Dear Member,

This does not make sense. Israel has a robust defense industry that produces their own bombs including guided one. They are operating in a non-electronic threat over Lebanon and they have a very cheap IR kit that turns any bomb into a guided one. The only weapons that the US is speeding up delivery of that Israel can not produce is the bunker buster deep pentration bomb the GBU-28. And they don’t need that 5000 lb monster for Lebanon.

Also, I watching the news reports on the land incursions into Lebanon by the IDF armored units. They are not being serious about these incursions. No serious numbers, etc.

I think another shoe is going to drop soon. And it won’t be Lebanon. Syria? Iran? Or both?

Jack E. Hammond

Israel only can afford such aggressive behavior because it is backed by the US. Without the big mother in the background Israelis would start creamsh!tting in their pants after just hearing the word Iran, not speaking about attacking their facilities..

Giving such power, which is absolutely disproportional to the population and meaning, to someone as aggressive and arrogant as Israelis is a far bigger political damage than some Iranian nuclear installations (of which military nature nobody has any proofs, whatsoever)..

Dear Member,

Everyone likes to talk about how Israel can only do what it does because of the US support. Have you ever thought what would happen if the US withdrew all support? There is an old old saying “Becareful of what you wish for.” I think the Arab world and Iran would find it totally different results that what they believe would be the results.

Jack E. Hammond

Folks,

A lot of people like to quote the Geneva Convention 1949 (IMHO a very huge error because it eliminated “reciprocity” which states you do it to us we can do it back to you and without limits and that those that state they are not bound by the GC 1949 can expect not to appeal to it. Or as the mobster in the Sappranos told one of his underlings: If you can quote the rules you can obey the rules.

But for the record. This is two very important parts of the GC 1949 that are ignored by those all upset by Israelis actions:

* “Those in control of territory must endeavor to remove the civilian
population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from
the vicinity of military objects; Avoid locating military objectives within or
near densely populated areas; Take the other necessary precautions to protect
civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their
control against the dangers resulting from military operations.” (Article 58
of the Protocal Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed
Conflicts, Geneva Convention on Warfare 1949)

* The Fourth Geneva Convention convicts Hezbollah in one
sentence. That sentence makes up the entirety of Part 3, Article 1, Section
28. It reads: “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render
certain points or areas immune from military operations.”

Also, after the American Civil War the Southern states set up state governments and wrote new constitutions that basically put the exBlack slaves in almost a slave like status. The US government took over those states with a military occupation. The whites in those states howeled at the injustice of it and the new order of things in the South when it lost the Civil War. The hero of the famous battle of Gettysburg, then a state governor wrote it best:

“This is so little in the spirit of surrender as to seem like mockery of
triumph. If steps were taken to curb them, they had only themselves to
blame. War is not a game where there is everything to win and nothing to
loose. Those who appeal to the law of force should not complain if the
decision is final.” (Joshua L. Chamberlain as governor of Maine when the
defeated South yelped about the purposed 13th and 14th Amendment to the
Constitution and wanted to return to the STAUS QUO).

Jack E. Hammond

Sens,

If its not your problem why are contesting everything like a bull? Also why are you so selective in your appraisal of facts. Violations in the nuclear field can be by both supplier and reciever. But I guess its OK because the reciever was Israel.

Talking about the UN how many of the scores of UN resolutions has Israel ever implented. I guess none so far. Now they are very adamant about the latest being implemented (Un 1539 or so) it suits them.

This distruction of Lebanon being passed of as “Collateral damage” is pure trash. It is intentional and pure evil.

Ofcourse Lebanon is “not doing enough”. Now where I have heard that before repeatedly? Another lame duck excuse to carry out an evil propaganda to justify attacks on civilians and destruction of their infrastructure.

A.A. Sharif

Dear Member,

In early 1982 the Moslem Brotherhood (heard of them) had control of the Syrian city of Hamah. From that city they sent out teams to kill President Assads family and the Moslem sect he belonged to. As result Assad had his army surround that city, allow no one to leave or enter that city, and for one week he pounded that city with ever 152mm piece of artillery in his army. Expended almost all the ammunition they had for the 152mm caliber. The low estimate was that 20,000 were killed. The high is 50,000. The Moslem Brotherhood never bothered Assad or his son or his family or his tribe or his religious sect.

