Bring It On!

Bush Administration Prefers War To Peace

March 22nd, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |

In an interview with the BBC, former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said that during the Israeli-Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer, Washington did not support any sort of cease fire between the warring parties until Israel eliminated Hezbollah’s military capability. Only once it was cleaer that Israel’s campaign was not going to work did the Bush Administration join efforts to end the conflict.

Bolton went on to say that he was “damned proud of what we did” to prevent an early ceasefire. Damn proud? With over 1000 Lebanese civilians dead in the conflictand the massive destruction of the infrastructure of one of the more democratic countries in the region, Bolton is “damned proud?”

Let’s’ make no mistake. Hezbollah has done many things that put them in the category of ‘terrorist organization.’ But how does supporting a war in which more civilians were killed than combatants make our government (or those of Israel or Britain -who also supported a longer war action?) any less of a terrorist to the civilian population of Lebanon? Frankly, it doesn’t.

War is the nothing more than a failure to resolve issues peacefully. It sometimes can’t be avoided. But to prolong a war in which the brunt is being borne by civilians when a peaceful (albeit temporary) solution could be found is reprehensible. And I don’t think it’s anything to be “damn proud of” at all.

[tag]John+Bolton, BBC, Israel-Hezbollah+conflict, war, middle+east[/tag]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 4 Responses to “Bush Administration Prefers War To Peace”

  2. By SteveIL on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply

    Ken Grandlund said:

    Let’s’ make no mistake. Hezbollah has done many things that put them in the category of ‘terrorist organization.’

    Then Ken Grandlund said:

    War is the nothing more than a failure to resolve issues peacefully. It sometimes can’t be avoided. But to prolong a war in which the brunt is being borne by civilians when a peaceful (albeit temporary) solution could be found is reprehensible. And I don’t think it’s anything to be “damn proud of” at all.

    Why nothing on why Hezbollah started the war?  And, how did the U.S. win the Civil War?  How did the Allies win WWII?  A temporary solution is not a “peaceful” solution, especially since Hezbollah will be back at it again once they believe they are ready.  That isn’t peace. 

  3. By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply

    One could also title this: “Bush Administration Prefers Israeli Victory over Her Enemies Who Started War and Wish Her Annihilated”. Seems to me that that would be the more appropriate headline. It actually describes Bush’s preference.

  4. By christopher Radulich on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply

    One can also call it how to make a shaky democracy even shakier.

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Mar 23, 2007: Bring it On! » Blog Archive » Britain Bombs Iran-Says ‘Kidnapped’ Soldiers Valid Reason For War

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel