america | the hegemon

by Michael Park

It appears that the idea of the Israeli Lobby as the prime mover behind the foreign policy decisions of Washington is set in stone. There is a significant rump of opinion that the invasion of Iraq – illegal as it was – was at the behest of this supposed nefarious cancer within the body politic of the United States.

It has been my experience that if history teaches anything about hegemonic powers and their actions, it is that they formulate policy and act almost unfailingly in their own interest. That does not, of course, mean that these actions do not benefit other nations as well as the hegemon. The United States of America, after the second world war, assumed by default as much as by action the hegemony of the Western hemisphere. By the close of the last century it had become the world hegemon.

The comparison to Rome is often made. That comparison is the “Pax Americana”, which is both as tendentious as it is tedious. The comparison that does match what are the results of a reasonably consistent trend in foreign policy settings followed by United States administrations since WWII – and like polls, it is the trend not the GWB-related swings that matter – is the inexorable engagement and inevitable absorption of the Macedonian imperial kingdoms of the east.

The span of the twentieth century was witness to the United States’ gradual – and increasing – abandonment of the founding article of faith of American foreign policy: isolationism. The opposite, of course, is engagement. The Philippines aside, US engagement abroad was kindled by WWI and given a dose of steroids by WWII.

Politics – and political theology – as always will cloak all. After WWII, that theological clash was the holy western democracy versus the unholy spread of communism. Whilst theological warriors abounded, US foreign policy kept a sure and steady eye on the battleground that mattered: economics and resources. The last four decades of the 20th Century saw the United States supporting all manner of regimes in regions critical to the resources that are the lifeblood of western economies.

None of this is either surprising or unexpected. Not only the United States benefited from these actions – other nations just as dependent on these resources reaped the benefits as well. It is the nature of that engagement that is illuminating.

Like Rome, America began by settling internal problems, arbitrating disputes – mostly by backing the side most easily manipulated to serve US interests. The “Client State”, as opposed to Rome’s client kingdoms. Instances of the US using its own military – directly – to install or preserve such are not overly numerous (Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, for examples). The preferred modus operandi is best exemplified by the Shah of Iran. At the beginning of the new century, that changed.

Grasping an unparalleled opportunity, the Bush administration fabricated, fashioned and foisted a case for war against Iraq. Like Rome, the current administration decided that it had had enough of third party meddling and decided absorption was the way to go. If we are to believe some of what we read, this was done at the behest of the Israel Lobby in Washington. Again, to believe that this course of action was taken to benefit the nation of Israel is to believe that the US “engagement” with Azerbaijan and the other assorted “Stans” (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc) of the Caucasus is all about the furtherance of democratic principles. The invasion of Iraq had little to do with Israeli interests and much to do with strategic US interests. Those interests being resources, along with economic and political influence.

The all powerful  “neocon cabal” – with their "Lobby" puppeteers – who had fabricated the reasons for and planned the war itself were "done over" by international oil. The core of this was the fact that these people (the "neocons") had – amongst other economic articles of faith – planned for the privatisation of the entire Iraqi oil industry and its support structure.

The oil men wanted nothing of the sort. What they wanted were “PSAs” – otherwise known as Profit Sharing Agreements (see, pdf file). In short, these are an agreement – for periods of forty, fifty years or more – where the extractor (the oil company) is guaranteed a take – fixed under the contract and unalterable by succeeding governments of the host country. The oil company – to all intents and purposes – owns the yet to be extracted crude. It is able to “book” it, that is, to show known but yet to be extracted reserves as an asset in its ledger. Does marvelous things for your stock price!

To quote Greg Palast:

Some 323 pages long and deeply confidential, it (the plan) was drafted at the James A. Baker III Institute in Houston, Texas, under the strict guidance of Big Oil’s minions. It was the culmination of a series of planning groups that began in December 2000 with key players from the Baker Institute and Council on Foreign Relations (including one Ken Lay of Enron). This was followed by a State Department invasion-planning session in Walnut Creek, California, in February 2001, only weeks after Bush and Cheney took office…

The plan the Establishment created, crafted by Houston oil men, called for locking up Iraq’s oil with agreements between a new state oil company under “profit-sharing agreements” with “IOCs” (International Oil Companies). The combine could “enhance the [Iraq’s] government’s relationship with OPEC,” it read, by holding the line on quotas and thereby upholding high prices.

Wolfowitz Dammerung: Twilight Of The Neo-Con Gods

Indeed. One could argue the politics of the invasion until the human causes of global warming are proved fact or fiction. What is beyond doubt is that the world hegemon has acted in its own interest as always, that interest not necessarily being “the bringing of democracy” to Iraq, or the betterment of the Iraqi people as such; nor was it for the benefit of the Israeli state at the behest of the "Lobby". Were any of these to happen as a result, then so much the better.

This is an administration resolutely pursuing its interest.  Those interests are not necessarily aided by the institutions established by the American liberal tradition (as  Peter Beinart of The New Republic puts it) : "a tradition of institution-building that traces from Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations to Franklin Roosevelt's United Nations, IMF, and World Bank to Harry Truman's NATO." These were the creations of an America engaged with the world.  A US that wished engagement without direct control. An engagement mirrored by Rome's encouragement of the time honoured practice of arbitration (a practice unknown to itself) among the Greek and Hellenistic states.

As Tony Blair stated in his speech given at Georgetown University (quoted in the TNR piece) , those institutions need to be actively engaged by the world power and modified or renewed for the new reality:

"What's the obstacle" to such efforts, he asked? "It is that, in creating more effective multilateral institutions, individual nations yield up some of their own independence. This is a hard thing to swallow.... But the [alternative is] ... ad hoc coalitions for action that stir massive controversy about legitimacy or paralysis in the face of crisis. No amount of institutional change will ever work unless the most powerful make it work."

It was – as was always the case with the expansion of Rome – a securing of resources (and borders) and the furthering of the interests of those who are able to afford to buy the politics they require. But, as Rome found to her cost when it allowed the overweening and greedy Crassus to invade the east, things don't always go to plan. Crassus and his legions perished at Cahrrae – not far from where young soldiers of Tony Blair's "ad-hoc coalition" are dying. 

I don't often agree with Tony, but I think he's spot on here. A US engaged through these reinvigorated institutions and unencumbered by certain Crassus like players can only be good for the world.

Comments

[Damian Lataan]

Some time ago I published this article, which I wrote years ago. It may be of interest to some readers. It also counteracts the delusional Craig Warton’s inference over at Webdiary that the US had nothing to do with provoking war with Japan.

