Do you agree with the priorities exhibited in the following excerpts taken from a web news source today?

Question

The two below paragraphs are datelined Washington. Please elaborate if you are informed and have seen footage of the region.


President Bush called Monday for an effective international force in Lebanon to ensure Hezbollah doesn't re-arm and "wreak havoc in the region."

About 3,000 Lebanese troops and a handful of international troops -- the first in a force of 15,000 -- have moved into southern Lebanon to ensure Hezbollah does not launch rockets into Israel.

Sami V, I agree on your first two points. It has been apparent for months that the U.S. has no interest. I, however, conjecture that calling a three country war by a world cultural designation is part of the "problem." Mr. President Bush believes that Iran and Iraq are contributing. On the third disarmament to Israel, Syria, and Lebonon seems to be a potential economic disaster to which perhaps pre WWII Germany could be likened. These are war nations. Israel has a WWII mentality. One, then three of its soldiers snatched is as though pogrom.

Mull...Your statement is one that has gone into the next county and back several times. Strength and choice are not germaine.

Hezbollah has the resources and correct motivation to be the better stabilizer.

jsl81, I'm not sure if you are joking and playing contrary or if you mean what you state. Getting rid of people sounds like a great idea. Guerilla is not terrorist. Natives know their ground.

Answer 1

First off 3000 Lebanese troops is a joke, when their own leadership won't even get rid of the terrorist group hezbollah what use are they, they are only there for show. And as for the handfull of international troops that ha ha, what was it 41 or 49 french troops showed up in lebenanon what kind of show of force is that? I didn't even realize the french still had a military. Also the other countries that wanted to "help out" were countries that had no diplomatic ties with Israel, and their main relion was muslim, I am surprised that the UN agreed with Israel on that Its a shame that Israel has been pushed around so much and I believe that they will finally say its time that we stopped turning our cheek to this constant harassment and stop these genocidal, hitler modeling maniacs and then they will, as tom green says "unleash the furry" that islrael has bottled up for so long. I just hope our country is not so far gone (meaning left aka towards the UN mind set) that we are getting negatively impacted

Answer 2

The Lebanon forces have ignored Hezbollah for years & the UN troops know they will not be effective, the President can only call for an"effective" international force since the UN took control.
This will become a full war again with ineternational troops caught in middle. Hezbollah is stronger than Lebanon forces & that is what Lebanon has chosen.

Answer 3

I may agree that an international force can stop Hezbollah's abiity to launch missles, and inhibit Hezbollah's ability to rearm to a degree (for example the bulkier, easy to spot long range missiles and launchers), but no one, including the Israelis, the Lebanese or an international force, is going to be able to disarm them.

Answer 4

No, it does not seem to be an ideal solution to the problems in the Middle East. The priorities should be in this order: First, US should withdraw all its forces from the region; Two: US should stop supplying arms to Israel; Three: Israel as well as other warring parties should disarm themselves; Four: Israel should withdraw from all occupied areas of Palestine; Five: Israel should behave itself as it is a 'guest' in the region!!!