Bush is opposed to a Middle East cease fire. Do you agree with him, or disagree?

Question

Please, no Bush-bashers who disagree with everything he does.
So, in other words, if you're an ignorant idiot that can't express your ideas with evidence to back it up, then don't bother answering this question.

I should clarify my question- I am saying that Bush is opposed to a cease fire RIGHT NOW. I know that he would really love to have peace, and would like a cease fire when the time is right. Ok, more answers..

Answer 1

All a cease fire will do is give the TERRORISTS who want to see Israel destroyed time to regroup and re-arm! And a cease fire will be spun by the Isamofacists to be a victory for them and a defeat for Israel.

Israel has every right to wipe Hizbollah off the map.


(Oh, and I also despise the ignorant fools that lurk in Y Answers too!)

Answer 2

I disagree 100%. Killing people is only aggravating the situation worse. What's gonna happen is Hezbollah will gain a ton of fresh recruits after this fighting is all said and done. 90% of the people dieing at the hands of Israel are just innocent civilians stuck in their towns with all the roads and fuel blown up and leaflets stuck to their heads. There's gonna be alot more vengeful people in Lebanon and Hezbollah will ultimately prosper. Cease fire should be immediate and a compromise should be reached by both sides. There should be a mediator and they should not point fingers about who's fault it is and the other childish attitudes that are deconstructive to peace. Hezbollah has a problem with Israel holding Lebanese prisoners indefinetly. Israel should compromise and run trials so that they release the innocent people who are being detained. Hezbollah should release their prisoners and then back off and leave the surrounding area near the border. They should be replaced with the Lebanese military so that they arn't a threat to Israel and overtime further compromises should be made between both Israel and Hezbollah.

Answer 3

I think a cease fire would be useless. What that says is for X number of days we aren't going to shoot at anyone. And who will enforce the cease fire? The UN? And how would they do it? By making soldiers from another country act as human shields? That is stupid! What is needed is a treaty that permenantly stops the shooting. But I don't see that as happening as long as Hezbollah are NOT disarmed.

I don't agree with the level Israel has taken this too but I can understand why they are doing it.

Terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah have been tweaking Israel's nose for a VERY long time. One side can't stop the violence as long as the other side wants it to go on. And frankly I don't think Hamas or Hezbollah have any intentions of quitting. Ergo Israel has no choice but to keep hammering.

Answer 4

I agree with Pres. Bush therefore here is my reasoning. First of all its a self defence action that Isreal is taking and yes they showed a katyush launcher firing from qana and they stated how many they shot, a 150.
A lawyer also spoke about this and stated that the U.N.once recieved a resloution that said that if an armed force is firing from civilian concentration and their enemy shot back and kill those civilians, then that armed force who shot from a civilian location is the one to cary all blame.
Do know who set this as a presidence , thats right it was in Lebanon a few years ago and it involved 2 factions from lebanon shooting at each other.
I wish that people would check the facts before they start throwing arround accusations.This is not to mention that Lebanon is in violation of the UN code 1559. Now since hezbollahs aim sucks and the rockets miss there target is hezbollah morally superior ? Maybe people here and around the world should look at the steps Israel has taken to try to get civilians out of the southern areas ……… what steps did hezbollah take to get Israeli civilians out of the rocket areas? NONE of course, no the idea of hezbollah is to kill as many israeli civilians as possible. Now here is a question for everyone to ponder and you may want to also address this one………. Where is the safest place in Israel?
My answer is anywhere the IDF is since hezbollah just targets civilians …and for all those saying that israel is trying to "terrorize Lebanon into submission" isn’t that pot calling the kettle black? Plus, Lebanon was never a real country. Hezballh obviously had the military strength to take over the country whenever it wanted to. It already ruled the south and could and did commit the country to war when it chose. We can only hope that Lebanon will be survive as a free country, but that requires that Hezballah be squashed. In conclusion: There are always lots of civilian deaths in war, generally far more than military ones, except in the unusual circumstance where BOTH sides are willing to just go out into empty fields and confront each other and confine themselves to that sort of battle. There were certainly far more civilian than military deaths in WWII for example. The same or actually worse proportionately was true in ancient times and everywhere in between. We’ve simply become far more skittish about it, particularly with cable / satellite 24/7 news. Israel is fighting this to keep Hezbollah from raining or being able to rain rockets upon it from a safe haven in Lebanon. It’s been doing that off and on for six years and it’s arsenal has recently been increasing alarmingly both in number, and in range and size. It’s simply intolerable to allow Hezbollah to keep raining rockets into Israel or further building it’s arsenal. Lebanon should have disarmed this state within a state militia dedicated to making Israel unviable as it was required to do un UN 1559, and as other normal states do without any such resolution.

