Middle East conflict

[WCSox]

Considering that the Israeli attack has basically turned that government into a pawn of Hezbollah, probably about 15 seconds.

 

The liberal propaganda machine continues...

 

Yep, because of those evil, Zionist pigs, Lebanon will be controlled by Hezbollah. The Lebanese government was obviously in full control of their nation before the Israeli attacks, as Iran and Syria pushed thousands of rockets and other weapons through their border to arm the illegal Hezbollah militia in the south.

[Rex Kickass]

I really think that this is a situation where most major powers didn't step up fast enough to create a small avenue of opportunity that existed within the first 48 hours of the conflict. I think had a country with enough worldwide clout like the US stepped up quickly and met with Lebanese government officials and Israeli government officials soon enough, a temporary cease fire could have taken place that would have brought the Lebanese government on the side of the Israelis. I'm more and more convinced about that based on what I have heard from analysts in Lebanon. The sentiment seemed to be "we're becoming a democracy, the US will help us." That didn't happen. Not from the US, not from Canada, the UK, Russia or anywhere with any real world wide importance. As a result, you quickly saw opinion in Lebanon shift allegiances behind Hezbollah which to the on the ground observer would probably rather quickly come off as freedom fighters once again - even though that handle is totally false.

 

The only country which took the lead on creating peace in the region here is France, and it took over two weeks to get acceptable language through the UN Security Council - mostly with the hang-ups being on our part.

 

In situations where war breaks out, world leadership should be looking for a way to find a positive outcome that ends in peace. That's world leadership. And sadly, the only ones seeming to want that these days are the French. At least in Lebanon.

[samclemens]

I really think that this is a situation where most major powers didn't step up fast enough to create a small avenue of opportunity that existed within the first 48 hours of the conflict. I think had a country with enough worldwide clout like the US stepped up quickly and met with Lebanese government officials and Israeli government officials soon enough, a temporary cease fire could have taken place that would have brought the Lebanese government on the side of the Israelis. I'm more and more convinced about that based on what I have heard from analysts in Lebanon. The sentiment seemed to be "we're becoming a democracy, the US will help us." That didn't happen. Not from the US, not from Canada, the UK, Russia or anywhere with any real world wide importance. As a result, you quickly saw opinion in Lebanon shift allegiances behind Hezbollah which to the on the ground observer would probably rather quickly come off as freedom fighters once again - even though that handle is totally false.

 

The only country which took the lead on creating peace in the region here is France, and it took over two weeks to get acceptable language through the UN Security Council - mostly with the hang-ups being on our part.

 

In situations where war breaks out, world leadership should be looking for a way to find a positive outcome that ends in peace. That's world leadership. And sadly, the only ones seeming to want that these days are the French. At least in Lebanon.

 

i just dont know what we could have done. any kind of peacekeeping intervention would have been condemned by the world and the left in the US. and what can you say to opposite sides in a (frankly) religion war? both sides have made it known they are not interested in negotiating, period. also, i dont know where you are getting that its the US's fault for the delay in a UN resolution. france is no better than us (cough- oil for food- cough- dealings with an embargoed saddam hussien- cough). and for what it's worth, lebanon has already rejected the UN proposal, along with syria, who is preparing for war with israel.

 

lebanon is at fault for letting a terrorist organization to control areas in the south of it's country. they could have asked for help a long time ago from the world on that one. have you forgotten that hezbollah was the group that bombed the marine barracks in the 80's? not to mention that hezbollah is the provacatuer here. they have made more public statements than i can count that the only way they will agree to a ceasefire is if hundreds of convicted terrorists are released from israeli prisons. thats no solution.

 

the US is the world's policeman, its undeniable, like it or not. but we cant send troops in there to enforce peace in this situation, and neither side is listening. all we can do is sit on the sidelines and complain, like france does in every situation. hence the jointly-written UN resolution with them.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I really think that this is a situation where most major powers didn't step up fast enough to create a small avenue of opportunity that existed within the first 48 hours of the conflict. I think had a country with enough worldwide clout like the US stepped up quickly and met with Lebanese government officials and Israeli government officials soon enough, a temporary cease fire could have taken place that would have brought the Lebanese government on the side of the Israelis. I'm more and more convinced about that based on what I have heard from analysts in Lebanon. The sentiment seemed to be "we're becoming a democracy, the US will help us." That didn't happen. Not from the US, not from Canada, the UK, Russia or anywhere with any real world wide importance. As a result, you quickly saw opinion in Lebanon shift allegiances behind Hezbollah which to the on the ground observer would probably rather quickly come off as freedom fighters once again - even though that handle is totally false.

