[Some excellent statistics in this media release. This is one mother of a violent country. Jan]
The recent killings of four South African policemen and eight gangsters in a Wild West-type shootout in a Johannesburg suburb made international headlines. It was reported on CNN, BBC and in the world"s press. After a five-hour siege at a house, fourteen members of a crime syndicate eventually surrendered to the police. The area was compared to a war zone, and Johannesburg was "under siege" according to some press reports. The drama started after twenty armed gunmen stormed a supermarket in a western suburb. Both criminal syndicates and the storming of supermarkets have become common phenomena in the new South Africa, and the killings revealed how fragile is the line between life and death for policemen in contemporary South Africa.
It is now well-known throughout the world that South Africa has become its crime capital. Crime has become a scourge, and a corollary of this rise is the dissolution and dissipation of the South African Police Service. Whatever one said about South Africa"s past, there was a reasonable level of law and order. All that has gone. Baby rapes, hijacking, and cash heists are other new phenomena which only appeared as crime categories after the present government took power.
Continued on Page 49
#4
One other major difference to remembered about South Africa and crime statistics : in the not too distant past, crime was mainly under control and the police were efficient. So there is a social memory of that, and the present can logically be compared with the past. In most if not all of the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, there has not been a time in most peoples' lives when crime was not high nor the police uncorrupt or inefficient.
#5
Anyone who thought anything else was going to happen when the white government was replaced by the ANC must have been on serious drugs. If you don't want to end up seriously racist, it's not a good thing to look too closely at South Africa.
Posted by: mac ||
07/21/2006 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Ek dink Bush en Die Boer is aanspreeklik!
(I think Bush and the Dutch farmers are responsible)
From the Letters to the Editor of the Pak Frontier Post:
I would like to bring into the kind notice of Mr. Ijazul Haq Federal Minister for Haj and religious affairs an endemic problem in Saudi Arabia. A large number of Umera Visitors from Sindh and Punjab are begging in Madina from dawn to dusk. Among them are women, girls, children and aged men. They are running behind the pilgrims hailing from across the world unless and until they get something from them. This is a curse and bringing extremely bad name to our country and Pakistanis equally.
The Jeddah consulate should play a key role to curb this evil and discourage beggars. I suggest that the Pakistani consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia should form Task Force and apprehend all beggars and deport them immediately. Otherwise, this social problem will continue to bring bad name for Pakistan and hurt sensible Pakistanis here in Saudi Arabia. Mr. Ijazul Haq, I hope you will consider this problem and looking for immediate action.
#2
I can attest, having lived in Jeddah, KSA in Dec 1991 to Jan 1992, and again from June 1992 to Dec 1992, that begging is widespread among non-Saudis. Often ran into Sudanese and Nigeria paupers.
This came to my mind because of the recent jacques myard proposal for France to use its Military Might(Tm) to rein in Israel.
The whole debate is pretty instructive, see for example Überdhimmi anna lindh after whom was named an Eurabia institute (cf. #3), but this paul-marie couteaux gets to be the most outrageous one.
This guy is now with Philippe De Villiers, catholic conservative sovereignty pol, interesting in his denunciation of France islamization and who cannot be suspected of antisemitism (he's pretty popular among french jews), but who is very suspect in my eyes with such companions.
Coûteaux (EDD). (FR) Madam President, the most surprising thing about our debate is our surprise, for Israel's expansionist policy is the inevitable and predictable result of the growing imbalance in the region, the stability for which we bear much of the responsibility. Firstly that is because since 1967 most of our states, with the notable exception of France, have continued to give the State of Israel a state that is growing increasingly self-assured and domineering the impression that it can violate international law and UN resolutions with impunity.
In reality, here as elsewhere we have followed Washington and persist in closing our eyes to the theocratic excesses of this religious state whose governments are under the thumb of fanatical parties and minorities that are just as bad as the other groups of religious fanatics in the region. That is why we should envisage imposing sanctions on Israel.
There is, however, another serious imbalance for which we are in part responsible, namely the imbalance of forces. I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force. We have now destroyed it. So we will carry on with our policy of imbalance and what is happening today is merely the annoying but inevitable result of our collective blindness and cowardice.
#2
drivers propel tons of mass that can prove fatal in a collision. MPs propel mass quantities of hot air, that while highly pollutive, are rarely fatal.
#3
If it comes down to a fight between the EUropeans and and the Jews I'll side with the Jews. I expect nothing in return. If it is between a nuclear Iran and an civilization in EUrope I will let EUrope slide into barabrism and destroy Iran.
EUrope has evidenced quite enough that it's word is not worth much and it's treaty obligations matter for naught.
This is just how the EUropeana have treated us here in the US. Turn about is fairplay. It's also quite over due.
#4
Rarely fatal? This punk is proposing to give nuclear weapons to people whose ideology is more agressive and expanwsionist than Nazism itself
And while we are at it this guy is proposing to ally with the movement who killed 73 of his compatriots in a single day. France should be napalming Hizbollah instead of whinning about it.
When President Bush announced the U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty five years ago, Democrats howled. Pulling out of the treaty to roll out missile defense would, they predicted, lead to a new arms race, undermine American security and in any case was unnecessary. "This premise, that one day Kim Jong Il or someone will wake up one morning and say 'Aha, San Francisco!' is specious," Senator Joe Biden told AP in May 2001.
Apparently no one bothered to translate "specious" into Korean. North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il has now defied world opinion by test-firing a Taepodong-2 missile capable of hitting San Francisco. The fact that the missile failed is small consolation, since we are also now seeing in Lebanon a further proliferation of missiles from Syria and Iran that can reach deep into Israel. Does anyone doubt that Iran, or some other adversary, will build an ICBM capable of hitting the U.S. as soon as it is able?
All of which makes the U.S. political debate over missile defenses worth revisiting, not least because some Democrats are still trying to strangle the program. In the House, John Tierney of Massachusetts this year proposed cutting the Pentagon's missile-defense budget by more than half. His amendment was defeated on the House floor, but it won the support of more than half of his Democratic colleagues, including would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Meanwhile in the Senate, Carl Levin (D., Mich.) offered in June to cut off funds for the ground-based interceptor program that Mr. Bush recently activated in Alaska in anticipation of the North Korean launch. Mr. Levin wants to stop new interceptors from being built, but Senate Republicans wouldn't bring his proposal up for a vote. Mr. Levin has been waging his own private war against missile defenses for a generation, to the point of outflanking Russian objections on the political left.
