Hezbollah's defeat of Israel uncovered

Sharma, without US support Israel wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have this terrible problem. Hezbollah achieved the majority of its objectives, while committing far fewer attrocities, in terms of scale and multitude, than Israel. No-one is entirely convinced the UN were making rude gestures at the IDF. :P

Oh, and certainly the children at Qana were actually terrorist midgets..


Edited by Zaitsev - 07-Nov-2006 at 07:10

.So Israel bombed the city centre and the airport(!) becouse there were hizbolllah camps near the border of Lebanon-Israel????

New Terrorism Prevention Techniques: Genocide

Originally posted by Zaitsev New Terrorism Prevention Techniques: Genocide

No, that is an
    old tehnique. I believe even Ghengis Khan had used it...

Originally posted by Maljkovic     This war was meant to be a pre-emptive strike by Israel to cripple Hizbollah and keep them from making a move first as Iranian agents. I believe the real irony is that nobody won the war. Hizbollah had no support outside the shiai Lebaneese, and they certainly don't have any now they forced the country into a devastating war. Even before the war, It had become a criminal organization (note I'm not using the word'teroist') instead of a proper militia. They may have the support of the people, but they lost contact with it long time ago, and this "victory" will only amplify the process. In the long run, Hizbollah will lose. And there was no great genius on the part of the Hizbollah in defeating the IDF. It was the arrogance of it's commanders and underestimating their enemy that brought on Israel's defeat. The main problem the IDF had in south Lebanon were Hizbollah's defensive positions, namely a large tunnel network. Had they continued hitting it for a few more weeks, they would have surely of penetrated that line and gotten to Litani river as they intended. If they had not underestimated Hizbollah, they would have had a real fighting plan and would not have had problems with intel, supply and lack of manpower. There will be a sequel to this war, and this time I'm betting on Israel.

The first paragraph there is nothing but an excuse, which has absolutely no grounding in reality.

The second paragraph is also flawed beyond belief. Hezbollah did not force the country to war, Israel did. To say it had become a criminal organisation with no contact before the war is just foolish. Hezbollah were popular with the people as they built schools, mosques and other community buildings, not to mention helping repair from the previous occupation. Before the war they had a support of just over 50%. Several independent surveys were conducted toward the end of the war, all of which suggested Hezbollah support had risen above 90% due to Israel's attocities. To say they have lost support is simply nonsense.

The IDF WOULD have gotten to the river indeed. Then what? They would slowly but surely get slaughtered at the hands of Hezbollah troops who became extremely efficient in taking down IDF armour and in the hit and run tactics that allowed them to have a very good kill to death ratio. The IDF surely under-estimated the enemy, but that statement alone means the enemy had to surpass expectations.

Guys I am in side of Israel. I have personel reasons for it and i do not want to write them here becouse it may violate some of the rules/laws of the forum.

Originally posted by Zaitsev Originally posted by Maljkovic     This war was meant to be a pre-emptive strike by Israel to cripple Hizbollah and keep them from making a move first as Iranian agents. I believe the real irony is that nobody won the war. Hizbollah had no support outside the shiai Lebaneese, and they certainly don't have any now they forced the country into a devastating war. Even before the war, It had become a criminal organization (note I'm not using the word'teroist') instead of a proper militia. They may have the support of the people, but they lost contact with it long time ago, and this "victory" will only amplify the process. In the long run, Hizbollah will lose. And there was no great genius on the part of the Hizbollah in defeating the IDF. It was the arrogance of it's commanders and underestimating their enemy that brought on Israel's defeat. The main problem the IDF had in south Lebanon were Hizbollah's defensive positions, namely a large tunnel network. Had they continued hitting it for a few more weeks, they would have surely of penetrated that line and gotten to Litani river as they intended. If they had not underestimated Hizbollah, they would have had a real fighting plan and would not have had problems with intel, supply and lack of manpower. There will be a sequel to this war, and this time I'm betting on Israel. The first paragraph there is nothing but an excuse, which has absolutely no grounding in reality.The second paragraph is also flawed beyond belief. Hezbollah did not force the country to war, Israel did. To say it had become a criminal organisation with no contact before the war is just foolish. Hezbollah were popular with the people as they built schools, mosques and other community buildings, not to mention helping repair from the previous occupation. Before the war they had a support of just over 50%. Several independent surveys were conducted toward the end of the war, all of which suggested Hezbollah support had risen above 90% due to Israel's attocities. To say they have lost support is simply nonsense.The IDF WOULD have gotten to the river indeed. Then what? They would slowly but surely get slaughtered at the hands of Hezbollah troops who became extremely efficient in taking down IDF armour and in the hit and run tactics that allowed them to have a very good kill to death ratio. The IDF surely under-estimated the enemy, but that statement alone means the enemy had to surpass expectations.

No, the first paragraph is the real reason, the kidnapped soldiers were the excuse.

