Posted on 05/23/2015 5:05:03 AM PDT by Diogenesis
US and Hizballah coordinate spy drone flights over Qalamoun, share US combat intelligence
Another strange pair of bedfellows has turned up
in one of the most critical Middle East battlefields:
the United States is helping Hizballah, Iran’s Lebanese surrogate,
in the battle for control of the strategic Qalamoun Mountains.
...a US special operations unit, stationed at the Hamat air base on the coast of northern Lebanon,
is directing unarmed Aerosonde MK 4.7 reconnaissance drone intelligence-gathering flights
over the Qalamoun Mt arena, 100 km to the west.
However, it turns out that the data the US drones
pass to Lebanese army general staff in Beirut
goes straight to Hizballah headquarters
and on to the Iranian officers in Syria running Bashar Assad’s war effort.
Since Hizballah is also operating Ababil-3 surveillance drones of its own over Qalamoun,
coordination had become necessary between the American team and the Shiite group.
The consequence is that for the first time,
the US military is working directly with an internationally-designated terrorist organization
– a development with earthshaking ramifications for Israel’s security.
.... 3. Israel can no longer trust American intelligence
coming in from Lebanon because it is likely tainted by Hizballah sources.
6. Hizballah’s Ababil drones are in fact operated by the hostile Iranian Revolutionary Guards ...
How do Obama's repeated commitments to Israel’s security square
with close US military and intelligence cooperation with an organization
whose vow to destroy Israel is backed by 100,000 missiles
– all pointed south?
(Excerpt) Read more at debka.com ...
This basically seals the deal of bible prophecy that all the nations will surround Israel/Jerusalem.
God help Israel/Jerusalem.
“His idea was to make a separate peace with the Germans, then ally with them to fight the Russians.”
Did he ever seriously propose that, or was it just some bravado big talk that he knew wasn’t practical? Even a cursory look at the Nazi armies at the end of the war shows a destroyed, exhausted and shattered force.
Not to mention they were so abysmal morally that an alliance side by side would have been an anathema.
How do you expect men who saw the death camps, the SS, Orador, Malmedy, etc to suddenly operate jointly with those monsters?
This was Patton just pipedreaming, theres no way he was serious.
And the overarching goal of the Russians was no more invasions from Europe as had happened numerous times. So they decided to hold and rule the areas invasions came from. Simple as that. Nothing short of an American Barbarossa could have stopped that goal.
On the other hand, we could have gone nuclear very soon. Cool parlor game, and I suspect that’s exactly what Patton was doing.
That Obama now finds his interests allied with Hezbollah, astonishingly, is directly traceable to his intentional failure to obtain a status of forces agreement with Iraq.
Such are the fruits of Smart Diplomacy.
And yes, back to the original topic. American military, working WITH Hezbollah. Sickening.
“We could have gone nuclear very soon.”
Except that it was several years before we had enough nukes to make a real difference. Had we started a war before then, there was a considerable chance the Red Army would have driven us into the sea rather than our driving them out of eastern Europe.
Aside from that, I agree completely. Patton was magnificent in war. Outside war he was an idiot.
Nope. Stalin was given eastern Europe. Much documentation in JR Toland’s The Last 100 Days. We also backed the wrong side in China to let some “poor agrarian farmer” establish communism there. Ministry of Propaganda been busy for decades.
There was no “right side” in China. We pumped immense amounts of money and supplies to the Nationalists and they managed to lose the civil war anyway. Not because we didn’t support them but because they were unbelievably corrupt and incompetent.
Islam is not civilization as we know it in the West. America may share common enemies with others; however, common enemies are rarely premised upon common goals and motives. I would much rather see America leading from the front, deciding and furthering exactly the outcomes America desires and maintaining military superiority RATHER than leading from behind, putting faith in foreign and often hostile groups, 'hoping' for outcomes, and arming and training potential enemies while disarming and disengaging America's military.
It’s doubtful the red army would have survived the eastern front campaign without US supplies, ammo and Intel.
I believe Dr. Oppenheimer has a thought about that.
The greatest military power in history does not need to align with terrorists to fight terrorists. It could wipe the whole bunch out in days if it was given the orders to. That it gets no such order from leadership shows the lack of will to destroy said terrorists.
Assuming they had a way to get a Bomb there, they could have destroyed Moscow.
But the Red Army was spread out so far that nukes, which we had very few of, BTW, would have not been very effective.
Nukes have always been more about the threat than the damage they do...although obviously thats effective as well. The fear factor basically. Had we nuked anything of significance there as a show of force, maybe even just lit one off in a non populated area, the Russian army would likely not been so willing to test us on how many more we had and thus pulled back.
Still claiming he’s not a Muslim?
You seem to be conflating two issues, firstly, would it have been possible and/or practical for us to have resisted the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, and secondly, would it have been right for us to do so? The first question is an interesting one, and I don’t claim to have a definitive answer to it.
As far as the second question, you seem to be implying that we were somehow moraly obligated to allow the Soviets to occupy Eastern Europe because of the greater number of casualties they incurred. Are you suggesting the high number of casualties they suffered, earned them the right to subjugate their neighbors for the next 45 years? While one certainly has to respect a nations legitimate rights to self defence, surely the occupation of one’s neighbors in order to create a buffer for yourself can not be considered legitimate. And if ever there was a nation undeserving of being granted an exception to this principle, it was the Soviet Union, a murderous, evil regime that was by nature, expansionist.
Let us also not confuse sympathy for the people of the Soviet Union with sympathy for it’s government. The loss of millions of his people meant nothing to Stalin, except as a strategic issue. The Soviets suffered at the hands of their own evil government even more than they did from the Nazi’s.
I guess Bush was holding back.
Setting aside the nature of the Soviet Union, Russia had been an expansionist power for about 5 centuries. Being invaded was part of the ebb and flow of empire-building. Russia had no special claim to a buffer zone, given the way in which it had repeatedly claimed, then annexed buffer zones throughout history all the way from Europe to the Pacific Ocean, such that even in its diminished state today, it is still more than 50% larger than Canada, the second largest country in the world. Its claims are no more than pretexts for ever-expanding boundaries.
Nope. Not confusing the two.
Had we been able to invade and take Europe back from the Nazis without Soviet assistance, and held them within their 1939 borders, I’d have been all for it. But we couldn’t.
Leaving the practicalities of whether we were capable of doing it, which I don’t believe we were, the moral cost of leaving the Soviets in control of Eastern Europe had to be weighed against the moral cost to innocents of fighting yet another war back across the tattered remains of central and eastern Europe. Not the mention the cost to our own soldiers and people, with the casualties alone being probably a significant multiple of what we lost fighting the Germans.
Yup, eastern Europeans were enslaved and brutalized for 45 years, though by a system a good deal less murderous than the Nazis. But a whole bunch of them would have been dead had we chosen to fight the Soviets for eastern Europe.
There are really three issues: 1. Were we capable of expelling the Soviets? 2. Would it have been morally right for us to do so? 3. Were the American people and soldiers willing to follow orders to do it?
My answers:
1. No. Not at any cost we would have been willing to pay.
2. Yes. Though it would only have been really justified by knowledge of what would happen if we didn’t fight them, which of course we couldn’t have in 1945.
3. Nope. The American people and Congress would not have permitted it.
His ROEs were nearly as restrictive as Barrys so yes, he was.
Hezbollah .. is a named TERRORIST organization .. why would they be AGAINST ISIS ..??
What bothers me is the fact our government is giving the A KNOWN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION OUR “combat intelligence” .. HOW TREASONOUS IS THAT ..????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.