No missile defense is perfect, but even our current rudimentary shield has proven to be strategically useful these past few weeks. The Navy had at least one ship-based Aegis missile-defense system deployed off the Korean coast, with a potential to shoot down a North Korean missile. The Aegis cruisers have successfully shot down missiles in seven of eight tests in recent years, and could become an important player in protecting allies and U.S. forces against regional missile threats. The U.S. is also dispatching PAC-3s, a more sophisticated version of the Patriot anti-missile system, to Japan. This kind of capability adds to the credibility of the U.S. deterrent, reassures allies and enhances American influence.
Virtually none of this would exist had Democrats succeeded over the years in their many attempts to kill missile defenses. . . .Democrats also made a fetish out of the ABM Treaty, even after the end of the Cold War. Al Gore campaigned to keep it in 2000, promising only to build defenses that would abide by its tight limitations. Senator Biden predicted that dropping out of the treaty to build missile defenses would turn the U.S. into "a kind of bully nation." And Senator John Kerry cautioned that "we must not set aside the logic of deterrence that has kept us safe for 40 years." Neither logic nor deterrence are the first words that come to mind when we think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
When Mr. Bush informed Vladimir Putin that the U.S. intended to exercise its legal right to withdraw from the ABM pact, the world didn't end. The Russians moved on to bigger issues, and much of the rest of the world decided that they'd like to join the missile-defense club. Six nations now participate with the United States in developing new missile-defense technology and nearly a dozen others use some of what's already been developed.
The Pentagon now spends nearly $10 billion a year on missile defense and is developing several promising new technologies. These include sea-based defenses and low-orbit satellites that help track incoming missiles, as well as the Thaad program designed to knock out long-range missiles as they are heading to Earth. Thaad had a successful test over New Mexico last week.
By investing in this capability, the U.S. may even deter the world's rogues from investing heavily in missile technology. Defense dollars are limited, even in terror regimes, and they won't invest their money in weapons that won't work. With the expanding North Korean and Iran missile threats, it'd be nice to think Democrats would acknowledge their mistakes. But we'd gladly forgo any apologies if liberal Democrats would finally admit that missile defenses are a necessary part of America's antiterror state arsenal.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/21/2006 13:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
As fighting continues between Israel and Hezbollah, both the British government and the United Nations have called for the dispatch of an international peacekeeping mission to southern Lebanon. "The only way we are going to have a cessation of violence is if we have an international force deployed," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Monday. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan added that such a force is "essential."
But with its long and troubled history in the region, the idea of sending a peacekeeping force should be dead on arrival.
In 1956, the United Nations deployed peacekeepers to separate the Israeli and Egyptian armies. At first the mission was successful. But in May 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser sent 80,000 troops and 550 tanks to the Israeli border and demanded peacekeepers withdraw. They did. Less than three weeks later, the Six-Day War erupted. Peacekeepers unwilling to fight an aggressor and win cannot keep peace.
The UN tried again after the Yom Kippur War. In 1974, it sent a Disengagement Observer Force to separate the Israeli and Syrian armies. Butwhile the Golan Heights remained quiet, their mission was no success. Both Damascus and Jerusalem simply shifted the battleground to Lebanon.
After the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the United States, France and Italy sent peacekeepers to Beirut to separate both Israeli and Syrian forces and Lebanon's many militias. All went well initially. But on April 18, 1983, terrorists attacked the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and, on October 23, 1983, a Hezbollah suicide truck bomber blew up the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 servicemen. President Ronald Reagan promised to stand firm. "To remove them now," he said of the peacekeepers, "would undermine American credibility throughout the world." True, but he withdrew them anyway.
The Marines' departure from Beirut was a major defeat for peacekeeping. Not only would the Lebanese civil war continue for another six years, but terrorists also came to believe that the Western commitment to peacekeeping was ephemeral. In a 1998 interview, Osama Bin Laden called American soldiers "paper tigers," citing their withdrawal from Beirut as proof. That Annan yanked his staff from Iraq after the August 2003 bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad underscored Turtle Bay shared the same lack of resolve.
It is not only timidity that undercuts the UN's ability to keep peace, but also its susceptibility to corruption. The July 12 kidnapping that sparked the latest violence was not Hezbollah's first. On Oct. 7, 2000, more than four months after Israel withdrew from Lebanon, Hezbollah guerillas using UN vehicles snatched three Israeli soldiers. After eight months of denying they witnessed the operation, UN peacekeepers in Lebanon acknowledged having a videotape, but balked at sharing it with Israel. To do so, they argued, might "undermine UN neutrality." Hezbollah executed the prisoners. And Israel learned an important lesson about trusting peacekeepers.
There is one exception though to the peacekeeping curse. The Multinational Force and Observers have for 25 years kept peace in the Sinai. Their secret? They came not to end a war, but only after a peace treaty was agreed to. But as long as Hezbollah, Syria and Iran seek to wipe Israel off the map, peacekeeping will fail.
Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is editor of the Middle East Quarterly.
ONCE AGAIN the "international community" is clamoring for the United Nations to fix things in the Middle East. It's reminiscent of an episode of "The Simpsons" in which Homer is in dire straits. In a panic, he yells heavenward, "I'm not normally a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me, Superman!" For some fetishists of multilateralism, the U.N. seems to fill this odd space in their brains once reserved for God, providence or even the Man of Steel whatever force of good that can save civilization from evil. If religion is the opiate of the masses, then the United Nations is the opiate of the elites.
Global U.N. worship is based on an odd mix of delusion and realpolitik. To self-described internationalists, the U.N. is supposed to be a counterweight to America's "unipolar" dominance. In the wake of the U.S.-led victory in the Cold War, America greeted an ungrateful world eager to see the remaining superpower counterbalanced by, well, something. And the U.N. was the only viable candidate. As U.N. Undersecretary-General Shashi Tharoor wrote a few years ago, "American power" not AIDS, genocide or global warming "may well be the central issue in world politics today." Of course, there are others who pay lip service to idealistic U.N. globaloney but who really just like to use the place as a grand global rug under which any problem can be swept. If you hear a world leader start out by saying "something must be done," odds are he's going to finish that sentence by saying "and the U.N. should do it."
Now, it would be one thing if the U.N. actually, you know, worked. But the problem is that the history of the U.N. is a history of unrelenting failure. Oh, not in immunizing kids and feeding starving people. The U.N. gets a passing grade there, though certainly not an A.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
07/21/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
TEL AVIV Israel's new chief of staff, an air force general, believed that most of Israel's future operations would be conducted from the air. Military leaders were convinced that with superior communications and air power they did not even need new U.S. "bunker buster" munitions to root out terror leaders in underground hideaways.
