About Me

Name: arandomguy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

AMNESTY accuses Israel of War Crimes

In a report released today, Amnesty International has said Israel committed war crimes, during its recent 34 day war with Lebanon. Their report claims that destruction of Lebanese homes and economic infrastructure was "an integral part of the military strategy."

Though they noted humans rights violations by both sides, they also acknowledged that they had not yet opened an inquiry into Hezbollah for their alleged war crimes. They claim Israel centered their attacks around "civilian areas," and that the scale of the Israeli violations were much greater than Hezbollah's human rights violations.

This is sickening. 60 years ago, what Israel did would have been considered weak. It would have been a weak response to a vicious act of war, carried out against its own civilians. Now, it is considered a human rights violation.

Nevermind that Hezbollah hides their weapons in civilian areas. Never mind that Hezbollah themselves are hiding in civilian areas. This means nothing to the people at Amnesty International. Donatella Rovera, head of the research team that produced this report, even went so far as to say Israel was not justified in attacking the source of the Katuysha rocket fire, because "This doesn’t mean send a hell of a lot of stuff vaguely in that direction,” she said.

That this woman is blatantly anti-Israel should be obvious. Israel committed no human rights violations in this war. I would even go so far as to say they fought this war much more humanely than they should have. Imagine if someone like Ms. Rovera had been following Patton or Eisenhower during World War II. Imagine if they were in Vietnam.... oh wait, they were. That's partially why we lost Vietnam.

I think it is apparent here, that should anybody follow the advice of Amnesty International, the only victors would ever be terrorists. Since apparently, everything terrorists do is justified under international law.

If terrorists hide in civilian populated areas, the people going after the terrorists (usually either the USA or Israel), cannot strike for fear of hitting civilians. Never mind that these civilians are only in the way in the first place because the terrorists are forcing them to be. Never mind how greatly this weakens the war on terror.

All the terrorists need to do is stay in large cities - and then they are invulnerable, should Amnesty international have its way. The US would never be able to bomb Baghdad, Kabul, or any other large city anywhere in the world. Nor would Israel be able to defend itself.

If terrorists launch unprovoked attacks against innocent civilians, and kidnap Israeli soldiers, then Israel is not justified in attacking this rogue terrorist organization. Because if they do, *gasp* civilians might die. And this is totally unacceptable. At least if Amnesty International were to have its way.

Thankfully, there is at least some sanity left in this world. Unfortunately however, the amount of said sanity is rapidly decreasing. There are no more Pattons left. There are no more Shermans left. There are no more MacArthurs or Eisenhowers. And because of this, our soldiers are in dire straits, and our military is on the brink of losing the battles we are fighting against global jihadists.

Like it or not, ruthlessness is needed in war, despite what Amnesty International says. Amnesty International, above all, is precisely what it claims to be. AI. Artificial intelligence.

Because no person of any real intelligence can look at the situation and claim Israel was not justified in its attacks. It was, and that is the end of the discussion. Furthermore, they will be the next time the issue is raised.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

North Korea upset over military demonstrations

North Korea (whom I am convinced is tired of being put on the back pages of the news lately, due to events in the Middle East), has expressed it's dislike of US and South Korean military demonstrations this week.

North Korea issued a statement that said the exercises were tantamount to war, and that action by North Korea would be taken swiftly. Their statement included the following declaration: "[North Korea] reserves the right to undertake a pre-emptive action for self-defense against the enemy at a crucial time it deems necessary to defend itself."

This is nothing new however. North Korea has been known to frequently make statements attesting to the brink of war on the peninsula, and arguing for their right to a pre-emptive attack. Though for all their bluster, they still fear the US, and will not attack unless their leader completely loses all his sanity (what little of it there is left).

According to the US military, the exercises have been going on annually since 1975 - and this is the first time North Korea has become upset about them. Even so, North Korea says these exercises render the treaty of 1953 "null and void."

I do not want us to forget about North Korea. There is speculation that they are planning on testing a nuclear weapon sometime in the near future - a thought that is troubling to say the least. Events in the Mideast have put North Korea on the back burner for the time being, but we must not forget.

North Korea is even more dangerous than Iran. Because according to our best estimates, North Korea is closer to developing nuclear weapons than Iran is, and furthermore, North Korea has a more dangerous leader.