DOES THE HISTORIAN CHARLES BEARD MAKE THE LIES SOUND FAMILIAR?

Charles Beard’s book, ‘President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941: A Study in Appearances and Realities’, [1] positions Beard both as an historian with an acutely enquiring mind and as a critic of Roosevelt’s war dealings specifically and of America’s role in war generally. However, for a reader to fully appreciate Beard’s white-knuckled mood and firmly grounded perspective one must, at least, be familiar with Beard’s prior works on these and other related issues.
Beard was astute enough to see another great war looming on Europe’s horizon by 1936 and to be moved enough to write ‘The Devil Theory of War: An Inquiry into the Nature of History and the Possibility of Keeping Out of War’[2], in which he argued that the prime motivation of America’s involvement in the Great War was for the benefit of capital and big business eager to cash in on the many new opportunities that war provided. He saw the embryonic imperialist dreams of American empire that Theodore Roosevelt, Admiral Mahan, Henry Cabot Lodge, Albert Beverage and others were espousing as simply a “plain capitalist racket” that utterly appalled him.[3] By 1936, Beard could see America heading in exactly the same direction, yet again, having paid no heed whatsoever to the lessons he believed should have been learnt from the First War. It is not until the penultimate paragraph in the ‘Devil Theory of War’ that Beard offers a meek, almost passing, but nonetheless important insight into the conditions by which America might entangle itself in war, where he suggests that:

"It might so happen that participation by the United States in the next or following war would be desirable “in the national interest” or for some great good. If so, the case could be discussed openly on its merits by the Congress of the United States, as advised by the President and the State Department openly. If we go to war, let us go to war for some grand national and human advantage openly discussed and deliberately arrived at, and not to bail out farmers, bankers and capitalists or to save politicians from the pain of dealing with a domestic crisis."[4]

It is difficult to judge exactly what Beard had in mind with regard to the words “grand national and human advantage” and the offering this paper makes can only be speculative, but it may well be that Beard foresaw some overwhelming catastrophic threat to America’s existence as being the only situation that would require America to entangle itself in war – not just the war to come but, he carefully notes, any future war. That, however, was in 1936.

In ‘President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941’, Beard’s reflections on the reasons for FDR taking America into the Second World War, he certainly does not entertain the notion that the attack on Pearl Harbour provided such threat to America’s existence and, indeed, implies that, while America then had no choice but to prosecute the war, its provocation was engineered and could have been avoided.[5] He immerses himself in the task of proving his argument and making his point. The extent of the research alone demonstrates the drive he has found for the purpose and the passionate search for the truth borders on a kind of controllable obsession that seems to fuel that drive. One wonders if Beard senses or is aware of his approaching demise, (he dies in 1948, the year of the book’s publication) and whether this too projects his sense of urgency needed to once and for all resolve and reveal the truth of it. Not just of FDR’s complicity in political manipulation, but also to vindicate what Beard believed and had expressed in 1936 in ‘The Devil Theory of War’ as an all embracing truth and that the ensuing war was stark proof of it. This paper, apparently, is not the first to discuss the validity of such argument.[6]

But then one arrives at the last chapter of President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War and, after reading it carefully, one wonders if there is not some paradoxical conundrum lurking between all the previous lines. If only Beard were still alive. He could be asked if, in 1948 and with the benefit of hindsight and having full knowledge of the absolute atrociousness of the war, (which he actually would not have had in 1948)[7] whether he would still have been the isolationist that he was before the war. Beard concedes to the obscenity of Hitler’s Nazism and the impossibility of a neutral America being forced to trade with a victorious Hitler throughout Europe and a Japanese empire through Asia. In questioning FDR’s reasoning for doing what he had done, Beard asks if “the means justified the ends”.[8] If, at the end of it all, two monstrous tyrannies were beaten into non-existence at such a terrible price only to be replaced by a huge monolithic tyranny that now swept not just through much of Eastern Europe but across to those regions that were once part of the previous Pacific tyranny, then was it all worth it?[9] If Beard were President, one might ask, what would he have done? The answer, one suspects, is that he would rather have told of what he would not have done. For Beard, the question was not what he would or would not have done; it was the question of political morality that was important. A matter of political honesty and integrity, he may say, and since neither were present according to Beard, there could, he implies, only be left dishonesty, deceit and hypocrisy. For Beard, the hypocrisy of the Atlantic Charter of August 1941, from that meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill where, incidentally, Beard implies, the plans for America’s incursion in to war were hatched,[10] was the betrayal of all that was noble in the Charter. It demonstrated perfectly his contention that the end did not justify the means. The victorious Allied leaders determined a post-war way of life for millions of Europeans who would have no say at all about their future.[11] What now of that ‘noble Charter’, Beard demands to know.

And what of the future? It may well have been Beard’s next question. He does not ask it in Roosevelt and the Coming of the War - the book ends before it is asked. But throughout the entire book one senses that this is really what Beard is leading up to. If the reasons for America’s part in the war are revealed to be wholly for ulterior motives and the outcome of the war so contrary to the rhetoric of great cause and noble righteousness, then how can the people of America and, indeed, the world, ever again trust unrestrained governments to collude with others of the same ilk in the name of the common interest of humanity?[12] As an historian, always trying to find that fine balance between the objectivity of truth and the subjectivity of the righteousness of the true great cause, Beard, in the end, finds himself struggling between calm analysis, frustration at a world unwilling or incapable of ‘seeing’ that which he has laid before them, and an intangible despair that seems to prevent him from asking that question - what of the future?

Beard ensures the reader of ‘Roosevelt and the Coming of the War’ that it is a sequel to the 1946 publication[13] of his work, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932-1940’,[14] a work that demonstrates the historians art almost classically, yet, at the same time, gives insight as to what his next book will be. One is struck by Beard’s growing sense of frustration in Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, the seeds of which are sown in the (almost) calm analyses and research that went into American Foreign Policy, to the extent that one needs to ask if it was the emergence of truth, the shedding of light that research exposes, that prompted the need for a sequel. While using the trained historians methods, Beard puts so much feeling into Roosevelt and the Coming of the War as to expose himself as a man who wants to have his life again, or at least a bit more than what is left of this one, so that he can have the ultimate word in his struggle against the hypocrisy of an America going to war without some “grand national and human advantage”. With ‘Roosevelt and the Coming of the War’, Beard goes to the edge of scholarly history and pushes right to the boundary of social criticism.