Today, this vision of air power as a panacea has been shattered.
Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz and his advisers have been stunned by the failure of Israel's air war against Hizbullah, which has shrugged massive air bombings on its headquarters in Beirut to maintain the rocket war against the Jewish state. "Air power is not the answer here," a senior officer said. 'You have to go from one Hizbullah [weapons] bunker to another. Some of these bunkers are seven meters deep and can't be destroyed by aircraft, even if you could find them."
The air force learned that lesson in Beirut as fighter-jets sought to destroy Hizbullah headquarters, Middle East Newsline reported. Officials acknowledged that 23 tons of munitions failed to penetrate the thick walls of the underground command headquarters constructed by Iran. Indeed, the air force did not even deem the purchase of deep penetration munitions a priority. Earlier this year, Israel decided against purchasing U.S.-origin bunker-buster weapons regarded as a requirement for any air strike against Iran or Syria.
#2
I don't know whether Israel's government has been spending its money wisely or not, but I can't help but think that they're using the wrong metric.
This whole article seems to be written from the premise "Hezbollah hasn't been completely eliminated by the end of the second week, so obviously they've won."
Since Hezbollah has a large unpaid propaganda arm and isn't accountable to anyone the way democratic governments are, it can look like it's winning even when it's losing.
The problem is by building and using their human-shielded artillery park in Lebanon they've done away with all the usual incentives for countries like Israel to pretend there's nothing they can do besides just go along.
Posted by: Phil ||
07/21/2006 17:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
You can't win a war with airpower (and no, Kosovo was not a win. It was a short term draw and a long term loss) You still need boots on the ground. However, airpower makes the boots life a hell of a lot easier during the fight. I don't think Israel planned to with the war with airplanes. It was a, "Hit them hard and often and see how the international community reacts". The International community, even the arabs said, "Meh, not our problem and it might be nice to get rid of Iran's rabid dog."
So, Israel is gonna invade.
#4
It's strange that I never see these "Disappointed by Results" articles written from the perspective of the bad guys:
Hizbollah Rank and File Chagrined to See Their Leaders Crying Like Little Bitches
I guess their operations always go according to plan.
Posted by: Matt ||
07/21/2006 17:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Right you are Matt. Also, it's a very limited analysis and uses extensive mindreading techinques to tease out the pessimism.
I'm still awaiting the first mention of "carpet-bombing" or "napalm". I think I saw some article speculating about WP. That, and nobody is even asking why Israel even has "neighbors", or what would happen if it decided it didn't want "neighbors".
Anyway, the IDF has vast depths of both tactical and strategic resources, and this article simply breezes by them with feckless ignorance.
#7
Earlier this year, Israel decided against purchasing U.S.-origin bunker-buster weapons
Bet the Israeli MoD is regretting that. Actually, I had thought the Israelis had already received the 600 1 and 2.35 ton bombs.
Posted by: ed ||
07/21/2006 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Wait until Lebs --- who let Hezbollah operate without hinder as long as it left them alone --- count the costs of the air campaign.
#11
First off, both Hizbollah and Hezbollah will say they are not the same organz, at least officially, and regardless of how much aid Syria andor Iran gives them. Second, the IDF's curr generation of officers and enlisted men have done what used to be called "police actions" agz Muslim terrorists in Gaza-West Bank - one has to anticipate "teething troubles" wid MilOps for every new generation of [mostly NG/Newbie] warriors. Third, as a matter of joint-combined arms, iff Israeli air power is a "failure" then how has Israel claimed to destroy 40% to 1/2 of HEZBOLLAH'S fighting strength and weapon reserves!? IFF LEBANON CAN'T = WON'T CONTROL THEIR BORDERS OR WON'T GET RID OF THE TERROR ORGS, i.e. STATE(S) WITHIN A STATE, THEN LEBANON AS A POLITY CAN AND SHOULD BE DIVIDED BETWEEN ISRAEL AND OTHER ME STATES. The Radics may be Muslim as are most mainstream Lebanese, but they are also proxies of IRAN - Iran is hell-bent on Radical Islamist-, Shia-, and Iran-centric EMPIRE WHICH NO ME STATE, MUSLIM OR OTHER, DEMOCRATIC OR OTHER, IS INTENDED TO ESCAPE PER SE IRANIAN INFLUENCE AND DOMINATION. Fighting Israel = Lebanon will be a future province of Tehran and Shia-based Radical Islamism.
#12
Article: Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz and his advisers have been stunned by the failure of Israel's air war against Hizbullah, which has shrugged massive air bombings on its headquarters in Beirut to maintain the rocket war against the Jewish state. "Air power is not the answer here," a senior officer said. 'You have to go from one Hizbullah [weapons] bunker to another. Some of these bunkers are seven meters deep and can't be destroyed by aircraft, even if you could find them."
This is kind of silly. A week into the campaign and air power is not the answer? Granted, I accept that air power is not the answer. But ground combat isn't the answer either - it'll take a lot more than a week to erase Hezbollah from its prepared positions. And that's if they come out to fight. Remember, they're guerrillas - they can just fade into the woodwork. Three years into Iraq, ground troops haven't eliminated the insurgency. In the long run, ground troops are the answer, but quick incursions aren't going to do the trick. They're going to have to occupy southern Lebanon for decades. It's funny how Israelis lost a dozen dead every year for decades, and Ehud Barak decided to pull out, giving Hezbollah a sanctuary from which to build a state within a state. This year, Israel has lost about 60 people to Hezbollah, not to mentioned incurred tens of millions in infrastructure losses. I think Barak needs to be tarred and feathered and run out of town for his moronic withdrawal and betrayal of Israel's Maronite allies in Lebanon.
I see two differences that I believe will reduce decades to something substantially less.
1) Israel will not be as restrained as you imply, I think. The Lebs have squandered their opportunity thus far Syrian with puppets. They will pay for that - Israel does not want to leave this half-done if they can help it. And Israel will not allow others to dissuade them before they feel they've done major damage to Hezb, I believe.
2) They do not want to hold Lebanon. They want to sweep up as much as they can in a reasonably limited time and create a buffer zone - of a depth to be decided as it proceeds, I think.