Kim Jong Il is insane. I have no doubt about that. And that makes him totally unpredictable. Which is a danger for not only South Korea and the US, but all the other nations in the region. If this man controls a nuclear weapon, who is to say what he will do with it? He must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. That would be truly devastating to the world.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that if he could develop a nuclear weapon, he would have the Iranian's knocking on his door immediately - and the Iranians I am convinced would use a nuclear weapon if they had one - another good argument against letting them have one.

A part of me honestly hopes North Korea attacks South Korea again. Though I do not hope for war, an invasion of this sort would justify the US in finishing off North Korea completely, and ensuring that they develop no nuclear technology for the next generation.

All this said, it must still be remembered that Kim Jong Il is full of bluster and bloviation. He often says things just to get in the papers, and he rarely acts on any of it. As I said, this is not the first time he has said the peninsula is on the brink of war - and unfortunately it will probably not be his last.

But this just illustrates the problem with North Korea. They are so unpredictable we do not know if they are lying, egging us on, or actually telling the truth. They are a hostile regime to be sure. But unlike Iran, we are not sure what their intentions are. And this makes them all the more dangerous.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush on the offensive

Bush has hit the offensive today, with his press conference, where he addressed Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, the war on terror, and even a bit about the economy - even while being heckled by that annoying Helen (what does she do besides haggle anyway?)

He admitted that it is a strain on the country, but says that leaving now would be a disaster. He also attacks Democrats who want to cut and run, or set a timetable for withdrawl, saying that as long as he is president, there will be no early withdrawls.

It is good to see the president out on the offensive right before critical elections for the conservative agenda. If we lose now, I fear the future of the conservative movement. I do not think it will die, but it will suffer a damaging blow to be sure.

Almost immediately after the speech, house and senate democrat leaders began attacking the president. Says Nancy Pelosi:

"Our soldiers in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, force protection of U.S. personnel and training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces."

Perhaps Ms. Pelosi hasn't noticed, but this is precisely what our soldiers are already doing. We are working on counterterrorism - catching both terrorists who carry out attacks against the US and coalition forces, and those who harbor them - and we are certainly working to train the Iraqi army.

There's just the problem of some bad men with beards who blow us up at every turn. They make the job increasingly difficult. While they exist, there is less time for training because we must be on the lookout for potential attacks. It stinks, but that is the reality. The simple fact is, US forces are making progress in Iraq. Lots of progress.

But progress during a war is slow. Especially when the initial aspects of the war were so botched, as with this one (read some of my other editorials for my take on US warmaking policies). Simply put, staying the course is the only viable option in Iraq. If we leave now, the terrorists will follow us. These are no longer just homegrown insurgents. They largely left us alone after the elections started. These are terrorists from outside Iraq, funded by Al Qaeda and other such organizations, finding sympathetic Iraqi's and using them for their destructive aims.

Take what Harry Reid said on the subject:

"Far from spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East, the Bush administration has watched while extremists grow stronger, Iran goes nuclear, Iraq falls into civil war and oil and gas prices skyrocket. Simply staying the course is unacceptable."

What Harry Reid has failed to realize, is that he is entirely wrong. Prior to 9/11, the largest terrorist threat from the Islamic world was Sunni. That is, the Sunni's were the ones causing all the problems. Al Qaeda is Sunni. Saddam was Sunni. The Taliban was Sunni. These three, in the pre-9/11 world, were the three greatest outside threats to the United States.

By comparison, Iran at this time, though a threat, was nowhere near the danger that Iraq or Afghanistan were, with their state sponsor of terrorism, their mass murder, and their insistence on developing WMD.

Now, 6 years later, the tables have turned completely. Robbed of state sponsors, Sunni terrorists have largely either given up, or gone into hiding, such as Bin Laden and the remainder of the Taliban, and those few Republican Guard left loyal to Saddam in Iraq. It is because of US efforts that the threat from Sunni terror has been largely neutralized.

Don't get me wrong. There is still a long way to go. For one, Al Qaeda is still the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world today, even though they have been devastated by US counterterrorism efforts.

However, this absence of Sunni threats, has allowed the other major Islamic group, the Shiites to step into the forefront of the terror world. Led by countries like Iran and Syria, these Shiia terrorists are taking the place of their Sunni counterparts.

This is all part of a larger strategy. The Sunni will be neutralized first - they were the greater threat at the time. However, Sunni defeat will lead to a Shiia manipulation of power, making another danger. Then the Shia will be neutralized, effectively destroying both sources of Islamic terror.