 

The only country which took the lead on creating peace in the region here is France, and it took over two weeks to get acceptable language through the UN Security Council - mostly with the hang-ups being on our part.

 

In situations where war breaks out, world leadership should be looking for a way to find a positive outcome that ends in peace. That's world leadership. And sadly, the only ones seeming to want that these days are the French. At least in Lebanon.

 

 

You know something. Im getting really tired of hearing about the poor Lebanese government. This "fledgling democracy" sat on its hands and allowed the southern part of its country to become a Hezbollah cesspool and a staging point for attacks on Isreal. If they didn't know then they are incompetent. If they did know purposefully did nothing to stop it then they are complicit. If they did know, couldn't handle the situation themselves and didn't ask for help then they are incompetent.

 

Methinks complicit is the answer, especially when you consider the fact that Hezbollah controls a solid foothold in the government.

[WCSox]

I really think that this is a situation where most major powers didn't step up fast enough to create a small avenue of opportunity that existed within the first 48 hours of the conflict. I think had a country with enough worldwide clout like the US stepped up quickly and met with Lebanese government officials and Israeli government officials soon enough, a temporary cease fire could have taken place that would have brought the Lebanese government on the side of the Israelis. I'm more and more convinced about that based on what I have heard from analysts in Lebanon. The sentiment seemed to be "we're becoming a democracy, the US will help us." That didn't happen.

 

I agree. The U.N. proclaimed that Hezbollah disarm, yet did nothing to enforce it. And the other major democratic powers of the world looked the other way while Iran and Syria armed Hezbollah to the teeth.

 

But of course, the radicals in the region would be calling for the death of the "white devil imperialist pigs" if the U.S. would actively work with the Lebanese government to banish Hezbollah. And outside of the British, nobody in Europe would raise a finger until the situation became an all-out crisis (like now).

 

You know something. Im getting really tired of hearing about the poor Lebanese government. This "fledgling democracy" sat on its hands and allowed the southern part of its country to become a Hezbollah cesspool and a staging point for attacks on Isreal. If they didn't know then they are incompetent. If they did know purposefully did nothing to stop it then they are complicit. If they did know, couldn't handle the situation themselves and didn't ask for help then they are incompetent.

 

Agreed as well. And this is why I'm sick and tired of people blaming Israel for this situation. The Lebanese government is responsible for what goes on inside their borders. If a militia group based in Nuevo Leon began kidnapping American soldiers in southern Texas, our military would (justifiably) go nuts on them. And anybody who tried to bring use the "but the poor Mexican government can't control what's going on there" argument would look downright foolish.

Edited August 6, 2006 by WCSox

[Rex Kickass]

This is so frustrating. I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply trying to say this.

 

Within 48 hours, there was definitely an opportunity in the beginning stages of this conflict to not only keep this situation from spiralling out of control as well as acheiving Israel's goal of disarming Hezbollah. But world powers chose not to exercise diplomatic leadership. This doesn't involve military forces. This doesn't involve assigning blame, or yelling at one country to do something. This simply involves powerful governments in the world to be aware of the goings on within certain hotspots of the world. And that's something that powerful governments in the world chose not to do. It involves talking to both the Lebanese and Israeli governments immediately following the start of such a conflict and working quickly toward a resolution for both sides.

 

Only one government stood up to lead any kind of diplomacy in the region. That was France. However, they don't have the influence in the region that a Russia, US, UK or even China would have. So their initiative ends up in a broadly worded call for a ceasefire that isn't really a ceasefire to begin with because the language is so broad and loose that it basically binds Israel to no terms of ceasefire whatsoever as long as they claim it to be a "defensive action." With that kind of language, its no wonder why Lebanon rejects it out of hand.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is so frustrating. I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply trying to say this.

 

Within 48 hours, there was definitely an opportunity in the beginning stages of this conflict to not only keep this situation from spiralling out of control as well as acheiving Israel's goal of disarming Hezbollah. But world powers chose not to exercise diplomatic leadership. This doesn't involve military forces. This doesn't involve assigning blame, or yelling at one country to do something. This simply involves powerful governments in the world to be aware of the goings on within certain hotspots of the world. And that's something that powerful governments in the world chose not to do. It involves talking to both the Lebanese and Israeli governments immediately following the start of such a conflict and working quickly toward a resolution for both sides.