The Hezbollah assholes will have trouble skedaddling to Syria - since Israel has already seriously reduced the routes available - at least for vehicles. They may try to blend into the population, but I wonder how successful that will be. Israel has already shifted from counter-battery fire, since the Hezb's are using non-Shia houses and neighborhoods for firing their bottle rockets. Israel has started going directly after the Shia neighborhoods, from what I can gather. So that reduces at least some of the hiding places to rubble.
. . . The energetic head of the DNC had this to say:
If you think whats going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldnt, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didnt get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The problem with Moral Authority is its antonym, the Palestinian Authority. Does Dean mean the Oslo accords? President Clinton had been in office less than a year. Theres a reason theyre not the Little Rock Accords: Norwegian diplomats did all the heavy lifting. (Specifically, suspending disbelief about Arafats motives, which can throw your back out if youre not careful.) Does Dean mean the Camp David negotiations, which ended in the bloody second intifada? Details, details. Moral authority, thats what counts. Doesnt stop wars, but it makes the bad guys look extra guilty. Ingrates!
This is not to underestimate President Clintons ability to make other diplomats feel good about themselves or produce impressive pieces of paper. But Mr. Clinton is not running in 2008, and neither Gore nor Kerry had his conspicuous gift for oleaginous empathy. Then again, who knows? Perhaps Al Gore would have Moral Authority gushing out his ear if hed chosen to leave Saddam in power. No question Hezbollah would be impressed - perhaps enough to aim the rockets to the left a little, so they landed on the outskirts of the playgrounds.
But the revelatory moment in Deans assertion was its touching faith in Talk and Work. President Gore or Kerry would have been working day after day after day on the issue. Non stop! Sleeves rolled up, dinner at the desk: make another pot of coffee, Mabel, this Golan Heights dispute wont solve itself. This suggests they believe the difficulties of the Middle East have the weight and consequence of a tariff dispute. This suggests that they dont understand that the Hezbollah definition of Disarm is blowing off the limbs of Israelis. Imagine a typical negotiation:
Fierce-eyed Hezbollah representative: Thank you for the invitation; lovely office. Death to Israel.
Gullible American: Well, thats just rhetoric; we understand.
Hezbollah: It is not rhetoric. It is truth. The Zionist entity is a festering infected splinter in the lip of the Caliphate.
(pause)
GA: So youre saying you want some antibiotics as well? We can do that. But you have to show us youre ready to coexist with Israel.
Hezbollah: We recognize the right of Israel to exist, but only as a footnote in history books.
GA: So we agree on principle, and the rest is just a matter of details. Great! Well draw up the treaty for the signing ceremony. Youre going to love the pens. Theyre Cross. Smoothest pen youve ever used.
Hezbollah: I will save it to plunge into the heart of the last Jew to crawl towards the sea.
GA: Do you need your parking validated?
Repeat until the last accords fall apart, then call for new accords.
Howard Dean is not a stupid man; he knows Iran and Syria are the real actors behind this game. But his words placate the netroots people who think that Bush is stumping the country blaming the Hezbollah attacks on Max Cleland. Fine. If Israel eliminates Hezbollah, humiliates the fascists of Syria and lets Lebanon get on with the Cedar Revolution devoid of murder-gang influence, will that be Bushs doing?
Of course not. He doesnt have the Moral Authority, like a Pope. Or Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/21/2006 12:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Goes to show. The best peace process of all time is war.
I know some of you are interested in how you can help Israel as she fights the current battle in her war of survival. Here is an exerpt from an e-mail that arrived in my in-box this morning with some ideas from the Jewish National Fund. (The Jewish National Fund has been planting trees in Israel since the early part of the 1900s, and in latter years has branched out into other projects.) The web page has more information.
Your donations are making a difference! Since our appeal on Friday afternoon, JNF has raised $514,534 for Operation Security Blanket.
With an estimated 100,000 Israeli children currently living in bomb shelters, JNF is working to restore a sense of normalcy and calm for as many as possible by sending them to our summer camps in central Israel, out of range of rocket fire. Unlike the much touted Hamas and PLO/Fatah summer camps (presumably closed this summer) the children will do normal summer camp things, not be trained as soldiers and suicide bombers.
Nes Harim, a JNF camp in Jerusalems American Independence Park, is working at full capacity to accommodate hundreds of children at a time for three-day stays. Israel's top youth movement, Chugei Sayarut, a division of JNF-KKL, is also retrofitting forest sites for summer camps throughout central Israel and the northern Negev for five- to seven-day stays. JNF is providing roundtrip transportation, food and activities, and security.
Donations are going to help build security bypass roads by the Gaza border. Emergency response equipment, including bulletproof vests, helmets and personal safety kits for firefighters, is getting into the hands of rapid response workers. A $100,000 emergency response vehicle/fire truck has already been purchased through this campaign.
In addition to donating online, you can also call your local office at 888-JNF-0099.
On Friday, July 14th, Gideon Meir, Deputy Director General, Media and Public Affairs, Israel Foreign Affairs Ministry, spoke to top leadership of JNF on the current situation in Israel. Click to hear a recording of the conference.
SNIP...Snarky commentary first.NYE COUNTY, Nev.--"As you can see, Yucca Mountain isn't really a mountain," says our guide as we near the end of an hour-long bus ride, about 100 miles north from Las Vegas. "Those of you who know geology will recognize it's only a ridge."
The Department of Energy gives monthly tours these days, anxious to prove--after almost 25 years--it still intends to open its Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain someday. The trip, however, feels like an expedition into hostile territory. The whole state of Nevada is on the warpath over the project.
"See those buildings off on the left there," says our guide as we pass through the sagebrush. "They're brothels. As you may know, prostitution is legal in certain Nevada counties. The state has no trouble supplying them with water, but for almost a year they wouldn't give us any. We used port-o-potties for quite a long time." As it turns out, though, the brothels have their upside. Anticipating a surge in business from the construction project, they are among the few locals supporting the project. "Supporting", is right!
Now for the "meat" of the argument.
The whole project is now tied down in environmental impact statements. The Environmental Protection Agency set a standard that radiation from the site should not exceed 15 millirems a year (about one chest x-ray) for 10,000 years. Seems reasonable to me.
Environmentalists screamed that wasn't enough. They wanted a million years. A federal court, of course, agreed. (another reason for strong, Constitutional judges)
So the EPA set a standard of 350 millirems for the next million years (about two-thirds of what people in Denver get from natural sources) and environmentalists are screaming that isn't good enough either. (of course, and I bet they screamed all the way from their super-huge homes or out on their mega-yachts off the coast of Martha's Vineyard. NIMBY to the extreme...I guess this matches the lib's "free speech" issues...."1,000 MW for me, but not for thee!")Nobody has suggested how these standards are to be monitored. "Well, that's summin' else we'll just scream about too," GreenPeace activists yelled. I can't believe someone like these gaia-worshippers can be so hypocritical. We must shut down coal-fired power plants, AND not allow nuclear power AND not allow windmills off the NE's coasts. Just where do these moonbats think energy comes from?