Answer 5

I wish people would get their facts before posting, Bush is NOT opposed to a cease fire!! What do you think C. Rice has been doing the last few days, did you know she works for the president? He's against a cease fire that would do nothing to solve the problem, in other words, he wants a 'lasting' one.

Answer 6

I do not. The day they were calling for a cease fire, Hezbollah launched 120 missisles into Israel. Incidently, that did not make front page news while 50 Lebanese dying did. The Israelites do not use pictures of their dead for political fuel while the other side does. So every time Israel does cease fire, the other side uses it as an advantage. They gave them land back and then Hezbollah attacks them anyway.

Answer 7

Bush is a handpuppet to special interests. He is in so deep with the Israeli lobby and fundi right he could never support a ceasefire, even if he wanted to (that's presuming he can think for himself, and I doubt even the most avid bushlover could provide evidence to support that). Look at anything that Bush pushes, like revoking Clinton's plan to save America's wild areas – Bush turned that on it's head under pressure from several different groups.

On the question of a ceasefire, it is the only option that could prevent the entire region being pulled into this conflict. Israel have killed enough toddlers now, time to calm down.

Answer 8

I agree with President Bush,Israel has the right to defend itself and needs to squash Hezbollah.There can be no peace when surrounded by 200 million Arabs who want to eradicate your country and vow to kill every one of it's citizens.A cease fire will now,will only benefit Hezbollah,and allow them to regroup for further attacks. The Arab nations must except Israel as a sovereign nation or this will continue. P.S. Good question young lady,sorry some people are so mean with their answers,Have a good day.

Answer 9

The US were presented with an opportunity to destroy Hezbollah when they abducted 2 IDF soldiers which triggered the bombing of Hezbollah infrastructure and militia. Pres Bush saw this as a chance to 'cleanse' Lebanon which has allowed Hezbollah to be so deeply entrenched. Calling for an immediate ceasefire would mean aborting the idea of 'A New West Asia' as Condoleeza Rice called it.

The US Administration is too idealistic, delusional even to think that Israel can achieve what America deams about. 'Peace' in Lebanon is inter-dependent on its neighbour Syria; and will unlikely rid itself of Hezbollah or abort ties with Syria - it's not going to happen.

Israel, while waiting for international troops to patrol the Lebanon-Israel border continues on its objective of clearing out Hezbollah presence in the southern sector only. So what is the point to delay the ceasefire call? Hezbollah is nowhere and everywhere - they are a fact of life in Lebanon - Israel or the US cannot wipe them out without a fullscale invasion with massive troop deployments.

Given the likely scenario I cannot agree with the US current position.

Answer 10

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice truly reflects President Bush's position. Her comments on last night's McNeil-Lehrer Report show that The Bush administration is dedicated to peace in the middle east and to continuing friendship with the Lebanese government and the Lebanese people, but that the Hezbollah terrorist organization has to be neutralized for this to happen.

Answer 11

Dear MC,

It is a difficult question. I suspect he is opposed to a cease-fire in the Middle East because Hizbullah will then claim victory (or so Hizbullah itself has said) and possibly be emboldened to seek more kidnappings or related actions. He may also be opposed because he believes that Isreal's actions are what a state should do to defend itself, and could hardly oppose their actions, given our own offensive in Iraq.

I agree with these reasons, and to the extent that Pres. Bush agrees with them, I agree with him. I am not sure that "promoting democracy" is the best way to go about the world, though, depending on how one defines "promoting." So, if Pres. Bush has hopes that a democracy will spring up in Hizbullah territories if Hizbullah is defeated, I must disagree with that idea.

--j.