ENDNOTES

[1] Charles Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941: A Study in Appearances and Reality’, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948).
[2] Charles Beard, ‘The Devil Theory of War: An Inquiry into the Nature of History and the Possibilities of Keeping Out of War’, (New York: Greenwood Press, 1969 reprint ed.)
[3] Beard, ‘The Devil Theory of War’. pp. 119-121.
[4] Beard, ‘The Devil Theory of Wa’r. p. 124.
[5] Beard devotes an entire chapter entitled ‘Manoeuvring the Japanese into Firing the first Shot’ in his effort to prove that America went to great effort to manipulate a situation that would bring it into war with Japan and thence Germany. Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War’. Chapter XVII.
[6] Thomas C. Kennedy, ‘Charles A. Beard and American Foreign Policy’, (Gainesville, Fl: The University Presses of Florida, 1975). p. 151.
[7] Much of what we know today about the history of the Second World War has been derived from resources made available since 1948 though Beard would have been aware of the criminal extent of the war from the revelations of the Nuremberg trials of the major war criminals and the trials of the Japanese war criminals.
[8] Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War’. p. 575.
[9] Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War’. p. 577.
[10] Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War’. Ch. XV generally and p. 457 specifically.
[11] Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War’. pp. 576-577.
[12] Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War’. pp. 582-583.
[13] Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War’. Prefatory Note.
[14] Charles Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932-1940: A Study in Responsibilities’, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1946.

[Jay White]

Damo “Let me make it quite clear to you Jay White; I have absolutely no interest in who you do or do not respect and I certainly have no interest in actually debating anything with you – baiting you, yes; you’re moronic enough to take the bait, but debating? Forget it!

Hey Jack; you do whatever you feel works best for you. Whatever floats your boat so to speak. Live and let live has always been my motto. I do though reserve the right to correct you on crap. Which seemingly I find myself doing often.

“I write here, as I’ve said before, simply for the benefit of the reader to both express my views and expose you and others like you for the warmongering fascists that you are“.

Now before I consider the first paragraph completely delusional; a couple of questions if I may? If you are intending on “exposing” me, who would this be too? My family? Friends? Neighbours? The law? Faceless site readers? The waitress at my favourite Café etc? Should I be searching for a hideout before “exposure”? Does the “exposure” involve UV light, ray guns even?

Shit and here I was thinking I was just this faceless guy on a internet forum. One that happens to hold an opinion on a variety of subjects in a free country. One even thinking it was okay taking up his lawful right of expressing it. On a site that wishes to have such people contributing.

So it would it be true to say I’m now being internet stalked for the purpose of being “exposed” by a aircraft building woodshed owner? One does not get that everyday, perhaps I should feel honoured? Is there any such any such thing as a “internet intervention”?

So ends another eventual week in the zany madcap world of Jay White (WFL) (warmongering fascist lunatic)

[Damian Lataan]

Let me make it quite clear to you Jay White; I have absolutely no interest in who you do or do not respect and I certainly have no interest in actually debating anything with you – baiting you, yes; you’re moronic enough to take the bait, but debating? Forget it! I write here, as I’ve said before, simply for the benefit of the reader to both express my views and expose you and others like you for the warmongering fascists that you are.

Really simple!

[Jay White]

Damo "That’s right! If it needs ‘bashing’, then bash it! Sometimes the truth is a bit unpalatable – especially when it concerns US foreign policy. You don’t like the truth because it’s ‘US bashing’? Tough!

And it was not even a so called neo-con admin. Just shows were your true priorities lay.

By the way more than one close relatives were in Asia during this time. They never doubted the need for the bomb. Than again they really got to see the Japanese soldier up close and personal. They would have fought to the last man and would have taken a few more allies with them.

Anyhow that is in the past and has little to do with what is happening in todays world. The US soldiers spilt plenty of blood in that war, like many other nations.

I am not interested in debating the subject with you any longer. My views on these things are shaped by people I RESPECT. I would trust those people over any coffee table debater every single time.

[Damian Lataan]

Jay White reckons: “Nothing to see here except US bashing.”

That’s right! If it needs ‘bashing’, then bash it! Sometimes the truth is a bit unpalatable – especially when it concerns US foreign policy. You don’t like the truth because it’s ‘US bashing’? Tough!

[Jay White]

Damo "Based solely on this, I would argue that Truman’s determination, and resultant decision, to use the bomb was influenced more by the developing US foreign policy for the post-war containment of the USSR in Europe and communism generally, than to bring about a quick end to the conflict with Japan that may or may not have been protracted if continued conventionally. The argument that the bomb on Hiroshima was necessary to bring about a quick conclusion to the war is, at best, weak though may not be entirely indefensible, but to then use another on Nagasaki without waiting to see the full impact, politically and physically, on Hiroshima, is totally indefensible".

"The first atomic bomb ever to be used in a military operation was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, Japan On August 6, 1945 at 8:16:02 a.m. Hiroshima time".

"At 11:02 am on August 9, 1945, the American B-29 Superfortress "Bockscar," in search of the shipyards, instead spotted the Mitsubishi Arms Works through a break in the clouds. On this target, it dropped the nuclear bomb Fat Man, the second nuclear weapon to be detonated over Japan".

Three and a bit days and no surrender? There also would have been a third and a fourth.....etc hence surrender.

Nothing to see here except US bashing. End of story.

[Damian Lataan]

This article I wrote many years ago may be of interest, particularly the references:

THE BOMBING OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI IN AUGUST 1945 WAS INDEFENSIBLE

The question of the necessity of the use of the atom bombs may only be determined by being fully armed with all of the facts. Truman’s decision, based on Henry Stimson’s advice, to use the bomb, he claims, was justified on the basis that many more lives, from both sides, would have been lost if the war with the Japanese had to be brought to a conclusion by conventional weaponry and, ultimately, invasion by Allied forces and all that such fighting would have entailed.[1] This scenario may well have been enhanced if, as James Van de Velde argues in his article, ‘The Enola Gay saved lives’, the USSR had been involved in the planned invasion[2] or, worse, had attacked Japan independently of the US and the other Allies prior to the use of the bombs, a situation that would have been intolerable for the US.

While Truman may well have sincerely believed that the use of the bomb would save lives, it has become clear that such argument was for public consumption and his sincerity if, indeed, it had existed, was purely incidental. It has since come to light that far more complex issues were at the core of the atomic bomb’s use on Japan.