Posted by: BA ||
07/21/2006 10:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sometimes I think that any solution to the nuclear "waste" issue must be opposed by the environmental nutjobs. Because any solution makes nuclear seem a viable option. But even if all of the nuclear plants in the country were shut down today we still have the waste issue to deal with. It is not going to go away.
#2
This site is as good as it gets. We need it to have nuclear power in this country. We need nuclear power to reduce our geostrategic vulnerablity in the middle east and (at least according to some scientists though it is far from settled) to reduce carbon emissions.
Interestingly, the activists who oppose Yucca Mountain are often the same folks who want us out of the middle east and to sign the Kyoto treaty. Their positions are self-contradictory unless we return to the stone age.
For this reason I cannot take the Democrats (clearly the political party holding these positions) seriously on public policy.
#3
The father of one my best friends, a true JFK-style liberal, worked at one of the national nuclear labs. He's fairly left-progressive and dedicated green until you mention nuclear power. Then he goes ballistic -- what we needed, according to him, were fast breeder reactors, recycle all the fuel rods, incinerate the nuclear waste in the breeders, and have a closed loop for plutonium fuel.
Why? Because it's the least polluting of all our options, according to him.
I'd love to get him into the same room as the usual enviro-nnuts.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/21/2006 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hallelujah Steve. Not only is the waste less radioactive, but the long lived radioactinides are burned in the breeder reactors.
Posted by: ed ||
07/21/2006 19:12 Comments ||
Top||
Email freebie, no link.
The ground war has begun. Several Israeli brigades now appear to be operating between the Lebanese border and the Litani River. According to reports, Hezbollah forces are dispersed in multiple bunker complexes and are launching rockets from these and other locations.
Hezbollah's strategy appears to be threefold. First, force Israel into costly attacks against prepared fortifications. Second, draw Israeli troops as deeply into Lebanon as possible, forcing them to fight on extended supply lines. Third, move into an Iraqi-style insurgency from which Israel -- out of fear of a resumption of rocket attacks -- cannot withdraw, but which the Israelis also cannot endure because of extended long-term casualties. This appears to have been a carefully planned strategy, built around a threat to Israeli cities that Israel can't afford. The war has begun at Hezbollah's time and choosing.
Israel is caught between three strategic imperatives. First, it must end the threat to Israeli cities, which must involve the destruction of Hezbollah's launch capabilities south of the Litani River. Second, it must try to destroy Hezbollah's infrastructure, which means it must move into the Bekaa Valley and as far as the southern suburbs of Beirut. Third, it must do so in such a way that it is not dragged into a long-term, unsustainable occupation against a capable insurgency.
Hezbollah has implemented its strategy by turning southern Lebanon into a military stronghold, consisting of well-designed bunkers that serve both as fire bases and launch facilities for rockets. The militants appear to be armed with anti-tank weapons and probably anti-aircraft weapons, some of which appear to be of American origin, raising the question of how they were acquired. Hezbollah wants to draw Israel into protracted fighting in this area in order to inflict maximum casualties and to change the psychological equation for both military and political reasons.
Israelis historically do not like to fight positional warfare. Their tendency has been to bypass fortified areas, pushing the fight to the rear in order to disrupt logistics, isolate fortifications and wait for capitulation. This has worked in the past. It is not clear that it will work here. The great unknown is the resilience of Hezbollah's fighters. To this point, there is no reason to doubt it. Israel could be fighting the most resilient and well-motivated opposition force in its history. But the truth is that neither Israel nor Hezbollah really knows what performance will be like under pressure.
Simply occupying the border-Litani area will not achieve any of Israel's strategic goals. Hezbollah still would be able to use rockets against Israel. And even if, for Hezbollah, this area is lost, its capabilities in the Bekaa Valley and southern Beirut will remain intact. Therefore, a battle that focuses solely on the south is not an option for Israel, unless the Israelis feel a defeat here will sap Hezbollah's will to resist. We doubt this to be the case.
The key to the campaign is to understand that Hezbollah has made its strategic decisions. It will not be fighting a mobile war. Israel has lost the strategic initiative: It must fight when Hezbollah has chosen and deal with Hezbollah's challenge. However, given this, Israel does have an operational choice. It can move in a sequential fashion, dealing first with southern Lebanon and then with other issues. It can bypass southern Lebanon and move into the rear areas, returning to southern Lebanon when it is ready. It can attempt to deal with southern Lebanon in detail, while mounting mobile operations in the Bekaa Valley, in the coastal regions and toward south Beirut, or both at the same time.
There are resource and logistical issues involved. Moving simultaneously on all three fronts will put substantial strains on Israel's logistical capability. An encirclement westward on the north side of the Litani, followed by a move toward Beirut while the southern side of the Litani is not secured, poses a serious challenge in re-supply. Moving into the Bekaa means leaving a flank open to the Syrians. We doubt Syria will hit that flank, but then, we don't have to live with the consequences of an intelligence failure. Israel will be sending a lot of force on that line if it chooses that method. Again, since many roads in south Lebanon will not be secure, that limits logistics.
Israel is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Hezbollah has created a situation in which Israel must fight the kind of war it likes the least -- attritional, tactical operations against prepared forces -- or go to the war it prefers, mobile operations, with logistical constraints that make these operations more difficult and dangerous. Moreover, if it does this, it increases the time during which Israeli cities remain under threat. Given clear failures in appreciating Hezbollah's capabilities, Israel must take seriously the possibility that Hezbollah has longer-ranged, anti-personnel rockets that it will use while under attack.
Israel has been trying to break the back of Hezbollah resistance in the south through air attack, special operations and probing attacks. This clearly hasn't worked thus far. That does not mean it won't work, as Israel applies more force to the problem and starts to master the architecture of Hezbollah's tactical and operational structure; however, Israel can't count on a rapid resolution of that problem.
The Israelis have by now thought the problem through. They don't like operational compromises -- preferring highly focused solutions at the center of gravity of an enemy. Hezbollah has tried to deny Israel a center of gravity and may have succeeded, forcing Israel into a compromise position. Repeated assaults against prepared positions are simply not something the Israelis can do, because they cannot afford casualties. They always have preferred mobile encirclement or attacks at the center of gravity of a defensive position. But at this moment, viewed from the outside, this is not an option.