But this will take time. Our policies are working. They would have worked faster if the US knew how to fight a decent, non-politically-correct war, but they are still working nonetheless. We must stay the course in Iraq, or I fear the repercussions around the world.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

US Contemplating new UN resolution

Surprise surprise. The US is going to introduce another resolution to the UN, with the intent of rapidly disarming Hezbollah. This is because the first resolution was an absolute failure. Hezbollah if anything has grown stronger, when they were supposed to be disarmed.

The French, previously big supporters of this resolution, and pledging several thousand troops, have backed down from their earlier statements. They now only promise 200, and refuse to disarm Hezbollah. The Lebanese government also refuses to disarm Hezbollah. The only two nations that can do anything about it, aren't able to. The US won't for whatever reason. And Israel, after losing the war, has hung its head in shame, and furthermore is being pushed out of the area by UN "peacekeepers."

This is why the US believes a new resolution is needed - to ensure that Hezbollah is disarmed rapidly.

This infuriates me. I have been saying since this resolution was first passed what a debacle it was. It did not address the root causes of the problem - Syria and Iran - and its calls for Hezbollah disarmament were mediocre at best. Furthermore, I predicted (correctly) that France would back down from its early bluster, and that the Lebanese government would refuse to disarm Hezbollah.

The Administration now understands it would seem, though it may be too late. These questions and concerns should have been addressed on the first time around. By now, who knows how much rearming Hezbollah has been able to do. They could be back up to near full strength by now. Disarming them now will be extremely difficult. First, civilians are back, making finding Hezbollah more difficult. Second, disarming will be more difficult because they are on the road to recovery after the war. They were weakened at the end of the fighting - anything that needed to be done to them militarily should have been done at that point - but enough time has passed that now, they have probably close to recovered.

Which makes the job of disarming even harder. Finally, there is a big problem with all this disarmament talk - nobody has yet pledged to do the disarming. Make no mistake, it will not be an easy job. All the nations at the UN know that. Disarming terrorists is never an easy task, especially when they have been emboldened after a victory in war, and are being supported by two powerful governments in the region (and if you count Lebanon, 3).

I think this new resolution talk illustrates several things First, it illustrates the point I have made on this blog time and again - that the resolution is a fiasco. Second, it illustrates that the Bush administration (with the possible exception of John Bolton, UN ambassador) does not understand what needs to be done with terrorists in order to secure victory. John Bolton, I think understands, but at the UN negotiations for Resolution 1701, he was trumped by Condi Rice, who went in his stead as chief US negotiator.

Finally, it shows that the UN is a failure. It should not take 2 disarming resolutions to disarm a terrorist organization. It should happen the first time. This waiting wastes time, allowing the terrorists to grow ever stronger. If we want to win, we must be quick about it, or we will surely lose.

I fear for this country and the world, if we cannot get our act together soon. Am I the only one who feels this way?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush Re-classifies weapons data

Alright. There have been complaints coming these days, mostly from the left, but also somewhat from the right, at the Bush administration's secrecy issues. Lefties claim that almost nothing should be secret, and that Bush is a fascist. Those on the right are usually willing to acknowledge that in a time of war SOME things must be kept secret, but others still do not have to be.

And this is the premise for this post today. The Bush administration, specifically the Pentagon has classified data about our Cold war nucler arms arsenal. This information has long been made public, even to the Soviet Union. This information was never classified before, and only very recently has the military begun to classify this information, treating it as national security secrets.

Now, I will be the first to admit that in this time of war, the government must be given some extra liberty with their secrets, because what we don't know could save our lives (and what we do know might get us killed). I supported the NSA wiretapping, and I support other programs like it (whether I know if they exist or not).

However, this seems a little over the top to me. Conservatives are supposed to be for smaller government. I too, as a conservative, am for smaller government. I cannot see how this data, on our nuclear technology during the Cold War - over for over 15 years - is a threat to anything, and why it needs to be kept secret after being public for so long.

Now, I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that liberals make - that Bush is a fascist totalitarian, and that we need to fear for our lives and our freedoms. That is just nonsense. But it does trouble me a little bit, when I look at the secrecy policies of this administration. Secrecy is a slippery slope - noble intentions can often breed catastrophic results. So as good citizens, we must keep an eye on the government, prevent it from becoming too big, and especially from becoming too secretive.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Woman kills newborn

This story actually broke Wednesday, but there have been new developments so I'm waiting until now to post this.

The Police have arrested a woman, Carmen Gatica Gil, who has confessed to murdering her newborn infant and dumping her lifeless body into a trash can outside. Gil, 18, said that she gave birth to the baby in the bathtub of her home earlier that evening. After spending roughly 30 to 40 minutes cleaning up after the birth, while leaving the baby in the tub, she put a plastic bag around the baby's head and suffocated her to death.