By 12 July, 1945, at least, the Allies were aware of the Japanese move toward ending the war when the Japanese Ambassador, Sato, in Moscow, approached the USSR with a view to having the USSR act as mediator in negotiations with the US to end the war. This follows the decision on 22 June, 1945, by the Japanese Supreme War Strategy Committee to seek a negotiated peace.[3] As Justin Libby shows in his article, there were at least four other high-level diplomatic attempts to reach for a negotiated settlement.[4] The already publicly announced Allied policy, through the Potsdam Declaration of 26 July, 1945, of accepting nothing less than unconditional surrender, meant that the US was unable to shift from this position and would, therefore, not negotiate, particularly after Prime Minister Suzuki had rejected the ultimatum. No attempt to negotiate secretly with the Japanese was ever made. Plans for the use of the bomb went ahead and on 23 July, five days, it is important to note, before Suzuki’s rejection, when Truman gave the order, transmitted the following day to Gen. Carl Spaatz of the US Strategic Air Force, for the bombs’ use as soon as possible after about 3 August, 1945.[5] One could easily construe that, since the awesome power of the bomb was known and that the Japanese were on the verge of defeat and actively seeking a way to end the conflict, that the continued determination for the bombs’ use, despite these factors, were for ulterior reasons.

The European war was over, but for some time before its conclusion the US and Great Britain began to regard the USSR as the threat to the future of world peace and stability. While the bomb, as Martin Sherwin, the noted historian, asserts, was “…viewed at first as a response to a perceived German threat…” it was “…quickly evolved into an instrument for defeating the Japanese and controlling the Soviets.”[6] By the time the bomb was ready for use, though, the Japanese were already defeated[7] and it was the militarist factions within the Japanese hierarchy that were insisting on the continued and futile prosecution of the war.[8] As Sadao Asadra in his article, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japans Decision to Surrender – A Reconsideration’, points out, defeat and surrender are two different things and that, while the Japanese militarists were aware that they were defeated, they were not willing to “…translate defeat into surrender.” This despite Hirohito himself, being in favour of surrender.[9]

Based solely on this, I would argue that Truman’s determination, and resultant decision, to use the bomb was influenced more by the developing US foreign policy for the post-war containment of the USSR in Europe and communism generally, than to bring about a quick end to the conflict with Japan that may or may not have been protracted if continued conventionally. The argument that the bomb on Hiroshima was necessary to bring about a quick conclusion to the war is, at best, weak though may not be entirely indefensible, but to then use another on Nagasaki without waiting to see the full impact, politically and physically, on Hiroshima, is totally indefensible.

There are, of course, numerous other considerations and factors not touched upon in this paper, but the essentials of the argument against the use, and, certainly, subsequent continued use with a second bomb and, even, the possibility of using a third that was being made available,[10] as being totally indefensible is plain and the real ulterior motives as to why the bombs were used are now just as obvious.

ENDNOTES
[1] Stimson, H.L., ‘The Decision to use the Bomb’, The Atomic Bomb: The Great Decision, ed. Paul R. Baker, The Dryden Press, Illinois, 1976. pp.20-27.
[2] Van de Velde, James R., ‘The Enola Gay saved lives’, Political Science Quarterly, Fall, 1995. p.453.
[3] Baker, Paul R., (ed), The Atomic Bomb,. p.viii.
[4] Libby, Justin H., ‘The search for a negotiated peace: Japanese diplomats attempt to surrender Japan prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki’, World Affairs, vol.156, no.1, 1993. p.35.
[5] Baker (ed), The Atomic Bomb. p.viii.
[6] Sherwin, M.J., ‘Atomic Bomb’, The Oxford Companion to the Second World War, ed. I.C.B. Dear, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995. p.74.
[7] Baldwin, H.W., ‘The Strategic Need for the Bomb Questioned’, The Atomic Bomb, Baker, ed. p.42.
[8] Morison, S.E., ‘The Bomb and Concurrent Negotiations with Japan’, The Atomic Bomb, Baker, ed. p.32.
[9] Asada, Sadao, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to surrender - A Reconstruction’, Pacific Historical Review, vol.67, i.4, Nov. 1998. p.477.
[10] Maddox, Robert J., Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, 1995. pp.142-143.

[Craig W]

I couldnt help myself Jay, I also replied to Brian as well. Sometimes you cant just sit by why the village idiots run around everywhere!

Anyway, back to the wine for a while :)

I promise to be good when i reply though...

[Jay White]

Bob the Bozo 'This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete
surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor'.

Received by FDR January 20, 1945.

"Virtually identical"? Close but unfortunately in this case it was no cigar. Close was not good enough. Any person living during this time would understand why. Any person living in this time that was not biased to the point of delusion would understand why.

One of the "virtually identical" terms was in regard to that war criminal Hirohito. A man disgracefully never prosecuted.

Bob Wall is a cretin!

[Jay White]

Craig I did note your reply to the character known as Bob Wall. Perhaps it should be a symbol? And a good reply it was too.

Bob "What made you think I was unaware of that fact? As a member of "the Big Three" but being a party to the non-aggression pact with Japan, the Japanese might have thought the USSR was the best party to use as an intermediary in its efforts to seek peace".

Well trying to link a chance of surrender through the USSR might make some people wonder. They may aswell of tried to surrender through Congo for all the difference it would have made. How can one talk surrender to a party they are not at war with?

Bob "Of course the USSR had an agenda that precluded peace at that time. I'm sure you are aware of that. The Japanese should perhaps have been aware of that also but thought, perhaps, that the USSR was still their best avenue to seek peace".

Their agenda was war with Germany. The agenda of excepting surrender from a nation they were NOT at war with was likely well down the list.

"If you read the first article I linked on this thread you will find mention of other attempts by Japan to seek peace. You might also, using material there and in other sources you might consult, think about why the Japanese used intermediaries instead of going to the US/UK directly".

One of his linked surrender attempts was through Chiang Kai-shek. Yes I am sure that would have gone down a treat with China especially its population. A allie of both the US and UK at the time.

Bob "As MacArthur later verified this then an approach was made to the US. But was not acted upon. Sort of contradicts your "But they didn't do that did they?". I advise reading material provided by a contributor before responding to them".

Of course it was not acted upon. Complete surrender was the only option given. Nothing else was negotiable. To not surrender directly to the US proves that complete one way surrender was not what the Japanese were looking for.

As you say they could have avoided the A bomb by surrendering.

Anybody pretending otherwise is a liar!

[Jay White]

Damo "Rest assured that I shall be reading Antony Loeweinstein’s latest offering. Have a good day at the beach; it’s a pity that Gaza Palestinians and the Lebanese will not be able to avail themselves of the same pleasure".

It would some elements in the Arab world prefer it this way.

I think the world is fast coming to the conclusion this problem should be worked out once and for all. If this must be through total war, so be it!