An extended engagement in southern Lebanon is the least likely path, in our opinion. More likely -- and this is a guess -- is a five-part strategy:
1. Insert airmobile and airborne forces north of the Litani to seal the rear of Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon. Apply air power and engineering forces to reduce the fortifications, and infantry to attack forces not in fortified positions. Bottle them up, and systematically reduce the force with limited exposure to the attackers.
2. Secure roads along the eastern flank for an armored thrust deep into the Bekaa Valley to engage the main Hezbollah force and infrastructure there. This would involve a move from Qiryat Shimona north into the Bekaa, bypassing the Litani to the west, and would probably require sending airmobile and special forces to secure the high ground. It also would leave the right flank exposed to Syria.
3. Use air power and special forces to undermine Hezbollah capabilities in the southern Beirut area. The Israelis would consider a move into this area after roads through southern Lebanon are cleared and Bekaa relatively secured, moving into the area, only if absolutely necessary, on two axes of attack.
4. Having defeated Hezbollah in detail, withdraw under a political settlement shifting defense responsibility to the Lebanese government.
5. Do all of this while the United States is still able to provide top cover against diplomatic initiatives that will create an increasingly difficult international environment.
There can be many variations on this theme, but these elements are inevitable:
1. Hezbollah cannot be defeated without entering the Bekaa Valley, at the very least.
2. At some point, resistance in southern Lebanon must be dealt with, regardless of the cost.
3. Rocket attacks against northern Israel and even Tel Aviv must be accepted while the campaign unfolds.
4. The real challenge will come when Israel tries to withdraw.
No. 4 is the real challenge. Destruction of Hezbollah's infrastructure does not mean annihilation of the force. If Israel withdraws, Hezbollah or a successor organization will regroup. If Israel remains, it can wind up in the position the United States is in Iraq. This is exactly what Hezbollah wants. So, Israel can buy time, or Israel can occupy and pay the cost. One or the other.
The other solution is to shift the occupational burden to another power that is motivated to prevent the re-emergence of an anti-Israeli military force -- as that is what Hezbollah has become. The Lebanese government is the only possible alternative, but not a particularly capable one, reflecting the deep rifts in Lebanon.
Israel has one other choice, which is to extend the campaign to defeat Syria as well. Israel can do this, but the successor regime to Syrian President Bashar al Assad likely would be much worse for Israel than al Assad has been. Israel can imagine occupying Syria; it can't do it. Syria is too big and the Arabs have learned from the Iraqis how to deal with an occupation. Israel cannot live with a successor to al Assad and it cannot take control of Syria. It will have to live with al Assad. And that means an occupation of Lebanon would always be hostage to Syrian support for insurgents.
Hezbollah has dealt Israel a difficult hand. It has thought through the battle problem as well as the political dimension carefully. Somewhere in this, there has been either an Israeli intelligence failure or a political failure to listen to intelligence. Hezbollah's capabilities have posed a problem for Israel that allowed Hezbollah to start a war at a time and in a way of its choosing. The inquest will come later in Israel. And Hezbollah will likely be shattered regardless of its planning. The correlation of forces does not favor it. But if it forces Israel not only to defeat its main force but also to occupy, Hezbollah will have achieved its goals.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
#1
Sounds like Hezbollah is setting up much like the nutters did in Fallujah. Anyone at Rantburg remember how that one turned out?
If they hope to set up an insurgency they are batty. Israel only needs to destroy the rockets and humiliate Hezbollah in order to be able to maintain face when they withdraw leaving Hezbollah as the weak horse. Baaka valley can be dealt with using airpower. IF they get rockets with that kind of range that'll be phase two but my guess is the loss of face Hezbollah is facing will cause them to regroup in Syria where they don't have to worry about Lebanese vengence.
#3
All that seems to be missing the 'Heroic Fighters of' and 'undefeatable' in front of the 'Hezbollah'.
Being dug in puts them in static concentration. In warfare this is not always an advantage. It means you can be surrounded, cut off, starved out and destroyed.
The Hizbu'allah or "party of god" name is all one needs to know about the orgaization. Dissassembling it is what needs to be done. Israel is the one doing it. While "experts" carp from the sidelines. Warfare is not fun and it's not easy. It entails risks.
Would these asshats prefer Israel did nothing? I am beging to thinks so.
#4
SPoD, the Japanese dug into bunkers in Iwo Jima were static and quickly became surrounded. They knew they were going to die, and their job was to make the Marines pay. We took the island but we paid in blood.
If Hezbollah is motivated enough they can do something similar in southern Lebanon. Will the Israelis pay sufficient blood? Don't know, but I know they don't particulary want to. And that's the problem.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/21/2006 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
(quick words home for a bite then back to work)
Stratfor misses one thing: in terms of reducing fortifications and fixed positons, Israel has some new tricks they have learned from the US actions in Iraq. Startfor is assuming a MOUT model from the 90's, not a modern one. And from there come sthe operational surprise that will coutner Hezbollah's stratigic surprises and attempts to shape the battlefield.
One thing they are right on about is the Bekka. Israel MUST clean it out. And that includes interdiction within about a foot of the Syrian border (i.e over at times).
Operationally speaking if Israel needed to, they could hit the logistics points for Hezbollha in Syria and smash up some Syrian military while thy are at it. Not enough to force an occupation, but enough to smash the C3I apparatus of the Assad regime - and let them know the cost for playing proxy with Hezbollah.
The latter will become neccesary once Israel has gathered enough actionable and exposable intelligence to show Syrian direct complicity with the attacks on Israel.
I believe such evidence can be gathered, and will ultimately be the capstone for strikes on Syria's air defense, airforce and army logistics points, as well as Hama's ammo dumps, headquarters and training areas in Syria. This will happen once they secure the flank of their thrust into the Bekka and seal the area south of the Litani river., cordoning off the fortified zones that Hamas has seled themselves into.
Hezbullah has had 5 years of Iranian and Syrian support and money, and complete negligence by the Lebanses government in which to prepare this war they have initiated.