In 1986 the Syrian Army decided on a final solution of the problem of Beirut and the Christian militias. In one month of war they totally destroyed one half of that city. Totally. The worst destruction that Beirut ever suffered (even today was then).

In 1998 the Turkish government said enough was enough, watching TV news shows of the leader of the Kurdish PKK movement. Not only was the PKK targeting soldiers and police in southern Turkey but teachers and doctors. Turkey amassed six divisions on the Turkish Syrian border. They ordered every 8 inch/203mm self propelled howitzer (only a few nations have these artillery pieces and they are destroyers firing a much heavier HE shell than the standard 155mm/152mm of today) sent to those six divisions. They they told Syria they wanted no more problems with the PKK. The made it clear they would not be effected by Syrian soldiers using cities and shields. That is what they brought the 8 inch SP with them for. They Syrian government expelled all members of the PKK from Syrian including its leader.

Why am I giving you this history lesson? Well, because for what ever reason the Moslem world (much less the Arab Street) did not say a word or raise a protests. Not one word or letter. Why not? Why then the upset in the Moslem World over what is happening in Lebanon? It is nothing compared to the three examples. Also it does not even come close to what happened in Algeria the last ten years.

Jack E. Hammond

I lay the blame firmly and squarely at the feet of Mr Bush senior and his CIA cronies who thought it wise to support Islamic extremists and terryists for their own ends in the protection of their own oil interests in the middle east in support of their own puppet dictator despot the Shah of Iran and later against their perceived enemy the USSR.

When I look at the WMD issue, I always ask myself, when the US sold these weapons and weapons technology to Sadman Insane just whom did the US think it would have been okay for him to have used them against, The US ally Iran, Iraqs own people or the possibly the US backed Islamic extremists that were taking over Iran and Afganistan. Who ?

Of course these elements were in place and will remain in place no matter what we do or the CIA did, but it is the sudden increase in the growing throngs that is the current danger that threatens to tip the balance.

When a kid can grow up in the middle of a western society and still be brainwashed into a suicide bomber due to fundamentalism, then we had better sit up and find the true root cause and pretty damn quick.

Being intolerant by claiming the other side does not recognise the notion of tolerance just further fuels the inferno.

IMHO.

Dear Member,

What weapons or WMD did the US supply Saddam’s Iraq? I have heard this over and over but never no proof. The closes I have heard was Volvo (a division of US GM) of Sweden supplied some semi-trailer trucks that were converted into missile launching vehicles. But any semi can be converted.

As to the claim about the Shah of Iran the CIA coup. When that happened the PM had basically in laa-land and had lost all support. Either the powerful Iranians communists party (and even the Great Imman K admits they were powerful) or the Royal Iranian Army was going to take over the country. The US had to pick one side. And many forget that in 1979 when the generals of the Imperial Iranian Army were at last going to move on the Iranian students and the Imperial Iranian Air Force technical school officers with tanks (I guarantee you that a 120mm canister round can take care of that problem fast) it was a US general who went to them and told them that the US would break diplomatic relations with Iran if it stayed in power that way — and almost all those generals died on the roofs of Terhran. And for the record they total number of exectutions by the Shah for non criminal offenses is estimated at 300 during his whole rule. Imman K could kill that many in a day without breaking a sweat.

Jack E. Hammond

About 95% of the world has no fear of Israel ever using nuclear weapons. The vast majority knows how imbalanced Iran and the rest of the region’s fringe radicals are about “the occupation” which is why the two circumstances are no comparable.

One low-yield bomb is all it would take to wipe Israel completely off the map, and I’m fairly confident that the proponents of such an act would be more than willing to absorb whatever backlash was dealt by the world community in response to that act – as long as there was no more Israel left after the fact.

This is why Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Middle Eastern countries propping up extremist aggressors are not seen as trustworthy powers in the nuclear race. The very religion they base their collective philosophy on overtly urges them to manipulate, cheat, and lie if neccessary to see that Allah’s will is done. Yet another reason why arguments from Muslim extremists ridiculing the West for not exercising those same virtues is so laughable, and rings so completely hollow in public debate. How could anyone justify giving a loaded gun to a culture that prides itself on being “righteously untrustworthy”?

Dear Member,

I know you will find this hard to believe. But the US would actually be doing the whole Moslem world a favor in stopping Iran from acquring nuclear weapons. The reason is not the use of or the threat of us against the US but in the future against Russia or China (which both countries have a serious Moslem problem) or worst Israel. The president of Iran before the reform president made a comment that if Iran could destroy Tel Aviv (where about 75% of Israelis population is located) yes Iran and maybe other Arab nations would loose a city or two. But Israel could not recover from such a nuclear strike — and he is right. Then why would it be a favor to stop Iran to the Moslem world: Israel has what it calls the Massada Option. It is well known to most governments. It is basically if the Jewish state of Israel is in its death throwes or is destroyed what ever nuclear strike ability Israel has will be directed at destroying two Arab cities. Neither are large cities or industrial cities or of any commercial value. I will leave to you to determine which cities would see “the Sun Come to the Earth” as the Japanese say.

Jack E. Hammond

Golda Meir summed it all up, “When they (Muslims) love their children more than they hate us (Jews) then we will have peace.”

…..and they have no problem strapping bombs to their kids.

Israel pulled out of Southern Lebanon and they pulled out of the Gaza Strip, they pulled their own people out of several West Bank settlements against their will. Land for peace that was the deal. The corrupt Arafat/Palestinian Authority took millions of dollars that were supposed to develop Gaza and the Arab West Bank and told everybody to blame the Jews.

Victor Hanson a famous classical Greek historian and others books on history has issued a scathing column in the Chicago Tribune which basically states it is a waste of time of trying to understand the Moslem world when it comes to democracy, human rights, Israel and terrorism. The US tried that since 1979 with the Iranian Hostage Crisis (Clinton even issued an aplogy over the CIA 1953 plot and got spit in his face) and it is a failure. The Moslem world for better or worst on those subjects has adopted the mindset of the South just before the Civil War. Everything is honor bound and a victim mindset. His solution. Treat the Moslem world on those subjects as we did Germany and Japan in WW2. Don’t worry no more about a so called “understanding” and “Hearts and Minds”. It is a waste of time. Instead return to the old ways that the world has delt with the Moslem world since the 1800s. That policy worked.

Does anyone agree with Mr Hanson? Is the outlook that bleak?

Jack E. Hammond

Yet for all their threats, what the Islamists–from Hezbollah in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley to the Iranian government in Tehran to the jihadists in Iraq’s Sunni Triangle–don’t understand is that they are slowly pushing tired Westerners into a corner. If diplomacy, or aid, or support for democracy, or multiculturalism, or withdrawal from contested lands does not satisfy radical Islamists, what would?

Perhaps nothing.

What then would be the new Western approach to terrorism? Hard and quick retaliation–but without our past concern for nation-building, or offering a democratic alternative to theocracy and autocracy, or even worrying about whether other Muslims are unfairly lumped in with Islamists who operate freely in their midst.

Any new policy of retaliation–in light of Sept. 11, 2001, and the messy efforts to birth democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the West Bank–would be something of an exasperated return to the old cruise-missile payback. Yet in the new world of Iranian nukes and Hezbollah missiles, the West would hit back with something far greater than a cruise missile.

If they are not careful, a Syria or Iran really will earn a conventional war–not more futile diplomacy or limited responses to terrorism. And history shows that massive attacks from the air are something that the West does well.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-06072103…pinioncommentary-hed

“While there are many things we can do in the field of information warfare and cultural diplomacy, our main task is to contain the expansionist drive within the Islamist movement. As history has shown again and again, when
totalitarian movements are contained they tend to implode. The radical Islamist worldview can offer nothing to fellow Moslims except promises of renewed glory. Its decline and ultimate demise will not be the result of some hearts and minds campagin or a more balanced policy in the Middle East. It will be brought about by a steadfast United States with a tough policy
that does not bend to intimidation, or allow the facilitators of violence in the Western intelligentsia to minimize the Islamist outrages and and endemic brutality.” (by Colonel Norvell B. DeAtkine in ARMY/January 2006 in an article titled `Islam, Islamism and Terrorism”. Colonel DeAtkine is a US Army Foreign Area Specialists in Moslem nations and has lived in the Middle
Eest for 8 years and toured and study the Middle East for 15 years after)