 

Only one government stood up to lead any kind of diplomacy in the region. That was France. However, they don't have the influence in the region that a Russia, US, UK or even China would have. So their initiative ends up in a broadly worded call for a ceasefire that isn't really a ceasefire to begin with because the language is so broad and loose that it basically binds Israel to no terms of ceasefire whatsoever as long as they claim it to be a "defensive action." With that kind of language, its no wonder why Lebanon rejects it out of hand.

 

I agree. There was a golden opportunity for the US and other powers here, and they chose not to take it. Probably, at least in the case of the US, because they realize that it would take years of commitment - beyond the current term of politicians.

 

I am not sure why samclemens thought that "the left" in the US would be against a peacekeeping operation either - I think they would in fact support it.

[Balta1701]

I agree. There was a golden opportunity for the US and other powers here, and they chose not to take it. Probably, at least in the case of the US, because they realize that it would take years of commitment - beyond the current term of politicians.

 

I am not sure why samclemens thought that "the left" in the US would be against a peacekeeping operation either - I think they would in fact support it.

I doubt there's very many people who would actually oppose a genuine peacekeeping force in that area, I just don't think it's going to be feasible at all. Who out there actually has a few tens of thousand troops available to be sent into this area to actually fight against Hezbollah? And make no mistake, the only way a peacekeeping force is going to work is if it goes in to actually fight and forceably disarm that organization. I just don't see any way that anyone is going to do it, especially now that Hezbollah has been emboldened by the Israeli attack and has gained the full support of the Lebanese government.

[samclemens]

I doubt there's very many people who would actually oppose a genuine peacekeeping force in that area, I just don't think it's going to be feasible at all. Who out there actually has a few tens of thousand troops available to be sent into this area to actually fight against Hezbollah? And make no mistake, the only way a peacekeeping force is going to work is if it goes in to actually fight and forceably disarm that organization. I just don't see any way that anyone is going to do it, especially now that Hezbollah has been emboldened by the Israeli attack and has gained the full support of the Lebanese government.

i totally agree. also, for me, this is why israel has every justification to wipe hezbollah out, and they should continue what they are doing now.

[Balta1701]

i totally agree. also, for me, this is why israel has every justification to wipe hezbollah out, and they should continue what they are doing now.

But the other side of that token is that it's not necessarily possible for Israel to do so. Their attacks have barely made a dent in that organization, they're still firing as many missiles into Israel as they were on day one of this campaign, the Israelis have been unable to push very far at all into Lebanon, and the added support gained by Hezbollah through this campaign, the damage its done to Lebanon's infrastructure, and the added prestige it has brought Hezbollah throughout the Muslim world is going to far offset the loss of a few hundred fighters.

[samclemens]

But the other side of that token is that it's not necessarily possible for Israel to do so. Their attacks have barely made a dent in that organization, they're still firing as many missiles into Israel as they were on day one of this campaign, the Israelis have been unable to push very far at all into Lebanon, and the added support gained by Hezbollah through this campaign, the damage its done to Lebanon's infrastructure, and the added prestige it has brought Hezbollah throughout the Muslim world is going to far offset the loss of a few hundred fighters.

 

well, if you step into israel's shoes, there is no other option for them. and i think they have made more progress than you give them credit for here. hezbollah has been stockpiling these missiles since i was a baby, so its kinda misleading to flatly say that the israeli attacks havent dented hezbollah. i thought that the israeli strikes to sever roads to syria in the last couple of days was a big step. this thing isnt going to happen overnight, and it is impossible to literally kill every hezbollah member, mostly because they hide among the civilian population.

[WCSox]

This is so frustrating. I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply trying to say this.

 

Within 48 hours, there was definitely an opportunity in the beginning stages of this conflict to not only keep this situation from spiralling out of control as well as acheiving Israel's goal of disarming Hezbollah. But world powers chose not to exercise diplomatic leadership. This doesn't involve military forces. This doesn't involve assigning blame, or yelling at one country to do something. This simply involves powerful governments in the world to be aware of the goings on within certain hotspots of the world. And that's something that powerful governments in the world chose not to do. It involves talking to both the Lebanese and Israeli governments immediately following the start of such a conflict and working quickly toward a resolution for both sides.