They must be destroyed, Nasrallah and all his corhorts must be killed, or if captured, summarily executed as war criminals. And their supporters in Syria and fiscal suppoerters elswhere must be made to pay the ultimate price via assasinations by the Mossad. Those rich guys want martyes, Israel will give them martyrs. But not the poor deluded fools they fund and brianwash with hatred - this time, make the money men get their skin in the game whether they like it or not. Bullets, bombs and bankruptcy shoudl be their fate - and the fate of thier families as well (because that s how Arab society works)
#7
It's very difficult to hide, w/o plugging them up, tunnel entrances from infrared optics like those on tanks. The same tanks can then take out the tunnels. If the tunnels are plugged up, a thorough search by airborne ground penetrating radar and infantry will find them.
Posted by: ed ||
07/21/2006 17:39 Comments ||
Top||
#8
If Hezbollah is motivated enough they can do something similar in southern Lebanon. Will the Israelis pay sufficient blood? Don't know, but I know they don't particulary want to. And that's the problem.
It was one of your generals who said that the purpose of a soldier is not to die but to help the fellow on the other side die. Just wait a week, or so.
#10
Iff my instincts on Israel's alleged "buffer zone" strategy is correct, Israel will also control the most + best of Lebanon's natural water systems, which in turn will eventually force the terror groups to seek formal supplies from Syria-Iran, which Israel + USA + NATO/Allies will be able to detect vv SATWAR.
Another ESISC .pdf. By Abdelkarim Chankou, Editor of the "Détective Marocain"
In his "newsletter", "Le Détective Marocain (the Moroccan Detective"), the journalist Abdelkarim Chankou signed yesterday a remarkable leading article of courage, clearness and reason. Here is his article in exclusivity for Esisc.
In 1980 one member of the Moslem Brotherhood tried to assassinate the Syrian president Hafez el-Assad. Several Imams are then arrested by the Alawit clan. On February 2, 1982, under the control of 150 Sunnite officers, the town of Hama revolts.
Assad reacts violently by giving the order to besiege the city and to bombard it with heavy artillery. A third of the city - cash of many architectural jewels - will be destroyed and between 10 and 25.000 civil will be massacred during the 27 days of siege. The anti-subversive commandos infiltrated the columns of refugees fleeing the engagements and jail, torture and execute thousands of people. In Occident as in the Middle East, this massacre was approved by the governments. The General Alexander Haig, Secretary of State de Ronald Reagan, even welcomed the "firmness" of Hafez el-Assad: "This guy understands how to tackle the [problem of
the] bearded ones", he said at that time.
Less than one year later, another similar scenario is repeated in November 1983, in Tripoli (northern part of Lebanon), where Yasser Arafat and 11 000 Fedayin are, this time, besieged by their Syrian "brothers". Paris and Washington decide to ensure an exit to Abou Ammar. The French Army escorts him in his exile in Tunis. But right before the departure for Tunisia, a curious fact occurs: an Israeli sniper, posted at 200 meters from the port, sees the chief of the PLO about to embark and announces by radio to its HQ that he is in the right position to shoot him. Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin, which gave its word to the Americans that all the Palestinians would be saved, gives the order not to shoot!
This short historical background is not aimed at giving lessons to anybody or courting anybody, but is aimed at making allowances and learning two lessons:
1) 25.000 Syrian Sunnite civilians knowingly massacred in 27 days and a third of their Hama city destroyed by the Alawit clan, that does not move anybody whereas 327 Lebanese civilians killed involuntarily in 8 days by the Israelis in the tread of their war against Hezbollah, give rise to disgust and general indignation;
2) an Israeli sniper who first asks the permission to his hierarchy before shooting, even when the target is the enemy number one, that proves that Tsahal is a disciplined army.
Would a combatant of Hezbollah have initially called his chief Hassan Nasrallah before shooting Ehud Olmert if he was in position to do so?
#1
"1) 25.000 Syrian Sunnite civilians knowingly massacred in 27 days and a third of their Hama city destroyed by the Alawit clan, that does not move anybody whereas 327 Lebanese civilians killed involuntarily in 8 days by the Israelis in the tread of their war against Hezbollah, give rise to disgust and general indignation ... "
Of course it does "move anybody" because the Syrian massacre does not fit the drive-by Media and Left's template.
Template: West (Israel included) = Evil. Anything coming from oppressed, formerly colonized victims of Western imperialism is a reaction to injustice and therefore "authentic," "pure," "revolutionary," and "good."
Prior to the rise of the Shia in Iraq, Hezbollah -- as a radical Shiite Islamist organization -- was Iran's main asset in the Arab world. In fact, it likely will continue to be used by Tehran as a key tool for furthering Iranian geopolitical interests in the region, until such time as Shiite power has been consolidated in Baghdad and Iran's interests there secured.
In its earliest days, Hezbollah was a classic militant organization -- the creation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the elite unit of the Iranian military. It was founded as a way to export the ideals of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini's Islamic revolution to the Shiite community of Lebanon, and served as a model for follow-on organizations (some even using the same name) in other Arab states. It did not take long, however, for Hezbollah to emerge in Lebanon as a guerrilla movement, whose fighters were trained in conventional military tactics.
In the mid-1980s, Iran's premier intelligence agency, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), assumed the task of managing Tehran's militant assets -- not just in the Middle East but in other parts of the world as well. This allowed the Iranians, through a special unit within MOIS, to strike at Israeli interests in places as diverse as Latin America and Southeast Asia.
The relationship between MOIS and Hezbollah remains a subject worthy of study in light of the current situation in Lebanon. Of course, Iran has been Hezbollah's chief source of funding and weapons over the years, and the Iranians continue to supply extensive training in weapons, tactics, communications, surveillance and other methods to the militant wing of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The relationship is sufficiently close that the Hezbollah branch in Iran proper recently declared it would unleash militant attacks against Israelis and Americans around the world if given the order by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. (Tehran insists that Hezbollah is not an arm of official policy.)
Another Claude Moniquet op-ed. Link is a .pdf. By Claude MONIQUET, President of the ESISC
Not a day, nor an hour goes by without television hitting us with the horrible images of the destruction that Tsahal is inflicting on Lebanon. All this accompanied by the interminable account of dead people. Yes, this war as yet without a name, kills many.
Yes, the hundreds of dead Lebanese include women and children. But first let us ask a question which is not just a mere formality. Hizballah is an army, an insurrectional army that is carrying out an insurrectional war. Now, in this sort of conflict, a civilian is often a militiaman who has just laid down his Kalachnikov or who will take it up a few hours later. This has to be said and has to be kept in mind. As must also be said and be kept in mind that Hizballah is a cynical organisation that feeds on the hatred and revenge spread by each death.
