War in The Middle East

[D3ADSY]

Re: War in The Middle East

So the IDF retreats from Bint Jbail, the place where they suffered a dozen dead and dozens more wounded, the place they reported they had "secured" for every day for a whole week, the place they claimed they killed "hundreds" of hezbollah.
Now they want to finish off this conflict, the very conflict they claimed would go on until their job was finished, they want to finish it off just as Hezbollah starts firing further and with missiles that pack a bigger punch. What have they achieved other than the destruction of whole city blocks and infrastructure?
This whole thing has been a disaster for Israel, even they know it.

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

So the IDF retreats from Bint Jbail, the place where they suffered a dozen dead and dozens more wounded, the place they reported they had "secured" for every day for a whole week, the place they claimed they killed "hundreds" of hezbollah.
Now they want to finish off this conflict, the very conflict they claimed would go on until their job was finished, they want to finish it off just as Hezbollah starts firing further and with missiles that pack a bigger punch. What have they achieved other than the destruction of whole city blocks and infrastructure?
This whole thing has been a disaster for Israel, even they know it.

That's what happens when you are in bed with the twins of arrogance and hubris. Sadly, hundreds have died and mostly all civilians and close to a million displaced. Way to go Israel! This recent retreat only shows the weakness of conventional armies against unconventional insurgents that are not afraid to take losses.

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

This is the most complete article I have seen that encapsulates and summarizes neatly the recent activities in the Middle East to give a glimpse of the bigger picture and geopolitical situation of the region. If you follow the link, he actually links alot to other sources to confirm alot of the things stated herein.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/hirsch1.html

Who Benefits from the Israel-Lebanon Flare-Up?

by Jorge Hirsch

Members of the J[e]wish faith and others correctly point out that xxxs are often blamed for the sins of others. They may be about to be proven right again, in a big way. The current conflict may escalate to the point where the US will use nuclear weapons against Iran, in what will be the first use of nuclear weapons in war since Nagasaki. And the world will blame it on the J[e]ws.

Israel's hugely disproportionate response to Hezbollah's actions is causing immense suffering, is in blatant violation of the Geneva conventions, and deserves the strongest of condemnations. It is especially important for xxxs today to distance themselves from Israel's immoral government policies and US support for them. Fortunately some are doing this [1], [2], [3], unfortunately, many are not. "Thousands of American J[e]ws clogged the streets" in New York and elsewhere in the US [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] in support of Israel's actions, reports the Jerusalem Post. Both Houses of the US Congress have just passed solidly-backed bipartisan resolutions supporting Israel's actions in Lebanon [1], [2], to "solidify long-term backing of J[e]wish voters" according to the Washington Post.

The irony is, Israel's war crimes are going to be dwarfed in comparison to the crime against humanity that will take place if the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran. Israel, by its disproportionate reaction and by accusing Iran (without proof) of being behind Hezbollah's actions [1], [2], [3], [4], will be seen as having played a key role if the conflict escalates to engulf Iran and the United States. Yet the motivation for those that want this to happen [1], [2] is not to ensure Israel's hegemony in the Middle East, rather it is to ensure US hegemony in the world.

Israel's Interests

It goes without saying that Israel would benefit from the destruction of Hezbollah. Yet it is hard to see how the indiscriminate attack against Lebanon that is taking place will achieve anything other than strengthening the already strong support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Arab world. Shmuel Rosner argues in a Haaretz OpEd that Israel is "America's deadly messenger", being used to promote Bush's "democracy agenda". It certainly appears that Israel's current actions are irrational and self-destructive. Unless their real aim is to draw Syria and Iran into the conflict, following directions from Washington. At the very least it is clear that Israel would not be doing this in the absence of a guarantee from the US that it will intervene if the conflict widens, which in any event Bush has already publicly announced.

If Iran enters the conflict and shoots a single missile against Israel, the US will step in and destroy the military infrastructure of Iran by aerial bombardment. As suggested by Seymour Hersh and others [1], [2], [3], [4], this is likely to involve the US use of nuclear "bunker busters".