[Geoff Pahoff]

Michael row the bloat ashore, hallelujah,
Michael row the bloat ashore, hallelujah,
Sister help to trim the sail, hallelujah,
Sister help to trim the sail, hallelujah.

The river is deep and the river is wide, hallelujah,
Green pastures on the other side, hallelujah.

Michael row the bloat ashore, hallelujah,
[ etc ]

Jordan's river is chilly and cold, hallelujah,
Chills the body but not the soul, hallelujah,

Michael row the bloat ashore, hallelujah,
[ etc ]

The river is deep and the river is wide, halleluja,
Milk and honey on the other side, hallelujah,

Michael row the bloat ashore, hallelujah,
[ etc ]

[Geoff Pahoff]

Row row row your bloat
Gently down the stream
Merrily merrily merrily merrily
Life is but a dream.

[Michael Park]

Burp! Fart! Belch…bloated….who said bloated?

I guess we'd just better Bloat On……

Bloat, bloat on
Bloat on, bloat on
Bloat, bloat, bloat on
Bloat on, bloat on

Bloat, bloat on
Bloat on, bloat on
Bloat, bloat, bloat on
Bloat on, bloat on

Bloat, bloat on
Bloat on, bloat on
Bloat, bloat, bloat on
Bloat on, bloat on

[Jay White]

CK "Only people who have never been in a war can actually talk crap like this, while attempting to sound sincere and caring and wise, all at the same time".

Fucking oath to that!

I would have been interesting to see her wandering around most of Europe and Asia cira 1944. Oh such lofty ideals.

Where is the Dr and the tardis when you need them?

[Noelene Konstandinitis]

Craig W

Angela Ryan is a vile Holocaust-denial and deserves our contempt.

[Jay White]

Craig "Hi Jay, everyone has a different perspective or take on things, but the Angela Ryan perspective (and Bob Wall) is (to me) bizarre. It is simplistic and attempts to apply a whacky reverse morality at every stop".

Why though the need to revise WWII history and morals? This is the part I do not get.

Sure I know this pair truly hates the US however to go as far as making a case for Nazi Germany and Imperalist Japan? Along with that it was not only the US making up the allies.

In fact the two nations with the most complaint about the axis were and still are Russia and China respectively.

Revisionist history is a nonsense. A nonsense I feel that will only grow stronger as the eye witness generation fades into history.

[Ck]

"“Through studying these we can have a fuller understanding of what really happened, a fuller picture from all perspectives, in a total and thus gain wisdom to peruse a better world and future, hopefully avoiding the pitfalls from the past and the horrors that may await“.

Faaaaarrrrrk!!

Oh how I cringe at such self-indulgent, starry-eyed, mystical, ignorant, empty drivel.

Only people who have never been in a war can actually talk crap like this, while attempting to sound sincere and caring and wise, all at the same time.

Shoot the dumb bitch.

[Noelene Konstandinitis]

Harry

Thanks for that. As I have been saying for a while, there is a HUGE western propaganda machine behind Palestinian and Islamist terrorism.

[Craig W]

Hi Jay, everyone has a different perspective or take on things, but the Angela Ryan perspective (and Bob Wall) is (to me) bizarre. It is simplistic and attempts to apply a whacky reverse morality at every stop. I truthfully dont understand most of her writings, I read most of them as a disjointed ramble. Then of course there is the cut price Peter Woodforde ... Phil Kendall. At least PW manage some sort of mangled prose. Kendall is just mangled.

Still, if they didnt write things I would not have anything to shake my head at. Well there is always Damian for that!

Speaking of which Damian, how about sending a pic or two of your aircaft you are building in? You misread Harry's intentions I fear. You come across as very one dimensional, which I am sure you arent - it just rounds the picture a bit. I dont agree with much of anything you write (and I know the reverse is true) but as someone who has hobbies as well I for one find it very interesting

[Jay White]

Angela Ryan "I disagree with you Malcolm. If there is no military strategic advantage to a target then it should not be hit . This is the international law that we all talk of, non? Essential infrastructure, minimal harm and suffering to civilians etc"?

This statement in relation to Nazi Germany is the one that has me the most perplexed. What infrastructure is she speaking of? It was a total war ALL infrastructure first and foremost went towards the war effort. Yes even the infrastructure being powered by SLAVE labour.

[Jay White]

Craig "Anyway, it is easy to be a arm chair General when you have no understanding of the military, tactics, technology or much of anything".

Yes her "outpouring" is simply astounding.

What material does she read? I have never seen anything written like it in my life.

"Ignorance"? Hell that is being nice!

[Jay White]

Craig and Harry, yes it is quiet disgraceful people could honestly write such things. I seriously do not know the point either is trying to make?

Surely they had older relatives involved in this war? If some are still living perhaps they should ask them a question or two?

Neither Germans or Japanese still living are overly proud of their nations during this time.

The mind truly boggles sometimes.

[Damian Lataan]

I read everything that time allows me Heidelberg, and, yes, that includes ‘The New York Times’ and the ‘Economist’. And, no, I don’t think that the NYT is a left wing newspaper though if the media political spectrum was 30 feet long, the NYT would be around a foot to the left of the ‘Washington Post’.

I trust no media at all; left or right. I have no political affiliations to, and nor am I member of, any political party or organisation whatsoever. Never have; made a point of it. I am completely independent.

I treat all television media with the same scepticism that I have for the print and electronic media. I question and check everything. Just because something quacks like duck, swims like a duck, looks like a duck, it doesn’t mean to say it is a duck – even real ducks occasionally get taken in, then – bang – no more duck!

In answer to your earlier enquiry about building aircraft; I see no reason why you should be surprised by such activities. Many people build cars, motorbikes, boats, etc., in their back yards and many of these are extremely sophisticated pieces of equipment. Some are cheap to build, which is why many people build them, and some are very expensive but are usually one-offs that are just what the builder wanted.

When you get a moment Google ‘homebuilt aircraft’ and see what comes up. You’ll be surprised; particularly with some of the stuff Americans build. There are literally tens of thousands of homebuilt aircraft ranging from machines barely able to get off the ground and powered with little more than lawnmower engines, to highly sophisticated jets and even machines capable of edging out into space – only in America!! (For the space machines try Googling ‘rutan space aircraft’. Rutan is the name of a designer.)

Rest assured that I shall be reading Antony Loeweinstein’s latest offering. Have a good day at the beach; it’s a pity that Gaza Palestinians and the Lebanese will not be able to avail themselves of the same pleasure.

[Harry Heidelberg]

Lataan, this question is a bit out of left field but do you ever read the New York Times online?

