Thank you very much for your reply Nickhere:

1) Israel – Lebanon: (Indiscriminate Attacks carried out by Hezbollah)

I appreciate your candour, in agreeing that the attacks were indiscriminate and that they targeted Israeli civilians. Thousands of these "Katyusha" rockets were fired. They were originally designed as a mass-barrage weapon to be used as the prelude to a massed infantry assault, the German's nickname for them was "Stalin Organs".

Your comment that – "Most of them did very little damage (I'm not saying they didn't kill anyone, btw)" – beggars belief. To your comment I would only add – It wasn't for the want of trying.

Your contention that if better armed, Hezbollah would be more discriminate, cannot be taken seriously, their track record goes against that. Example – Suicide bomber sent into an Israeli city. Does the suicide bomber look round for the largest group of IDF soldiers and go up to them to detonate his/her bomb – NO. The bomber goes to market places, to bus stations, to restaurants, to nightclubs – all places packed with civilians. Remember that the sworn and avowed goal of both Hezbollah and Hamas is the destruction of Israel and her population. Their aim is terror, nothing else.

Nickhere, from your comments regarding military installations, I would venture my opinion that you don't know what you are talking about. For instance in the centre of London you have barracks, but no-one would ever fight from them, they exist solely to house ceremonial troops of the Household Brigade for duty in the capitol, they are not operational bases, generally barracks are not operational bases because they are static and tend to be easy targets. The likes of Hezbollah and Hamas however ensure that their operational bases are surrounded by houses, schools, hospitals and mosques. It is a deliberate tactic employed to ensure maximum outrage at "civilian" casualties should anyone have the temerity to strike back at them. Basically they hide behind the people they purport to defend.

Incursions along the Israel/Lebanon border have been a fact of life for decades, since the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon. Instances of Hezbollah attacks on Israel and incursions into Israel are matched by the IDF response that those attacks and incursions incur.

The Shaaba Farms area of south Lebanon, claimed by Christian Lebanese farmers who actually hold title deeds to the area, the same place that Syria claims to be theirs and the same place that Hezbollah is squatting on in order to launch missile attacks Israel. I can't really see any reason why Israel would be interested in a place like that, can you Nick?

As far as the two captured Israeli soldiers go Nick. It wouldn't matter a toss where they were when captured the track record in instances such as this has been that the IDF would want them back and would move heaven and earth to do that. Even Hezbollah admits now that it was a grave mistake considering the Israeli reaction.

On 27 August, Hassan Nasrallah apologised to the Lebanese people for the incident that sparked the war, saying "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it."

But just for you Nick – this is how the incident unfolded:

ZAR'T-SHTULA INCIDENT
At around 9:00 AM local time (06:00 UTC), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated diversionary rocket attacks toward Israeli military positions near the coast and near the border village of Zar'it as well as on the Israeli town of Shlomi. At the same time, a ground contingent of Hezbollah crossed the border into Israeli territory and attacked two Israeli armoured Humvees patrolling on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, near Zar'it, killing three, injuring two, and capturing two Israeli soldiers. Five more Israeli soldiers were killed later on the Lebanese side of the border during an attempt to rescue the two kidnapped soldiers.

Hezbollah named the attack "Operation Truthful Promise" after leader Hassan Nasrallah's public pledges over the prior year and a half to capture Israeli soldiers and swap them for convicted murderer Samir Kuntar, convicted spy Nasim Nisr, alleged terrorist Yahya Skaf who Hezbollah claims was arrested in Israel (Israel denies this), and Ali Faratan, who is being held for reasons unknown, among any other Lebanese prisoners incarcerated in Israel.

Cluster bombs are area denial weapons, their use has to be sanctioned at Staff or Divisional level. The Israeli's have admitted that some of these weapons were targeted at inappropriate locations and are carrying out an investigation and inquiry into what went wrong. How much faith anyone has regarding such investigations is a matter of opinion, but note the difference, a transgression by Israel results in an admission and an investigation, a transgression by Hezbollah (deliberate targeting of civilians) results in re-supply of weapons from Iran and Syria.


2) The UN – (Lebanese/Syrian failure to comply with requirements of UN Security Council Resolution)

There were two of them that can be applied to this situation (Please note UN Resolutions relating to Israel and Palestine are irrelevant – two wrongs do not make a right – besides these resolutions had nothing to do with the Israel/Palestine situation):

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on September 2, 2004. It called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon "foreign forces" (generally interpreted as referring to Syria) to withdraw from Lebanon and to cease intervening in the internal politics of Lebanon. The resolution also called on all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias to disband and declared support for a "free and fair electoral process".

While the Syrians took their own sweet time in leaving, absolutely nothing was done to disband or disarm Hezbollah by either the Syrians or by the Lebanese Government.

On 11 August 2006, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved UN Resolution 1701 in an effort to end the hostilities. The resolution, which was approved by both Lebanese and Israeli governments the following days, called for the disarming of Hezbollah, for Israel to withdraw, and for the deployment of Lebanese soldiers and an enlarged United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) force in southern Lebanon.