And that is why the army of cowards has its base in the civilian population, that is why it trains adolescents to become militiamen when it doesnt train them to become kamikazes and that is why it conceals its stockpile of weapons in family homes. It must also be kept in mind that the Israeli army forewarns the civilian population before it strikes.
This, of course, doesnt diminish the horror of both the death of innocent women and children.
But, its a fact, that all those who in political circles as well as in the media denounce the disproportion of the Israeli counterattacks are, in the final analysis, happy with the fact that Israel does the job, the hard workas the Russians say. Can there be anyone in Europe or in the Arab world who does not want to see an end to Hizballah, this totalitarian and terrorist organisation that, yesterday, took a democracy as hostage and that today takes hostage the entire Lebanese population? Can there be anyone who doesnt wish to destroy this armed branch of the Republic of mullahs.
Yes, the Israeli offensive upsets because it kills civilians. But, yes, it pleases in fact a lot of people - and many capital cities because at last it provides an opportunity to end with Hizballah (at least on a military level) and to force Teheran to realise that there are red lines that cannot be crossed.
Let us not fool ourselves : a retreat or weakness of the Hebrew State would do no service to the world and we are not referring here only to the western world if the offensive does not reach its logical end, that is, to destroy the Hizballah fighters, eliminate its leaders, break its chain of command and its operational capacity and get rid of the weight that its stock of missiles lay on Israel (not only on Israel but also on the Arab governments which, tomorrow, could upset Teheran, as well as Jordan ), then these dead will not have died in vain. If the military organisation of Hizballah is not destroyed, then, tomorrow, it will be the soldiers of the U.N.O. taking part in an army of intervention who will be the target of their weapons and the hostages who will rot in the caves of Beirut, as in 1985, will be foreigners.
The smart ones will say that it would be enough to apply the 1559 resolution of the U.N.O. Sure, but as it happens the only problem is that the U.N.O. is a giant with feet of clay that never has the willpower to carry out (its) decisions. The international community said it already years ago: the Hizballah has to disarm. But the Hizballah has refused to do it and has plunged Lebanon in tragedy. Who has been there to apply this resolution? Has the Lebanese Army? Certainly not! Besides, Lebanon is now led by a government that includes three Hizballah members one official and two sympathizers and its Prime Minister who asks the organisation to lay down the arms knows for certain that they will not listen. As to the President of Lebanon, Emile Lahoud, this valet who has sold his country to Syria, proclaims urbi and orbi that Hizballah is respected throughout the Arab world. His masters voice
Human nature and that of the world are such that laws without enforcement are useless. If that were not the case, would we really need police to apply penal laws in our democracies? Wouldnt the citizens follow the rules of their own accord? But that is not the case.
Today it is Israel that has to do the dirty job in Lebanon. Theres no reason, here, to crown with laurel-wreaths soldiers of this democracy. But maybe there is one reason to pay attention to the criticisms and the manner in which they are uttered. Today, when the Lebanese government or Europe, condemn the disproportion of the Israeli retaliation, they do it because of their failures, their cowardice and their compromises. These failures, this cowardice and these compromises, as much as the senseless provocation of Hizballah, have plunged Lebanon in mourning. The Israeli army is here only the instrument of destiny. But it is a very heavy weight to be carried by a democracy which, its true, after so many years, has become accustomed to go it alone.
Posted by: mac ||
07/21/2006 8:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Israel is a front line state. If Iran gets ICBMs we will all be on the line. Could that happen? Condis on the way to Israel next week. I smell a status quo armistice.
#4
Juan Williams was on Fox agz radio babe Laura Ingraham, arguing for a surreal, "stronger US policy" which invols more diplo-talking, the UNO, and participation of local external or neighboring Muslim nations, i.e "the Talk"!?
[...] I have to say, watching George Bush talk about Israel the last week has reminded me of a feeling that I hadn't felt in so long I forgot what it felt like: the feeling of pride when your president says what you want your president to say, especially in a matter that chokes you up a bit. I surrender my credentials as Bush exposer - from the very beginning - to no man, but on Israel, I love it that a U.S. president doesn't pretend Arab-Israeli conflict is an even-steven proposition. Lots of ethnic peoples, probably most, have at one time or another lost some territory; nobody's ever completely happy with their borders; people move and get moved, which is why the 20th century saw the movement of tens if not hundreds of millions of refugees in countries around the world. There was no entity of Arabs called "Palestine" before Israel made the desert bloom. If those 600,000 original Palestinian refugees had been handled with maturity by their Arab brethren, who had nothing but space to put them, they could have moved on -- the way Germans, Czechs, Poles, Chinese and everybody else has, including, of course, the Jews.
But I digress. I really wanted to say that, for all those who accuse the likes of myself and the birthday girl of being unpatriotic, or hating America first, the feeling I've had watching Israel defend herself and a US president defend Israel (a country that is held to a standard for "restraint" that no other country ever is asked to meet, but that's another story) just reminds me how wrong that is. I LOVE being on the side of my president, and mouthing "You go, boy" when he gets it right. He just, outside of this, almost never does.
#3
I would never say Bill Maher is a hate-America first kind of guy. I just think he'll say the shocking thing for a laugh or a headline.
It appears the shocking thing at his point is to support the Prez.
Maybe I'm too cynical. He was funny when his show was on Politically correct back in the day. Then again I knew a lot less about politics so perhaps he wasn't funny I just didn't know enough to know . Who knows.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
TEL AVIV Israel's new chief of staff, an air force general, believed that most of Israel's future operations would be conducted from the air. Military leaders were convinced that with superior communications and air power they did not even need new U.S. "bunker buster" munitions to root out terror leaders in underground hideaways.
[...] I have to say, watching George Bush talk about Israel the last week has reminded me of a feeling that I hadn't felt in so long I forgot what it felt like: the feeling of pride when your president says what you want your president to say, especially in a matter that chokes you up a bit. I surrender my credentials as Bush exposer - from the very beginning - to no man, but on Israel, I love it that a U.S. president doesn't pretend Arab-Israeli conflict is an even-steven proposition. Lots of ethnic peoples, probably most, have at one time or another lost some territory; nobody's ever completely happy with their borders; people move and get moved, which is why the 20th century saw the movement of tens if not hundreds of millions of refugees in countries around the world. There was no entity of Arabs called "Palestine" before Israel made the desert bloom. If those 600,000 original Palestinian refugees had been handled with maturity by their Arab brethren, who had nothing but space to put them, they could have moved on -- the way Germans, Czechs, Poles, Chinese and everybody else has, including, of course, the Jews.