Here in the US, the New York Times and similar is being painted by Fox News Channel and similar as being EXTREME left wing.

I don't believe this for a moment

I am just curious though. Is there a mainstream publication in the English speaking world that you respect?

I don't have an angle, this is an honest question.

I think I'll go to the beach tomorrow and take the New York Times and perhaps the Economist with me.

I love the Economist but can't imagine you'd like it much.

Anyway my bottom line question really amounts to... is there any mainstream, commercial media in the English speaking world you trust?

What about the BBC? Do you have access to BBC World or do you trust them?

Finally, I hope you buy Antony Loeweinstein's My Israel Question.

It is about to be released and you might quite like it.

It is already causing much consternation amongst Australia's "zioniofascists" as you would call them.

[Damian Lataan]

Adding to the list of crimes already committed by Zionofascist Israeli terrorists operating over Lebanon is the crime of bombing a hospital in the southern Lebanonese city of Tyre overnight. Israeli helicopter gunships fired a number of missiles at the hospital which fortunately fell short of their target and landed in an orchard but, nonetheless, caused women and children at the hospital to panic.

This is a war crime.

Meanwhile, Zionofascist Israeli terrorist forces continued their bombardment of the Gaza using gunboats, artillery and aircraft to strike civilian targets throughout the strip.

[Damian Lataan]

Israeli terrorists are blatantly and deliberately bombing civilians in a transparent attempt to terrorise them under the guise of hitting Hizbollah buildings in Lebanon. Hizbollah are people; not buildings. Despite the leaflet warnings, people are unlikely to be cowered into leaving their homes.

The world is now waking up to Israel’s crimes and to their lies. Their agenda has been exposed. These attacks on both the Gaza and Lebanon have obviously been very well planned in advance; certainly long before any ‘capturing’ of any Israeli soldiers. The logistics of mounting assaults of this magnitude and on two fronts takes considerable planning and stockpiling of materiel, weapons and fuel, etc.

The Israeli people and the peoples of the world should hold the Israeli government accountable for the crimes of attacking unarmed innocent civilians, threatening world peace and waging war. Reprisals against civilians are a war crime. The Zionofascist government of Israel must answer for their crimes.

[Harry Heidelberg]

I started hating Angela Ryan once when she questioned my interpretation of a culture matrix.

Bob Wall has been a joke from the start.

[Will Howard]

Interesting commentary on the role of NGOs in the Arab-Israeli conflict (NK - you may be particularly interested in this one as it mirrors some of the themes we've been discussing here)

http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=799

[Will Howard]

The New Republic ran this editorial this week, and I couldn't agree more:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060724&s=editorial072406

[Craig W]

Damian, for someone who is not into "Jewish/US" conspiracies, well you have hinted strongly that this is another one and you seem to have a history of it dont you?

Jay, I noted that rather bizarre outpouring by Angela Ryan. She needs to understand that there were no "fuel lines" as such and she also needs to appreciate that 60 years ago aerial recce photography was not quite what it is now. In addition, much of the German military and industrial capacity was outside Allied range. The soviets had an air force much akin to the deeply flawed German Luftwaffe in that it was designed for a military support role rather than a strategic one.
Anyway, it is easy to be a arm chair General when you have no understanding of the military, tactics, technology or much of anything.

[Jay White]

I also notice Bob Wall is attempting to make a case for that war criminal so called Emperor Hirohito. That he was never prosecuted still rankles with many throughout Asia and Australia.

I always suspected Bob Wall was a cretin. This confirms it in my mind.

[Jay White]

Sorry to do this. If I could post this at webdiary I would. Talking of historical revision, I came across the oddest post by one Angela Ryan. On a thread titled: Is All Fair In Love and War http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1550#comment-52964.

“If the justification for hitting civilians and their survival infrasturcture,likehospitals and water and electricity and food,is to win a war then how is that achieved?
How can civilian widespread suffering affect such a regime as the NAZIs where there was no democratic choices for them,and a fierce secret police to remove dissenters“.

This is exactly what happens in total war. Is this person claiming the German forces had no alternative but to do the exact things she speaks of whilst allied forces should not have fought a war this way? And yes it gets stranger.

“And as you said,the slave labor were hardly able to stop working(unlike UK women were not allowed to workas duty lay in the home,and the men were away fighting so slaves were essential) and bye bye dissenters there in that poor lot“.

Bizarre! Is this person saying that because of German household ethics this somehow justifies SLAVES? Talk about taking the word housewife to the next level. Oh yeah and of course the no dissenter thing. You cannot dissent so here is a couple of slaves instead.

“In such a situation can you really say there is any military justification for such measures? when there were fuel lines to hit? to stop the fuel would have stopped Germany straight away, no tanks, no planes. Why was this not the absolute target right from the start?

It was. And if she knew anything at all about the subject she would understand that Germany was consistantly short of oil. A small thing such as the invasion of the entire USSR was meant to address this point.

“And Sweden ,happily supplying the Pig iron right up to the end. And Swizerland holding the bags.And American industrialsit making buckets from their slave factories. Stop the money and the oil and few regimes can last any time“.

Switzerland remained neutral throughout the war. Is Ms Ryan suggesting they should have been attacked by the allies? Sweden was neutral and famously was referred to by Winston Churchill as “that small cowardly country”. should they have been attacked? The US was also not involved up until half way through the war because of political reasons.

“Yet this war was begun using moral justification. neither Britain nor France were invaded or attacked by Germany before they declared war“.

No but a allied force was. That allied nation being Poland. That is the idea of Mutual Assistance Treaty. So as to aid one another in defence. Gee no morals in defending poor ole Poland and half of Europe?

“Was that not the crime that so many were hung for at that great site of instant justice in Nuremburg?

Actually they were not hang for invading Poland. It was just a little deeper than that. Different people were hung for different war crimes. Using slave labour did play a part in some of the hangings. Having to maintain the wives home duties obviously was not a successful defence.

“So if moral and legal values can hang German leaders, does the same law /moral obligations not apply to all? is justice selective? is that just?

Well in the real world yes. I do note though the harshest of the Nuremberg Judges were from the USSR. And anybody even slightly educated on this topic would understand why. I await next week when Ang details the use of ex-Nazi scientists by the evil US. She should be happy at least they saved somebody.

Funnily enough I also do not know of any Germans heading to be captured by the Russians in the final days of the war. I am pretty sure ALL were headed west. That alone should be enough to prove to any person who the Germans thought were the worst “war criminals”. More likely who they thought would be a little more pissed with them.