 

Only one government stood up to lead any kind of diplomacy in the region. That was France. However, they don't have the influence in the region that a Russia, US, UK or even China would have. So their initiative ends up in a broadly worded call for a ceasefire that isn't really a ceasefire to begin with because the language is so broad and loose that it basically binds Israel to no terms of ceasefire whatsoever as long as they claim it to be a "defensive action." With that kind of language, its no wonder why Lebanon rejects it out of hand.

 

I think that we can all agree with this. And, unfortunately, France's actions were too little, too late.

 

But the other side of that token is that it's not necessarily possible for Israel to do so. Their attacks have barely made a dent in that organization, they're still firing as many missiles into Israel as they were on day one of this campaign, the Israelis have been unable to push very far at all into Lebanon, and the added support gained by Hezbollah through this campaign, the damage its done to Lebanon's infrastructure, and the added prestige it has brought Hezbollah throughout the Muslim world is going to far offset the loss of a few hundred fighters.

 

And if Israel sat there with their thumbs up their asses, nobody would even be talking about Iran and Syria supplying weapons to Hezbollah. I don't think that anybody knew the extent to which Hezbollah has been armed, not even the Israeli intelligence that watches this region like hawks. The more popular support in the Arab world for Hezbollah is being offset by increased scrutiny towards Iran and Syria in the rest of the world.

[Balta1701]

Remember all that bluster from Bush, Rice, and so forth about how there couldn't be a cease fire unless the underlying causes of the problem were dealt with? Something's changed.

 

Speaking to reporters today at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., where he is on vacation, Mr. Bush said, “Everyone wants the violence to stop.’’

 

“People understand that there needs to be a cessation of hostilities in order for us to address the root causes of the problem,’’ he said.

[kapkomet]

SOMEONE gets it. Right freakin' dead on, Mr. Pollard. I wish our media had the balls to write this.

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2302757,00.html

 

How China's secret deals are fuelling war

Stephen Pollard

 

As Israel and Hezbollah exchange bombs and missiles, oil-hungry Beijing plays out its sinister strategy

 

THE STORY behind the story in the Middle East today is the proxy war, as Israel, on behalf of the US, takes on Hezbollah, which fights on behalf of Iran and Syria. Indeed, one can widen it further and describe the participants as proxies for the West versus militant Islam.

 

This analysis of the conflict sometimes mentions, in passing, Russia’s declining influence. But there is another player that has somehow received almost no coverage.

 

For decades China has been building up influence in the Middle East. It suits China’s strategy well that coverage has been almost non-existent. As Deng Xiaoping once put it, China must “hide brightness and nourish obscurity . . . to bide our time and build up our capabilities”. As China develops into the role of global power, its influence on the region is no longer obscure; it cannot now be ignored.

 

The original postwar Middle East proxies were the US and the Soviet Union. Washington supporting Israel and the Kremlin sponsoring enemy regimes and their terrorist offshoots. But the Sino-Soviet split, which began in the 1960s, meant a lifting of the constraint on China getting involved, and it soon began to develop ties to countries that were not under Soviet influence, such as Egypt under Sadat.

 

A brilliant analysis of China’s role by Barry Rubin, in the Middle East Review of International Affairs, describes China’s first steps thus: “As hope for global revolution faded and Beijing switched its partners from tiny opposition groups to governments, China now projected itself as leader of the Third World, struggling against the hegemony of the two superpowers, the USSR and the United States. Lacking the strength and level of development of other great powers, China would try to make itself the head of a massive coalition of the weaker states.” That meant, in the Middle East, Israel’s enemies.

 

Today countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan — all key states in the region — have strong ties to China, which they are all likely to see as a counterbalance to American power in the Middle East and beyond.

 

As President Jiang Zemin put it in 1994, US “hegemony” should be opposed, in part by helping countries such as Iran, which were already fighting that battle. But China’s strategy dovetailed geopolitics with economic necessity. Without access to oil markets, China had to fuel economic expansion by turning to more neglected suppliers, such as Iran, Iraq and Sudan. And with a growing consumption of Gulf oil, so China has had to direct its security policy towards ensuring that the US will not be able to interfere with the flow of oil. This means developing ever stronger political and strategic relationships with oil exporters.

 

Jiang’s state visit in 1999 to Saudi Arabia cemented what he termed a “strategic oil partnership”. In 1996 Saudi exported 60,000 barrels per day to China. By 2000 exports stood 350,000 bpd (17 per cent of Beijing’s oil imports). Iranian oil exports rose even faster, from 20,000 bpd in 1995 to 200,000 bpd in 2000.