She then dumped the infant in a trash can outside, and when she checked 15 minutes later, the infant was not breathing, totally lifeless.

Gil claims she became pregnant after being raped by a family friend late last year. She said she was embarassed, but never told her family or the police that she was pregnant. Even the couple that owned her home did not know she was pregnant, attributing her enlarged belly to a weight gain or whatnot. She said she murdered the infant because she knew she could not provide for her.

Does anybody else find this worse then sick? Neonaticide, slaughter of infants, is the most despicable crime a person can commit, in my opinion. Couldn't provide for the baby. There are many options. First, an abortion. Now before all the pro-lifers start hollaring at me, remember, I am pro life too. However, two things. First, I support limited abortions in the case of rape or incest, and I would rather see an abortion than see an infant slaughtered. Maybe that is just me, but I truly think this crime is... worse than despicable.

This woman will be punished, and I hope it is to the full extent of the law. I also hope they have the death penalty where this woman lives, because she needs to die, and suffer the fate she decided to give to her infant daughter, not an hour after she was born. I understand that rape is traumatic, and that it can cause people to do strange things.

But murder? If this were a murder of her rapist, perhaps I could understand. But I cannot fathom why anybody would want to kill a baby, let alone their baby, let alone a NEWBORN. This baby never lived to see her first day. She never nursed from her mother's breast. She never got to cry. She never got to laugh. She never got to crawl. She never got to walk. She never talked. She never sang. She never smiled. She never lost a tooth. She never went to school. She never had a boyfriend. She never married. She never went to college. She never got to enter the workforce. She never got a chance.

I think all these should be taken away from this despicable woman. There is NO excuse for killing infants. I don't care WHO you are, or for WHAT reason. Killing infants is totally unacceptable, and should be an automatic death sentence.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tired of JonBenet

I was really too young to pay any attention to this story when it broke, in 1996. I was an 8 year old at the time, and I was having more fun enjoying 8 year old things, and all the wonderful gifts I'd gotten from Christmas the day before.

And in the last 2 days, I have heard more about this case then I ever would have wanted. I didn't care the first time, and I can't say I care a whole lot more now. I mean, yes it is tragic that the poor girl was killed. And its good that they now have a suspect in custody.

But I believe there are more important things in the world to be covering on the television news networks, than a possible lead on a 10 year old murder investigation. Perhaps a blurb in the ticker, or a brief on FOX, but whole segments being dedicated to it? Even whole shows are being dedicated to this case, while Iran builds Nukes and defies the world, Hezbollah re arms, and the UN flounders.

It's not that there is anything wrong with the case. It is just that it is like every other unsolved murder case. So why should this one be special? Because the girl was six? How many other six year olds have been murdered, just this year? Let alone in the past ten years.

I'd like to see the news cover some real stories, and perhaps only update us on developments. But when I turn on my TV, and browse through all of my news channels, and they are ALL running the same story about Karr and Jonbenet... well, it is a little annoying to say the least.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran will not halt Atomic work

This is really no surprise. Iran has said that it will not hault uranium enrichment activities designed to create "civilian" nuclear power, a move clearly in violation of the latest UN resolutions about Iran.

At least I am not surprised with it. I have been warning of the dangers of Iran for a very long time, and now it seems we are closer than ever to facing them. Iran is developing nukes. They are beginning to play their game, just as Hitler played his.

Iran revolutionary guards were captured and killed fighting amongst Hezbollah soldiers during the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war. This again parallells what Hitler did in the 1930's, during his rise to power. In order to perfect his war policy, Blitzkrieg or Lighting War, Hitler practiced in the Spanish revolution, which led to a fascist takeover of Spain. Hitler meddled in other conflicts in the region to practice his warmaking.

Iran is doing the same, both in Iraq and in Lebanon. And this is a serious danger. Couple this with their insistence on enriching uranium (and their ability to do so), and their frequent missle tests and military demonstrations, and you have yourself a mixture designed to explode into conflict sooner or later.

Iran is a danger to the mideast and the world. Something must be done besides sitting and chatting in the UN. The UN can do whatever it wants. It hasn't done any good yet, and I remain pessimistic about future prospects for the failed organization. The US and all other freedom loving democracies must take a stand against Iran before it is too late!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kerry says Lieberman "Making big mistake"

John Kerry is at it again. Except this time, instead of turning his endless muttering against his usual victims - Republicans - he is turning his ramblings against one of his own - or rather, one formerly his own, Joe Lieberman.