“It was not just the Axis children who were wronged by Allies' war crimes, it was the Allies' families and their future, as the 20th century has shown. It is hope through constant examining of history ,especially as new archives are released (pity Bush shut up Reagan's for another 30yrs as they came due“).

Now when she uses the term “allies” who exactly does she mean? Why do I get the feeling this solely applies to the USA? Axis children wronged by allied “war crimes”? I can think of at least 20 million USSR children plus more than a handful in other parts of Europe that might have something to say about who was the most wronged.

“It was not just the Axis children who were wronged by Allies' war crimes, it was the Allies' families and their future, as the 20th century has shown“.

What has it shown? That perhaps the “allies” children could have had a better world under Nazi domination? Perhaps they could grow into stay at mums with slave labour picking up the slack? That though would depend on just who the “allies” are. It is a safe bet to assume many of the “allies” children would be much worse off. In fact many would not be with us today (excepting of course the slaves).

Such a blank statement leaves lots open to interpretation.

“Through studying these we can have a fuller understanding of what really happened, a fuller picture from all perspectives, in a total and thus gain wisdom to peruse a better world and future, hopefully avoiding the pitfalls from the past and the horrors that may await“.

Right…………………… What actually did happen that is different from recorded history? That is the question I would like to ask.

For somebody claiming to have lived in Russia this is quiet strange. I bet this little line of thought was not discussed openly on the "Russian street". Being that she is still with us that should be evidence enough that it was not.

“Especially with pre-emptive nuking being suggested as a life saver. No inhumane weapon is a lifesaver. War should always be the last resort and i have not yet seen that in any war I can think of. Challenge there“.

I can and it is called the second world war. More specifically the wars fought against NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan.

[Jay White]

"Does this mean that you’re not insisting that there was one? You concede that there may not have been one? So what did happen?"

Actually I am not "insisting" anything. I am asking a question. A question you have yet to answer. The same way you have yet to answer the question regarding wether or not you believe this statement was made;

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, speaking to reporters in Beirut on Wednesday: “The capture of the two soldiers could provide a solution to the Gaza crisis,” he said. The operation had been planned for months, he said, though he added, “The timing, no doubt, provides support for our brothers in Palestine.”

Now what I beleive happened was that soldiers were attacked and killed. Some were also taken hostage. That is an act of war, hence the reason for war. Very simple to understand. Revisionist history, good guys and bad has sweet fuck all meaning to those caught up in a war zone. It only plays well down at the local cafe, Uni or indeed on the internet.

I have made my position quiet clear on the matter. I am not a "Zionist". I am not even Jewish. In fact I have been to Israel once for a total of three days. I am not a Arab and in fact I have been to a few Arab nations a little longer than Israel. I have not a axe to grind one way or the other on this subject.

I certainly do not believe Australia should become involved in a fight that has been raging long before our time and likely will still be raging long after it. I am a realist whilst you are behaving in a manner of a propagandist. For whatever reason?

So in effect your moral equivalence tried on here in every second post has zero effect on me and I suspect the same for any other non-aligned person reading. This FACT is not likely to change in the future.

I have little interest in entering a debate on the rights and wrongs of a fight that has been on and off constantly for thousands of years. I am actually more interested in how the current situations effect us and indeed the whole world at present. And it will have a effect one way or the other.

Perhaps a new thread on this subject may be in order?

[Damian Lataan]

Craig reckons: “Every time something happens that doesn’t fit your distorted perspective you trot out the oh so predictable "Jewish/ US" conspiracy.”

Rubbish, I’m not into Jewish/US conspiracies.

I am, however, into researching the extent of right-wing pro-Zionist influence on US foreign policy and in particular the influence of the American neoconservative’s relationship with the higher echelons of political power in the Bush administration and their connections with right-wing politics in Israel.

What I do trot out is alternative scenarios that are more likely to fit reality, rather than just blindly accept lies, half-truths and deceptions that are designed for the likes of you Craig – the dumb and gullible.

That particular section of the Gaza was updated within the last five months. If you look closely at the airfield just south of Rafah you will note that the runways have been rendered unserviceable, i.e., sections of it dug up. This apparently was done five months ago.

[Phil Uebergang]

Will Howard, yes my point exactly. Total victory is not the solution required here, so the use of force isn't going to achieve much for either side.

[Justin Obodie]

Yes CK this thread is a wee bit bloated, and hey it's Friday; time to go a little bit crazy. Best we all get pissed methinks!

Father Park promised to shout. I know this as we discussed such an event 12 years ago and the good and honest Father said if Harry ever owned a bar by the name of Club Chaos he would shout the bar on Bastille Day 2006. I think Geoff may have been there and I suspect he has a little minute of said conversation somewhere one his person or accessory.

[Justin Obodie]

About a year ago I stumbled on an SBS movie as I played with the thingo that changes television channels. I missed the beginning of the movie so the name, producers and country of origin escape me.

This movie was about hate, payback, love, revenge and resolution.

The hate and payback bit was the tired old story of families at war. A war that transgressed generations where each family made it their duty to ensure their children perpetuated their war into eternity.

The story unfolds with flash backs informing the viewer about the historical nature of the feud while developing the main plot of love and revenge.

In short the story goes like this:

The son of one family is sent to find and kill an old man of the other family. The son accidentally meets the daughter of old man; son is unaware that she is his daughter as she is also unaware of his family background and mission.

They fall in love – nice bits to watch- and they have some wonderful times just like new lovers do.

Then

Son discovers that old man is the father of his true love yet decides that his family duty must come first. By this time old man is dying in hospital and only has days to live. Yet son has to kill old man before he dies a natural death to honour his family.

Son goes to hospital (with gun) and finds the old man unconscious and within hours of death. Son then suffocates old man with a pillow just as daughter arrives to catch him.

Daughter somehow captures gun and points it at son while son explains his reasons for this unnecessary murder. Son then accepts his fate and awaits his payback.

Daughter (and a rather beautiful one at that) looks at him and concludes the movie with these words:

“This is where it ends.”

She drops the gun and walks out.

-finis-

I suppose it will take the restraint and common sense of such a woman (or man) to end the insanity we witness today.

[Geoff Pahoff]

There is no calculus at work here, Ck. What is this? The old "cycle of violence", "tit for tat" nonsense?

This is war. It's not some kind of blood retribution. The Israelis are not trying to kill civilians. In fact they gave 24 hours notice of its attack on Hezbollah in south Beirut so the civilians could get out safely.