 

The Middle East is now China’s fourth largest trading partner. But its trade is hardly traditional. As Rubin puts it: “Being so late in entering the region — and having less to offer in economic or technology terms than the United States, Russia, Japan, and Europe — China must go after marginal or risky markets . . . supplying customers no one else will service with goods no one else will sell them.” What that means, of course, is arms.

 

In the war-by-proxy analysis, Iran is rightly said to be the power and arms supplier behind Hezbollah. But the issue of where Iran’s arms come from has been ignored. China has sold Iran tanks, planes, artillery, cruise, anti-tank, surface-to-surface and anti-aircraft missiles as well as ships and mines. It is also Iran’s main supplier of unconventional arms and is thought by almost all monitors to be illicitly involved in supplying key elements in Iran’s chemical and nuclear weapons programme. This is despite China being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

 

China has sold nuclear reactors to Algeria, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and Chinese nuclear weapons designs were found in Libya. It has also negotiated with Syria on the sale of M11 ballistic missiles. China is one of the few global suppliers of ballistic missiles. and can charge a heavy price. It demanded of the Saudis, for instance, to whom it sold CSS2 missiles, payment in cash, ensuring both the cementing of a key strategic relationship and total deniability of the sale.

 

Both nations have kept the relationship as secret as possible, but one expert, Robert Mullins, estimates that at least 1,000 Chinese military advisers have been based at Saudi missile installations since the mid-1990s. Such secret deals are handled by Polytechnologies Incorporated, a defence firm controlled by the People’s Liberation Army, which both installs weapons and trains handlers.

 

But like all the most successful illicit traders, China is ideologically profligate in its relations. Keen to supply weapons to Israel’s enemies in return for oil, it is equally happy to trade with Israel in return for its technology. As Benjamin Netanyahu put it to the Chinese when, as Prime Minister, he championed an Israeli investment in China: “Israeli knowhow is more valuable than Arab oil.” The estimates are that there has been between $1 billion and $3 billion of arms trade between China and Israel. But in this case the flow of arms and weapons technology has been from Israel to China.

 

In the immediate analysis of the present conflict, it is clearly Iran and Syria that, as President Bush put it, should “stop doing this s***”. But any deeper explanation of the realpolitik of the Middle East has to include the insidious role of the Chinese, the 21st century’s next superpower.

 

 

Stephen Pollard is a senior Fellow at the Centre for the New Europe, Brussels.

[Cknolls]

DEBKAfile’s military sources disclose: Hizballah’s rocket offensive against Israel is orchestrated from a rear command located in the Syrian town of Anjar

 

August 7, 2006, 12:41 PM (GMT+02:00)

 

While Israeli officials keep on insisting that Syria must be kept out of the conflict, the fact is that the Assad regime is already in it up to their ears – with a leading role in the Hizballah rocket attacks on northern Israel.

 

The command which coordinates the pace of those attacks is located at the Anjar base of the Syrian Army’s 10th Division opposite the Lebanese town of Az Zabdani. It is manned by Iranian and Hizballah officers, who take their orders from a Syrian military intelligence center in Damascus to which Iranian Revolutionary Guards intelligence officers are attached. It is headed by a general from one of Syria’s surface missile brigades. This joint command is provided with the most up-to-date intelligence and electronic data available to Syria on targets in Israel and IDF movements. The timing and tempo of Hizballah rocket strikes are set according to that information.

 

To keep the rockets coming without interruption, the joint Hizballah-Syrian-Iranian command is also responsible with keeping Hizballah supplied with an inflow of rockets and launchers. They use smuggling rings to slip the supplies into Lebanon by mule and donkey which ply the 5,000-7,000 feet mountain paths that straddle the Syrian-Lebanese frontier.

 

A senior Israeli officer told DEBKAfile: We can go on bombing Lebanon for many weeks, but that will not stop the rockets

[Cknolls]

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1196

 

With Muggy in the house, don't expect peace anytime soon. One tough SOB.

[samclemens]

transcript of CNN reporter's experiences in the conflict.

 

"They've not tried to stop us filming other events while we're in the field, but they have, on several occasions, threatened reporters here in Tyre, south Lebanon. From the location where we're standing right now, we've been able to see, today and on other days, outgoing Katyusha rockets. And on more than one occasion people from Hezbollah have come and said, "Do not film the locations of these rockets when they're being launched."