I'm sure that to the end of the war they had higher support. That's logical-the winner is always more popular than the loser. But with the war over, Lebanon will face a simple fact: Israel has left, Hizbollah has stayed. Hizbollah means Syria, and Syria means more trouble for Lebanon than Israel could ever be.
    
    

Edited by Maljkovic - 09-Nov-2006 at 09:56

So what if Hezbollah won?  It changes absolutely nothing.  The state of Israel still exists, and Palestinians still don't have a homeland and never, ever, ever, ever will.

Hezbollah dug in nicely over a period of years and was able to withstand Israel.  Here's a quote, "The "target stretching" escalated throughout the conflict; frustrated by their inability to identify and destroy major Hezbollah military assets, the IAF began targeting schools, community centers and mosques under the belief that their inability to identify and interdict Hezbollah bunkers signaled Hezbollah's willingness to hide their major assets inside civilian centers."  I sure want those Hezbollah guys protecting me and my family.  Their best interests would mesh nicely with mine.  I guess its an honor to get killed in such a manner to be a statistic and photo op for faith though..My son was martyred, enjoy your virgins son, gosh willing I'll be there soon too if I can just become an innocent bystander...

Originally posted by Kerimoglu Guys I am in side of Israel. I have personel reasons for it and i do not want to write them here becouse it may violate some of the rules/laws of the forum.   But one this frustrated me so much that, Israel attached Lebanon and Lebanon did did not even react except some field guerilla fighters called Hezbollah. I mean, wasnt there enough arabs in Lebanon or didnt they have army to rise and fight as a man? what was the reason? Like, I personally believe that if someone attacks to may country with any reason, not depending on Politics or Economics or whatever it is, I would go and fight. I believe that Lebanon government didnt have any courage to do that.   Thank You.   Respectfully Nijat Garayev

By whom? And by what means?
 By the roughly 2,000,000-strong higly trained but volunteer US military? We're already up to our asses in sh*t in Iraq and it's not getting any better. The army is already way OVERCOMITTED with no other global capability as long as it has to maintain 2/3 of its front line units in the sh*thole of Iraq ('scuse my 'french").
     The Army National Guard is running itself into the ground. Longer tour of duties increase strains on our Guardsmen/women, sap morale, increase casualties. Furthermore, upon arrival back home Guard units demobilize and everyone goes home, meeting again on the required one weekend a month to train. Thus all the expertise won at the front line and in close combat with the enemy remains under-utilized. The Guard is clearly not cut for long wars.
    The VA is in dire straits to provide care for increasing numbers of veterans in need of medical AND psychological care. Once admitted, our veterans do receive great care indeed, administered by some of the best personnel and with some of the best technology on Earth; but the waiting process is very long, sometimes up to 6-8 months. Results in the treatment of PTSD are unsatisfactory as well. Most veterans get very little out of counseling and continue to have things like reccuring nightmares. In my oppinion VA is not cut to deal with long lists of casualties.
    Nothing or anyone in this country is cut for a long war, regardless of the macho talk on a big part of the populace. The political system is ripe with special interests and contribution money that really define foreign policy. We are having in effect a representational oligarchy, dominated by the interests of the big corporations. These interest are NOT parallel to the interests of the nation and the empire. Bush did not invade Iraq in a bid for reelection; he invaded Iraq because Bechtel, Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil and the myriad lesser groups he represents told him to do so. And that's why our boys and girls are dying and getting maimed as I'm typing these words over there right now and it's a f**kin' SHAME AND A DISGRACE.
    Noone even gives a sh*t amongst the population either. We're yelling big words and shaking our fists in the air but who is going to fight these wars? Have you looked at the urban cituation in the US today? All I see is dissafected youth trying to walk straight with their pants down on their knees and in search for the quick buck just like everyone else. Where are the values of civic pride, honor, and patriotism that carry western nations in times of war? Who's gonna give a sh*t and go fight a war in a society were people get shot at schools by their schoolmates, others get mugged while waiting in line to buy PS3, and making money is the predominant value replacing family, nation, and honor?
    The "system" is rotten, my friend, and needs massive overhaul. If we decide we want to run world empires, serious repairs are needed. I'm afraid that the limitations set by our constitutionalism and the apathy of the public would bar any effort to an attempt for serious change. So, it's better to call it a day, go home, and return to the traditional isolationism of this country.Noone is really ready to bear the burden. We're  too soft and consumeristic, too weak to fight. Empires are serious bussiness and running them properly is something the West has had  in her blood since ancient times. Ain't an easy job, though and it takes a WHOLE nation and proper leaders, clean from corporate--and other-- $$$ and interests that result in a biased foreign policy. Military values and honor must become part of the pride of this nation which so far consists of fat people driving F-350's with "Power of Pride" bumper stickers on them. Where has it happened before that the C-in-C who leads to war is himself a coward who went AWOL when his turn to serve came up? What Roman legion would've stood for such nonsense? Or the fact that there is only ONE member of Congress with a son/daughter in the military? Why, in a properly run Empire political appointment is the RESULT of military service, not the other way around!