story to say that he wanted to bring democracy to Iraq.
Duh....I'll bet most Iraqis call it terrorism, plain and simple.

PREDICTIONS: Bush will settle our differences with N. Korea diplomatically because N. Korea has no OIL, so it's not worth sending in troops to be killed.

As soon as he can figure out a plausible reason that most of his flock will believe, Bush WILL invade Iran because Iran has OIL floating underneath all that sand. And OIL is worth killing a few thousand innocent civilians and risking the lives of U.S. soldiers so that Cheney and his Exxon-Mobil buddies can get richer and richer and richer.

Finally, I predict that if it looks like the Republicans aren't going to win in 2008 (and stealing a third election isn't realistic), Bush will invent another terrorist attack on American soil so that he can impose martial law, claiming that a change in administration would not be in the best interests of national security.

Should we help Lebanon defend itself? Bush will, if there's any OIL to be had. If we truly are invading countries to bring them democracy, than why don't we invade every little dictatorship in the world ruled by every pipsqueak despot? Because most of those little dictatorships have no OIL, so therefore we have no interest in stopping the genocide, rape, and plunder that goes on in those countries. Our only interest is financial, not at all ideological.
___________________________________________________
Check out the new blog: BUSHWACKER!
www.blogger.com
http://al-aback.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are tyrants. They deserve to be tried by an international tribunal for crimes against humanity and - if convicted - should face a public firing squad. -RKO-

Answer 10

the Lebanese people and government supported and encouraged Hezbollah's existence in Lebanon. The Lebanese people must now learn that there are consequences to their actions. The Lebanese government will think twice before coddling terrorists.