On ABC's "This Week," with George Stephanopoulos" he told the viewers that he see's Joe Lieberman making a big mistake by running as an independent against Democrat candidate Ned Lamont. He applauds Lamont for challenging Lieberman, who he accuses of adopting Cheneyesque rhetoric, on the war in Iraq.

There are several questions that arise for me to ponder as I listen to John Kerry. First, does anybody really listen to him anymore? I mean truly listen, and actually believe what he is saying? I cannot honestly believe that any decent American could believe this man has any credibility left. He filp-flopped on the war, he lied about his Vietnam service, he lied during his campaign. Furthermore, he just comes off as elitist and generally untrustworthy. Yes, he's hoping for another white house run in 2008, but does anybody honestly believe he can win? As far as politicians go, John Kerry is a monumental failure.

My other question, is why he is opposed to Lieberman running as an Independent. I think it is a good thing for this country. For too long have we had to choose between two parties. Republican or Democrat. Today, the Republican's are seen as the conservative party, though unfortunately too many of them are pro-big government, and they have difficulty adhereing to their conservative bases' principles, of small government, strong national defense, and low taxes. Many Republicans are also frustrating because they seem inable to get many important pieces of legislation through, such as immigration reform, border security, whatnot.

The Democrats meanwhile, are incredibly aloof from the American public because of their far leftist creedo. By embracing people such as John Kerry and Ned Lamont, the democratic party has firmly cemented themselves with the cause of leftists like MoveOn.org, and the Air America crowd. How they expect to win any elections like this I do not know.

But it would be nice to have a third party, don't you think? A third viable choice for voters? Senators like Joe Lieberman are the perfect people to begin a third party - people with a long history of reliable Senate service, self-described moderates, people who think and act independently of their party proper.

Personally, I disagree with Lieberman on most issues facing this country. But on what I believe is the biggest and most important issue of all, National Security and the global War on Terrorism, I agree largely with Lieberman. If I lived in Connecticut I would definitely vote for Joe Lieberman despite our disagreements.

This is because above all, voters should be opportunists. No candidate will ever come along that you totally agree with. So pick the best of your available options, be it Democrat, Republican, or Independent. In Connecticut, we have three options. A Republican with 4% support that nobody has ever heard of. A Democrat who is a former big-business man, and is adamantly against the Bush administration and the war in Iraq (and who I believe is weak on national security hencewise). Or an Independent, belonging to no party, who is strong on national security, supports the Bush administration on the most important issue of our time, and has a distinguished record of service in the Senate.

Of these three options, I would choose Lieberman, because the Republican is not likely to come close to victory, and Lamont would be a disaster for not only Connecticut, but for the country. So, if anybody from Connecticut is reading this, please, Vote for Lieberman.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Good Editorial

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525897203&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

This editorial addresses much of what I have been talking about with reference to the failed peace in Israel, and the devastation such a peace will have in the future (not so far off future) of Israel and the region. I highly recommend it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cindy Sheehan's clan assault Rove speech

Rove was speaking at a Republican convention in Texas on Saturday, when Cindy Sheehan showed up chanting "Try Karl Rove for Treason," along with her radical group of protestors. How does she manage to be so persistently obnoxious?

During the event, Sheehan told the police at the door that she wanted Karl Rove arrested for "killing my son."

Perhaps Cindy Sheehan did not notice a few things. First, Karl Rove has no military experience whatsoever. That said, he doesn't have to. He is a political man, not a military man. He had no more a hand in planning the Iraq invasion then you or I did. If you want to blame people, at least find the right people to blame. Karl Rove is responsible for seeing the President get re-elected, and seeing Republicans maintain control of the US house and Senate. Other then that, he does little to nothing, ESPECIALLY in military affairs.

The crowd also began accusing Rove of "crimes against humanity."

What is it that is in these people, that makes them hate Bush and the Bush administration so pathologically? I don't understand it. Whether you agree with the administration's policies or not, how can you possibly have so much hatred for one man? Are they just sore losers? Or do they have such a twisted mind that they cannot fathom that anything Bush does might be GOOD for the country.

And please explain how Rove committed any crimes against humanity? He helped ensure the president was re-elected. Clintons political advisors did the same thing. So did every other 2 term president dating back to George Washington. How is he guilty of crimes against humanity when everyone else isn't?

Joesph Goebbels is guilty of crimes against humanity. Joseph Mengeles is guilty of crimes against humanity.