Now Israel complied fully with the requirements stated above as applied to them. Hezbollah have yet to be disbanded and disarmed, the UN force is present at reduced strength with express orders NOT to interfere with Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army has been allowed into the southern part of Lebanon by Hezbollah on the premise that, like the UN troops, they do not interfere with Hezbollah operations.

There was a UN embargo placed on weapons shipments to the area but Hezbollah has managed to replenish and increase its stockpile of rockets – these weapons being supplied by Iran and Syria.

3) Syria
Again Nick I thank you for your candour on this point. I would however disagree that Lebanon's other neighbours would benefit should "Lebanon wobble". Should Lebanon Wobble, as you put it, Syria would just annex it.

4) Israel's borders.
Israel's borders were at their most extensive after the "Six Day War" in 1967. Since the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 Israel has traded land for peace, since those deals have been struck, the borders of Israel have been reduced. If anybody thinks that Israel is going to revert to the borders proposed by the UN in 1948 that the Arabs originally rejected, then they are living in a dreamland. On that occasion the Arab League opted for war and lost – the consequences of that they have to learn to live with as has every nation in history, the boundaries of every state in Europe have been defined by war and by treaty.

5) "The Right To Exist" and Sovereign States.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the present Government of Iraq, and its Head of State, have both been duly recognized as the legitimate government of the Republic of Iraq by the United Nations.

The back-tracking and spinning of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's call for 'Israel to be wiped off the map', is nothing more than a rather desperate damage control exercise, considered necessary solely because of Iran's aspirations with regard to nuclear energy.


6)   Why did the US take such special interest in Iraq?
The US started taking special interest in Iraq during the first Clinton Administration when it became patently obvious that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no intention of complying with the terms of the Safwan ceasefire.

The US got even more interested in Iraq when in 1998, Iraqi interference with the activities of the UN's UNSCOM Inspectors was such that the Inspectors reported that they could no longer carry out their work. This resulted in the UNSCOM Inspectors being withdrawn and the prosecution of "Dessert Fox". The report delivered by the UNSCOM Inspectors to the UN Security Council in January 1999 formed the sole basis for the assumption that Iraq still possessed WMD. It was President Clinton who signed the Bill that called for Regime Change in Iraq in 1998.

After the attacks of 11th September, 2001. The House and Senate Security Committee and the combined Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America were tasked with identifying the greatest external threat to the United States.

Please note Nick – This evaluation has nothing whatsoever to with the attacks of 11th September, 2001. The USA having already been hit was looking to what could be viewed as worst case globally.

Findings identified worst possible case as being an a-symmetric attack by an international terrorist group using a weapon, or weapons, of mass destruction (Chemical; Biological or Nuclear), that weapon, material of support being supplied covertly by a rogue nation or regime.

Please note Nick – There are no specifics detailed in the above. That was what was seen as representing the greatest threat in general terms.

When evaluating potential rogue nations or regimes, who could possibly provide the technical support, material and possibly complete weapons. The committee came up with three prime candidates – North Korea; Iran and Iraq.

Please note Nick – This still has nothing whatsoever to do with 11th September, 2001. While all this is going on action is already being taken against those responsible for those attacks.

Specific evaluation of those three countries that were named as the "Axis of Evil" in the Presidents State of the Union Address of 29th January, 2002, by the Committee arrived at the following order:

Iraq:
-        Already in defiance of UN resolutions calling on it to disarm and to relinquish WMD
-        Track record as regional aggressor
-        Known sponsor of international terrorist groups
-        Saddam Hussein was the only world leader who openly applauded the events of 11th September, 2001

Iran:
-        Not in defiance of any UN Resolutions
-        Known sponsor of international terrorist groups
-        No known aggressive ambitions within the region
-        Publicly condemned the attacks of 11th September, 2001

North Korea:
-        Already in defiance of UN Resolutions calling on it to relinquish WMD (Nuclear)
-        Already engaged in six-party negotiations with respect WMD issue
-        Track record as regional aggressor but abiding by ceasefire conditions
-        Known supplier of material, technology and equipment to other rogue regimes and terrorist groups
-        Publicly condemned the attacks of 11th September, 2001

It is little wonder that Iraq came out of the evaluation top of the list.

Please note Nick - This has nothing whatsoever to do with 11th September, 2001.

Now with the Taleban routed in Afghanistan and Al-Queda very much on the run. The US addresses what has been identified as potentially its greatest threat. Does it launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq – No, the US goes to the United Nations. With the result that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is passed, this gives Iraq one final chance to comply with undertakings it agreed to at Safwan in 1991. The US makes it abundantly clear to both the UN and to Iraq what the consequences of non-compliance will be.

Please note Nick - This still has nothing whatsoever to do with 11th September, 2001

7) On the subject of nukes and Israel:
Personally I'd be very surprised if they didn't have any, no reason why they shouldn't as they are not signatories of the Nuclear NPT. But there has never been any statement confirming that they possess such weapons. As such it is incorrect for anybody to state that they have. It is incorrect to state that Israel has threatened its neighbours with the use of such weapons.

As stated by yourself Nick, Ehud Olmert unintentionally(?) "implied" that Israel has nuclear weapons. That is not the same as the man openly stating that such weapons exist.

You never know, it could amount to being the greatest dissemination of false information ever.   If not Israel must have been hell of a close to using them over the past 30 years.