The war will continue until some kind of ceasefire agreement is negotiated probably by the UN. That agreement will include the return of the kidnapped Israelis and the cessation of the shelling. There may be a prisoner swap but unlikely. It could end tomorrow. More likely it will go on for weeks or months.

[Ck]

Harry - need new thread. This one has become bloated and old and is going to collapse under the weight of comments.

Very clunky and getting slower to navigate and post by the hour.

[Ck]

"These have been repeatedly called "Acts of War", by the Israelis.

Ah, well, that seals the deal then, because there would be no ulterior-motive or self-justification in that statement!!!!

(The more frequently one hears a statement, and when it is accepted as fact by many people, the more reason to question its veracity.)

Your other points: yep, do know all of that.

Re: the soldier thing - not sure why you think people have trouble comprehending that notion, or the provocation it causes in this instance. The notion is not at all unique to Israel either, nor did they coin this code of honor.

But, really, how is it that we measure one Israeli soldier is worth 60, 6,000 or 60,000 lives of non-Israeli civilians. How does that equation work, exactly, and how can it possibly be justified, in any circumstance. (Rhetorical question only.)

[Craig W]

"Jay White asks: “And suppose there is no tunnel…”

Does this mean that you’re not insisting that there was one? You concede that there may not have been one? So what did happen?"

No Damian, he was being sarcastic. everytime something happens that doesnt fit your distorted perspective you trot out the oh so predictable "Jewish/ US" conspiracy.

By the way, when were the maps on google earth last updated?

[Damian Lataan]

Jay White asks: “And suppose there is no tunnel…”

Does this mean that you’re not insisting that there was one? You concede that there may not have been one? So what did happen?

Pahoff says: “This particular tunnel runs from Gaza (entrance presumably in a house or other building) into Israeli territory…”

You pathetically useless student, Pahoff! You have not done the task set you. Look at Google Earth and stop being presumptuous. You will see that there are NO HOUSES or other buildings within cooee of where the Israelis say the tunnel was. Furthermore, the landscape in that region is as flat as a pancake with no more than a 20 foot rise over 800m – no hill to hide behind and no trees. The entire area is under constant surveillance and there nowhere to hide all that dirt.

[Geoff Pahoff]

Ck, you seem to be overlooking a point or two:

* The continual shelling of Israeli towns from Gaza that began the day AFTER the withdrawal.

* This particular tunnel runs from Gaza (entrance presumably in a house or other building) into Israeli territory and was constructed solely for the purpose of carrying out an attack on the Israeli position.

* The Israeli soldiers who were killed on Israeli soil bordering Gaza and Lebanon.

* These have been repeatedly called "Acts of War", by the Israelis. No word mincing or Damo-style translation frauds here at all.

There is another point that I won't go into that not many people understand, and I'll mention only in passing. This is the Israeli military ethos of never abandoning a soldier which itself is deeply rooted in Jewish custom and ethics. Hamas and Hezbollah understand this. That is why they go to so much trouble to take Israeli troops alive if they can. And why they hold the corpses of Israelis they kill if they can. Hezbollah attempted a similar operation some months ago.

You claim the Israeli response is disproportionate. In fact the opposite is true. Israel should have responded this way months ago when the shelling from Gaza continued after due warning. Hamas and Hezbollah interpret restraint and efforts at reaching a settlement as weakness. Which is why they claimed and celebrated military victories when the Israelis withdrew from Gaza and the security zone in south Lebanon.

The only tactic that will work is targetting the political and military wings of Hamas and Hezbollah, especially the leadership. Hard. These people haven't the slightest compunction about sending others to their deaths. But they are not suicidal themselves.

[Damian Lataan]

Jay White, I didn’t say there were no captured Israeli soldiers; I just question the story of how they were captured.

[Jay White]

Damo And suppose there is no tunnel, your point being?

[Jay White]

Damo in a war all sides lie. Thems the facts of life. No point trying to convince me of the honesty of one side over another.

People lie in a war? Oh my God I have never heard such a thing. Grow up.

[Damian Lataan]

The parallel paddocks I referred to are actually orientated more at about 055 – 060 degrees from north rather 030 degrees. There are eight full rectangular paddocks that extend south-south-eastward. The incident is said to have occurred in the two northernmost paddocks at the western end.

[Jay White]

"Who knows what happened? We only have the Israelis word for it. And we all know what a bunch of deceiving liars they are"!

Well actually you have this guys word for it. It happens though to be about a "operation". Wether or not that entails tunnels I do not know. Perhaps you could enlighten me on the "operation"?

"Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, speaking to reporters in Beirut on Wednesday: “The capture of the two soldiers could provide a solution to the Gaza crisis,” he said. The operation had been planned for months, he said, though he added, “The timing, no doubt, provides support for our brothers in Palestine.”

That is unless of course you do not believe he said these words. As of yet you have not made a statement about this.

Also both Hamas and Hezbollah are asking for a hostage exchange. Hard thing to do if you do not have a hostage.

From a pure strategic point of view some of the moves made by Hamas, Hezbollah and co are quiet cunning. Actually a lot smarter than the usual lame-brain suicide bombing wasted sacrifice as per usual.

I am surprised that as a supporter of these people you so quickly run away from their moves. Lets face most of the time to the world at large many of these people do not come off looking the sharpest tools in the woodshed.

[Damian Lataan]

Tell me about the tunnel Jay White. Before you do, get onto Google Earth and check out the area in question. You’ll find it just south of what was the Gaza International Airport (which is actually nowhere near Gaza City) but down at the south eastern end of the Strip much closer to and just south of Rafah. Then have a look at the area of border between the Strip and Israel just south of the old airport. About a 1000m east of the old airport and on the border you will notice a series of parallel paddocks orientated at around 030 degrees from north. It was at the western end of these paddocks that the attacks on the Israelis were said to have occurred.

The stated length of the tunnel varies wildly according what report one reads but is said to be between 300m and 900m. Take a close look inside the fenced border (you can actually see the fence if you zoom in close enough with a good monitor). There is absolutely nowhere along that entire section of the border where a tunnel could be excavated. The whole area inside the fence has been cleared and ploughed along the length of the fence. Even at 300m long, there is no way that some 10 semi-trailer loads of excavation can be covertly carted away from an area under heavy surveillance.

Who knows what happened? We only have the Israelis word for it. And we all know what a bunch of deceiving liars they are!

But, regardless of what the Israelis say, could there really have been a tunnel. In the area the Israelis claim the tunnel was there is no place where the tunnel could have started.

May be they put the dirt in their modified pockets and sprinkled it along the boundary fence while whistling and chatting with the Israeli ‘goons’ like in the ‘Great Escape’.