 

At one time, when we were talking and having a conversation with this Hezbollah representative, he said, "Look, we're serious, we will kill you if you film these outgoing rockets." So it is a threat, but when we've been out in the field, we've not had situations where they told us to stop filming."

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/06/rs.01.html

[Balta1701]

The U.N. has suspended aid shipments to the civilians remaining in Southern Lebanon. Israel has blown up the last bridge crossing over the Litani River, and has distributed pamphlets saying that anyone who drives in a car south of that river is a target.

[samclemens]

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060809/...RANIANS-DC.html

 

iranian revolutionary guards found among hezbollah guerrillas killed by israeli soldiers.

 

this conflict has now officially turned into the spanish civil war of the 1930's- we now even have iranian soldiers fighting on the side of islamic facist fundamentalism, just as nazi soldiers fought on the side of franco's facists. how long before history repeats itself? time to kick some ass, israel. pre-emption is the key.

Edited August 10, 2006 by samclemens

[southsider2k5]

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060809/...RANIANS-DC.html

 

iranian revolutionary guards found among hezbollah guerrillas killed by israeli soldiers.

 

this conflict has now officially turned into the spanish civil war of the 1930's- we now even have iranian soldiers fighting on the side of islamic facist fundamentalism, just as nazi soldiers fought on the side of franco's facists. how long before history repeats itself? time to kick some ass, israel. pre-emption is the key.

 

Wow, I can't believe they actually had their own people out there with them. Geesh.

[kapkomet]

Wow, I can't believe they actually had their own people out there with them. Geesh.

Doesn't surprise me at all.

 

Doesn't everyone see this? Remember, this was initiated by Hezbos - and under the direct order from Iran, in my opinion. This was to test Isreal's resolve as well as to see what their conventional weapon arsenal currently is so that Iran can plan its attack accordingly.

 

Everyone keeps saying it won't happen, but remember, this nutcase wanker from Iran has committed to the world ending within three years now. And I, for one, think he's serious. Isreal is to be destroyed in that three year period, so the time is getting closer to all out war.

[Balta1701]

UN Deal reached

 

France and the United States reached agreement on Friday on a draft resolution aimed at halting the bloodshed in Lebanon and Israel, British Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett said.

 

"We have an agreed text," Beckett told a small group of reporters. She said the full U.N. Security Council would receive the draft later in hopes of a vote on Friday.

 

Israel and Lebanon have now received the draft but Beckett said sponsors of the draft would push ahead for a vote in the 15-nation Security Council, regardless of their response, following days of consultations with both governments.

 

Israel, unhappy with U.N. Deal, launches larger offensive

 

Israel began an expanded ground offensive today in southern Lebanon after expressing dissatisfaction over an emerging cease-fire deal, government officials said.

 

The officials added, however, that the offensive could be called off quickly if Israel's basic demands are met when the U.N. Security Council votes on a proposed cease-fire arrangement later in the day.

[southsider2k5]

So far, so good for cease fire.

[EvilMonkey]

So far, so good for cease fire.

What's the over/under?

[NorthSideSox72]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&...o_pr_wh/bush_14

 

Its amazing to me how angry this embarrassment of a leader makes me. And even more so as time goes on.

 

I agree that Hezbollah represented nothing positive, that it was backed by Iran and maybe Syria, and that something needed to be done about it. He's right about all that.

 

But is he on crack when he says he thinks Hezbollah was defeated? I mean seriously. Aside from the fact that they clearly are still around and in action, he also clearly has missed the whole point. He is making this out to be some victory in the war on terror. But in reality, Hezbollah did exactly what it set out to do - foment further anger against the west, draw more of the Middle East against them, make Israel look like butchers, and prevent democracy in Lebanon.

 

Hezbollah won. We may not like that fact, but its fact nonetheless.

 

I'd really like to see our leaders look past this, and move on to real peace. A robust international force allowing for the building AND KEEPING INTACT of a democratic Lebanon would be a good start. But there is so much more to do.

 

So frustrating. The war on terror has always had three fronts - defense at home, pursuit and destruction of terror and infrastructure abroad, and psychological/political determination of cause and movement towards peace. Our efforts at home have had successes and failures. Our military campaigns have been poorly managed, and we couldn't even pick the right countries to fight. And there has been a complete and intentional ignorance of the political and cultural realities that create the anger. That is the biggest tragedy.

 

((*#&(*&$)(*&)$*&^)%&$*(&*(&$)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Dude makes me want to destroy things. So angry.