It has been predicted that if the US or Israel attack Iran, Iran will unleash Hezbollah who will carry out devastating attacks against Israel. "Hizbollah was also seen as a means of tying our hands on the Iranian nuclear threat," says an Israeli official. Well, we are in the dress rehearsal, and we are seeing that despite all the hype, Hezbollah is a paper tiger. Green light for the Iran attack.

Iran's Interests

What is really unusual about the current flare-up in the Middle East is the barrage of strident denunciations against Iran, from the Bush administration, politicians from across the political spectrum [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and the mainstream media [1], [2], [3], [4], that uniformly accuse Iran (without presenting evidence) of being behind the Hezbollah actions. This has never happened before when there was conflict in Lebanon where Hezbollah was involved, why now?

One argument is Ahmadinejad's stated animosity against Israel. However, that has been Iran's stated position since 1979.

The other argument is that Iran is trying to "divert attention" from the nuclear issue. That defies the most elementary logic. If Iran was really intent in getting nuclear weapons and destroying Israel, it would try to keep things as quiet as possible until it gets those nuclear weapons, several years into the future.

The reality is that, whether one ascribes to Iran's evil or benign intentions, Iran draws no benefit whatsoever from the current turmoil in Lebanon. Neither does Syria. Consequently the rhetoric from the US and Israel suggests a deliberate attempt to draw Syria and Iran into the conflict.

The US's Interests

A US attack on Iran has been predicted by analysts for several years. The US policy vis-à-vis Iran is clearly directed towards confrontation rather than accommodation. There are many reasons for the US to attack Iran, including the control of energy resources, suppression of a regional power opposite to US and Israeli interests, etc. However I have argued for many months that the key reason for the US to seek a military confrontation with Iran is that it will "force" the US to cross the nuclear threshold and use low-yield nuclear weapons against Iranian installations. And this is seen as essential to further US geopolitical goals.

The United States used nuclear weapons against Japan not because it had to. It did so to demonstrate to the world that it was in possession of a new weapon that packed the destructive power of thousands of bombing missions into a single one. To tell the rest of the world, beware.

Since then, it has spent over 5 trillion dollars in building up its nuclear arsenal, but nuclear weapons have become "unusable" after 60 years of non-use. America has achieved nuclear primacy but it is useless, until it shows that nuclear weapons are usable again.

Everything has been put in place. The US is likely to have obtained classified "intelligence" concerning hidden Iranian chemical and biological underground facilities. Low-yield B61-11 nuclear bunker busters must have been deployed, just in case "surprising military developments" give rise to "military necessity". Once Iran is drawn into a conflict and shoots a single missile against Israel or US forces in the region, the US administration will argue that the next Iranian missile could carry chemical or biological warheads and cause untold casualties among Americans, Iraqis or Israelis. A low yield nuclear bunker buster will be touted as the most "humane" way to prevent further loss of life.

Why it may happen

In 1941, a vast military effort was started by the United States to create nuclear weapons, culminating in the Trinity test and subsequent bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The effort was shrouded in secrecy and any moral qualms were set aside. When it succeeded, it was argued that many American and Japanese lives had been saved by nuking Japan into surrender.

Any speculation during the period 1941–1945 that the United States had 100,000 people devoted to create a secret weapon million-fold more powerful than any known weapon would have been dismissed as the ultimate "conspiracy theory".

Similarly, much evidence indicates that a deliberate project, shrouded in secrecy, exists today that will culminate in the nuking of Iran, to "save lives". Many are privy to parts of the plan, as Seymour Hersh revealed, only a few know the plan in its entirety. Low-yield nuclear bunker busters will be used, untested but as reliable as the untested "Little Boy" that leveled Hiroshima. Americans will buy the "military necessity" argument because it will be true: American troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks facing Iranian missiles, with or without WMD warheads.

After the US uses nuclear weapons again, it will have established the usability of its nuclear arsenal against non-nuclear countries. It will be possible to wage war "on the cheap", saving many American lives in future conflicts. "Support the troops" is the one thing all Americans, no matter how diverse their views are, agree on.

It should not be allowed to happen. The President has sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. We know from previous actions of this administration what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are capable of. There have been radical changes in US nuclear weapons policies and in preemption "doctrine", and the Bush announcement that the nuclear option is "on the table". In response, there needs to be a strong groundswell call to restrict the absolute presidential authority of this President to order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. By the general public, by "antinuclear" organizations, by scientific, political and professional organizations. To push Congress into action before it is too late. Without a "nuclear option", the US will be more interested in negotiation than in confrontation with Iran.

Cui Bono?

In the short term, Israel certainly will benefit from the destruction of Iran's military capabilities. But Israel will not enjoy peace as a result, because the nuking of Iran will create enormous animosity against Israel in the Muslim world and beyond. To the extent that the world buys the US fable that the nuking of Iran was required by "military necessity" and not premeditated, Israel (and J[e]ws worldwide) will bear a heavier than deserved brunt for having contributed to "precipitate" these events.

The US will reap enormous benefits. Flexing its nuclear muscle, it will establish its absolute hegemony in the Middle East and Central Asia and beyond, and gradually squeeze China and Russia into nuclear disarmament and complete submission.

In the end of course we will all lose. Because the nuclear genie, unleashed from its bottle in the war against Iran, will never retreat. And just like the US could develop nuclear weapons in only 4 years with completely new technology 60 years ago, many more countries and groups will be highly motivated to do it in the coming years.

Think about the current disproportionate response of Israel, applied in a conflict where the contenders have nuclear weapons. 10 to 1 retaliation, starting with a mere 600 casualties, wipes out the entire Earth's population in eight easy steps. Who will be willing to stop the escalation? The country that lost 60,000 citizens in the last hit? The one that lost 600,000? 6 million?

As the nuclear holocaust unfolds, some will remember the Lebanon conflict and subsequent Iran war and blame it all on the J[e]ws. Others will properly blame Americans, for having allowed their Executive to erase the 60-year-old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, first in doctrine and then in practice, despite having the most powerful conventional military force in the world. Others of course will blame "Muslim extremism".

And then the blaming will wither away as a three-billion-year old experiment, life on planet Earth, comes to an end.

[Sip]

Re: War in The Middle East

Unfortunately in this modern age of "unconventional insurgents", the ones that will inevitably lose are the average people since the "unconventional insurgents" freely use them as a layer of security.

In this age of unconventional insurgents, it is ultimately the responsiblity of those that are being used as decoys to watch out for themselves.

Now in the case of Israel and Lebanon, it is obvious that what Israel is doing is exactly as you said anon ... trying to address its weakness as a "sitting duck" against a VERY dangerous enemy that is completely intertwined with "regular" civilians. However, I think Lebanon also deserves part of the blame for letting it get to this point ... after all, there are obviously a very non trivial number of missles directed towards Israel from Lebanese soil so it's not like Israel marched in for absolutely no reason (even though they are doing it like rabid dogs).

[EMRE]

Re: War in The Middle East

This is the most complete article I have seen that encapsulates and summarizes neatly the recent activities in the Middle East to give a glimpse of the bigger picture and geopolitical situation of the region. If you follow the link, he actually links alot to other sources to confirm alot of the things stated herein.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/hirsch1.html

Hi!!your article reminds me armagedon..this name always evokes conspiracy the secret war between turkey and israel.a book released in turkey in 1999 by a retired naval officer,wrote secret cospiracies against turkey and turkey's unity.you can say israel and turkey are very fraternal relations,because they share the same politics in the middle east.there are some military cooperation and agreements between the two countries.but actually,israel teaches war arts to PKK terrorists to cause inconvenience and instability in turkey.israel always wants to create an independant kurdish state in northen iraq,but turkey averts this with premedition..israel agents alwalys very actively spy against turkish intelligence in northen Iraq.I think in the near future israel and turkey will confront on account of regional crisis? can they wage war?

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

Unfortunately in this modern age of "unconventional insurgents", the ones that will inevitably lose are the average people since the "unconventional insurgents" freely use them as a layer of security.

In this age of unconventional insurgents, it is ultimately the responsiblity of those that are being used as decoys to watch out for themselves.

Now in the case of Israel and Lebanon, it is obvious that what Israel is doing is exactly as you said anon ... trying to address its weakness as a "sitting duck" against a VERY dangerous enemy that is completely intertwined with "regular" civilians. However, I think Lebanon also deserves part of the blame for letting it get to this point ... after all, there are obviously a very non trivial number of missles directed towards Israel from Lebanese soil so it's not like Israel marched in for absolutely no reason (even though they are doing it like rabid dogs).

Israel blames Lebanon constantly for not disarming Hezbollah. In reality, the Lebanese state is very weak and fragile and could not do so. Hell, Israel occupied Lebanon since 1982 and even it couldn't disarm Hezbollah, why is it casting stones on Lebanon?

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

This is funny:

Israeli Media: Israeli army says Hezbollah tried to kidnap IDF soldiers in Bint Jbeil

As a result, the IDF has decided to pull out of Bint Jbeil. This is funny because for a week they were claming that the mighty IDF had occupied the area and were killing Hizbollah in the hundreds. This is even funnier because we are talking about a highly trained modern military force backed by artillery, close air support, heavy tank regiment, elite paratroopers and the "Golani" brigade.

They are opposed by the Hizbollah who are essentially gaurillas with small arms and anti-tank missiles. Not only did Hizbollah take a high toll on IDF soldiers and equipment in Bint Jbeil, they even tried to 'kidnap' more soldiers doing so. That battle must have been one hell of a fight. I'm sorry, call me weird, but that's funny.

Now the IDF is pulling back. Of course its not a 'retreat' its a 'redeplyment'

And of course they 'killed' a few hundred Hizbollah before they 'redeployed'

[skhara]

Re: War in The Middle East

The IDF sounds more like Baghdad Bob.

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

A sober Israeli analysis:

ANALYSIS: Israel failing to give U.S. the military cards it needs

By Ze'ev Schiff

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the figure leading the strategy of changing the situation in Lebanon, not Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or Defense Minister Amir Peretz. She has so far managed to withstand international pressure in favor of a cease-fire, even though this will allow Hezbollah to retain its status as a militia armed by Iran and Syria.

As such, she needs military cards, and unfortunately Israel has not succeeded to date in providing her with any. Besides bringing Hezbollah and Lebanon under fire, all of Israel's military cards at this stage are in the form of two Lebanese villages near the border that have been captured by the IDF. If the military cards Israel is holding do not improve with the continuation of the fighting, it will result in a diplomatic solution that will leave the Hezbollah rocket arsenal in southern Lebanon in its place. The diplomatic solution will necessarily be a reflection of the military realities on the ground.

Also from the Syrian perspective there seems to be a contradiction between the American strategy and the steps Israel has taken with regards to Syria. Washington wants the solution to the problem of Hezbollah as a militia to be found in Lebanon. There are those in Washington who are recommending a connection to Syria must be found on this matter, but at the State Department and the White House they say this would simply invite Syria back into Lebanon, and this should not be allowed.

Damascus must be worried about a foiling of the American-Lebanese diplomatic plans. Syrian concerns should have stemmed from Israel, but for days now Israel is doing everything possible to convince Damascus it is not in any danger. If there is no danger from Israel, Damascus can certainly allow itself to undermine any possible plan meant to weaken and defeat Hezbollah. It will act on its own and with Iran without any fear.

Israel has limited options for continuing the fighting. Since it has not succeeded to date to restrict Hezbollah's war of attrition against urban centers in Israel, including the targeting of Afula, the only option is a rapid operation for the capture of southern Lebanon in order to destroy the Hezbollah rocket arsenal prior to the transfer of a multinational force to the area. It may have other serious options, but these will not affect the rocket arsenal of Hezbollah. This is a race against time and against Hezbollah that is aided by Syria and Iran.

The further along the diplomatic process moves, international pressure will be exercised against Israel, including by the Americans, calling for an end to the targeting of Lebanese infrastructure. There is no point mobilizing reserve divisions if they are not going to be used appropriately, from a strategic point of view, before the end of the war. The argument voiced is that the divisions are not adequately trained because of the cuts to the defense budget and it is not acceptable in view of the situation Israel is in. This is not the right time to blame the Finance Ministry, and it is not the only one to blame.

Link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744043.html

[Fedayeen]

Re: War in The Middle East

Just come across this...

On July 12th, the Associated Press reported "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them." This is from the article Hezbollah Captures 2 Israeli Soldiers By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN , 07.12.2006, 05:41 AM READ THE COMMENTS

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/07/where-exactly-were-those-israeli.html