Karl Rove is just a political guy doing his job.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats penalize own party members

In the 2008 presidential race, things on the Democratic side are heating up. Armed with their fresh new nominating calendar, the Democrats have voted to approve sanctions to candidates who do not follow this calendar.

Any candidate campaiging in a state that does not follow their new calendar will be stripped of their delegates from that state (what is to be done with them is not known). The fight over the nominating calendar is not finished either. Several democrat presidential hopefuls have expressed concern at the new calendar, and have expressed support for New Hampshire.

This is above all, causing a rift in the democratic party, and it could help rob the more popular candidates of votes. And this can only be good for Republicans. But another question about this whole thing is extremely puzzling.

Why is it, that the Democratic party (bastion of liberalism that it is) can't decide whether to impose sanctions on the worlds worst regimes, but they can vote to impose sanctions on their own party members. Doesn't this seem a bit backwards to you?

Oh well. The mind of a democrat is a confusing and scary place. The sheer emptiness of it all makes me shiver.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Annan declares Israeli action in Violation of Peace Treaty

After the Israeli raid early Saturday morning (Israeli time) on Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon, Kofi Annan has declared that Israel is in flagrant violation of the cease fire.

The problem is, Kofi has apparently not read his own document. The document clearly states, and Israel agreed to as such, that Israel shall have control of the area they have already conquered until such time as a UN force can arrive.

So far, all they've got are 50 frenchmen in boats. They aren't good enough to stop Hezbollah attacks. Furthermore, Hezbollah is already in violation of the treaty, because the Israeli attack was launched to stop the rearmament of Hezbollah.

Israel has said they will not stand for the rearmament of Hezbollah, and it is good to see that they finally mean business. No. Israel did not break this cease fire. Hezbollah did. Iran did, by giving Hezbollah weapons. Syria did by transporting these weapons.

And finally, the UN did, when they created this false peace treaty. The cease fire is not yet a week old and it has already been violated by Hezbollah, forcing Israeli retaliation. And the designers of this piece of trash honestly think it will serve to create a lasting peace in the region?

The only thing this resolution is going to do is delay the inevitable. At the risk of sounding redundant, wars are better fought swiftly, all at once, rather than spacing out over an extended period of time. This just increases the number of casualties and fatalities on both sides.

Israel should never have agreed to this peace treaty.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran rearming Hezbollah already

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209071,00.html

Read this story. It outlines what US arms control officers have discovered, that the Israeli cease fire, not yet 1 week old, is already being violated by Iran, which is now rearming Hezbollah with Chinese rocket technology.

And the Bush administration is again screwing up here. These are Russian and Chinese made rockets, sold to Iran, which magically end up in Hezbollah's arms. The Bush administration is willing to give Russia and China the benefit of the doubt, and attribute it to "poor export control," but I doubt this is the case.

One look at the geopolitical leanings of the Chinese and the Russians, both of whom are moderately friendly with Iran (at least friendly enough to sell them weapons) shows that both nations likely knew Iran would give the arms to Hezbollah. Though they claim they did not know, both the arms control officers, and myself are skeptical. I don't see how they couldn't. It is common sense. Iran is a terrorist regime, and they sponsor terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. It makes sense that weapons the acquire would somehow find their way to one of these two groups.

And of course the weapons have to travel through Syria, which is a willing participant in all of this.

And yet the UN treaty made no mention of either Iran or Syria, which is why these activities are allowed to continue. No sanctions were put in place. No force was sent into Iran to force compliance. Nothing was done on the Syria-Lebanon border to ensure Syrians with weapons couldn't smuggle them over the border to Hezbollah.

Yet the leaders of Israel and the US, as well as all of the World Community claim this is a victory for justice, and a triumph of good over evil.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

France wants "Safety guarantee"

France announced yesterday, that in order for French troops to be sent into Lebanon as part of a 15,000 strong UN Peacekeeping force, it would need guarantees by the UN for its soldiers safety.

The french government justified this by saying they were going into a situation well designed to become a quagmire, and they wanted assertions of safety before going into what could be a many year occupation of southern Lebanon.

The problem with this logic, is that the UN peacekeeping force was supposed to PREVENT a quagmire. That was the entire justification for them being there in the first place. Therefore, if it IS a quagmire, it means the UN (and the French) haven't done their job properly, which is not only bad for Israel and the citizens of Lebanon, but bad for the whole world as well.

After reading this story, I can only think of one thing.

How did France survive this long?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive