|
Breaking News: Isreal and Lebanon at War? (pg. 16)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. |
Good ol' jonSun is kidding of course.:haha: |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
I guess Iraq should be called "USA #2" ... oh wait.. thats israel
pariah state of death = Israel |
Why don't you just put on your brown shirt and start handing out yellow stars... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. |
Why.?:conf:
Isnt Fox News.... fair & balanced?
:p |
|
|
| Purple |
| quote: | Originally posted by ilya49
i think that it is done by the iranian extremist president is responsible for the whole thing. He is the only individual who wants the distruction of israel. HE probably wants to start a war but he needs to find an excuse. He has to do so that Israel should start first. So he sends money to Lebannon(i mean the terrorist group inside the Lebannon, like hezbollah or some other terrorists) so that Lebannon would kidnap the soldiers. This would enrage the Israel and Israel would attack Lebannon. It won't find it's missing soldiers in there so it would move to Syria and then Iran would come in with its military. The history is repeating itself. One of the casuses of WWI were alliances. Israel is allied with UN and NATO(US, and most of the West) while Lebannon is allied with Syria and Iran and probably the rest of Middle east will be involved. so i would be preparing for the worst: WWIII. If cold war was East vs. West, now its gona be North(israel) vs South |
I feel it was all started from US. Right now if they invade Iran they know that Russia/China and rest of whole in world will oppose it. Damage will be lot less if Israel invades Iran, so US is using Israel to wage its proxy war on Iran.
| quote: | Originally posted by Temperate
I agree with that, somewhat. I indeed believe that the US is responsible for the lack of authority the UN now has (Compared to around 1990's [Rwanda]). But I think the whole Idea of the UN being "A dismantled scrap" is a bit pessimistic. I think what most countries are going to realize, is that in order for a unity of nations to work, there has to be equal representation and equal attention to all nations. |
I dont understand why UN has stopped doing anything at all, they seems to be on vacation or something. When Hans Blix said he had found no WMDs in Iraq, than UN should have come out with doctrine or somethine; saying: 'We have found no WMDs in Iraq, and the search/inspections (only if ncessary) will continue. If US attacks Iraq in the meantime, than we will have to impose sanctions on US.' |
|
|
| dennis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
If US attacks Iraq in the meantime, than we will have to impose sanctions on US.' |
OH NOS!!!!11 NOT THE UN!!!! WHATEVER WILL THE US DO?!?!??!1/11/1 |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
I dont understand why UN has stopped doing anything at all, they seems to be on vacation or something. When Hans Blix said he had found no WMDs in Iraq, than UN should have come out with doctrine or somethine; saying: 'We have found no WMDs in Iraq, and the search/inspections (only if ncessary) will continue. If US attacks Iraq in the meantime, than we will have to impose sanctions on US.' |
Aaw c'mon Hans Brix, you're breakin my barrs here!
Sorry couldn't resist :stongue: |
|
|
| Temperate |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonSun
Best source for newz evar |
C-SPAN was talking about it on washington journal.
I have yet to see an article about it, though. Shouldn't this big news? |
|
|
| Renegade |
Syria could be next:
| quote: | London-based Arabic language newspaper Al-Hayat says Israel gave Syria 72 hours to stop Hizbullah’s activity, bring about release of kidnapped IDF troops. ‘Israel will not end military activity until new situation created that will prevent Syria, Iran from using terror organizations to threaten its security,’ newspaper quotes Pentagon official as saying
Roee Nahmias
The London-based Arabic language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Saturday that “Washington has information according to which Israel gave Damascus 72 hours to stop Hizbullah’s activity along the Lebanon-Israel border and bring about the release the two kidnapped IDF soldiers or it would launch an offensive with disastrous consequences.”
The report said “a senior Pentagon source warned that should the Arab world and international community fail in the efforts to convince
Syria to pressure Hizbullah into releasing the soldiers and halt the current escalation Israel may attack targets in the country.”
Al-Hayat quoted the source as saying that “the US cannot rule out the possibility of an Israeli strike in Syria,” this despite the fact that the Bush administration has asked Israel to “refrain from any military activity that may result in civilian casualties.”
'Hizbullah made the same mistake'
The report also mentioned that President George W. Bush has repeatedly put much of the blame for the recent escalation on Syria.
“It is no coincidence that the Hizbullah operation comes at a time when the international community is working to impose sanctions on Iran due to its nuclear program and settle the score with Syria by establishing an international court to try those behind the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri,” the Pentagon source said.
According to the source, Hizbullah made the same mistake as Hamas when it did not predict the ramifications of its actions and ignored the regional and international changes since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
The source said that Israel has indicated that it “will not end its military activity until a new situation is created that will prevent Syria and Iran from using terror organizations, such as Hamas and Hizbullah, to threaten its security.” |
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,...3275886,00.html
Let's hope it doesn't come to this, but again - the signs aren't good. :( |
|
|
| Epicurus |
This is a speculatory post on my part, so bear that in mind before you criticize, but after thinking about this over the past few days, the following scenario may be plausible as an explanation to this situation:
First of all, I am convinced that Hizballah's actions were ordered, or at the very least, encouraged by Syria and Iran. Hizballah usually needs to consult with them before undertaking any massive operations along the Southern Lebanese border, and this "kidnapping" opertion is no exception, especially considering the circumstances in Gaza.
Second of all, this was most definitely not a mistake or a miscalculation (in the sense that Hizballah did not correctly predict the ramifications of the situation with regards to Lebanon) as claimed in the previous article posted by Renegade, but an act that, on the contrary, was intent on eliciting an Israeli reaction of this magnitude. To think otherwise is to be naive to the extreme. Surely Syria, Iran and Hizballah have witnessed the Israeli reaction to the Gaza kidnapping before undertaking this operation, and to believe that Israel would not react in the exact same fashion (or even worse) by shelling Lebanon is plain stupid. Now, whether Syria counted on being a potential target itself is a little more complicated, but I'll get to that in a bit.
Having made the above two claims, the obvious question that begs to be asked is: Why did Hizballah do it?
If we agree that Hizballah takes its orders from Syria and Iran, then Syria and Iran must have had vested interests in ordering (or encouraging) such an operation, especially at such a tense time.
From the Syrian perspective, it is well known that Damascus is fuming about their unceremonious exit from Lebanon last year, not to mention the ongoing Hariri probe that has all but fully blamed Syria for the murder. It is no secret that Syria still wishes to exert its influence on Lebanon, and counter the US-backed Senora government in Beirut by exposing its weakness. Ordering such an operation firstly demonstrates that it still wields enough power in Lebanon to be reckoned with, but more importantly, sets the stage for a potential return to Lebanon, not in the military sense (although there's a remote chance of that happening), but in the geo-political sense, if it can quell this situation from escalating any further by taming Hizballah. Furthermore, the repercussions arising from this situation amongst Lebanese society promises to be explosive, as there is a clear divide between Lebanese that support Hizballah (Shia) and those who don't (non-Shia). Any sectarian instability within Lebanon promotes the Syrian agenda, as the latter has always claimed that Lebanon cannot govern itself because of sectarian differences, and requires their help for security purposes. In a nutshell, Syria is telling the Lebanese government: you are still weak and we can still flex our muscle, so beware. You can't get rid of us this easily. We'll be back.
From the Iranian perspective, I don't think it's coincidental that the operation occured on the same day that Iran failed to fully respond to the Western nuclear proposal (click here). Threats about being referred to the Security Council and additional Western pressure about its response were surely temporarily aleviated after this event. Furthermore, and from a longer term perspective, it allows Iran, despite its denial of being involved, to demonstrate to the US that it has many cards to play in this game. In a nutshell, Iran is telling the US to cool off with the pressure by showing it (and other nations) that it can exert its influence in the region at will and potentially destabilize it even further.
From the Israeli perspective, engaging in such a massively disproportionate military campaign against Lebanon has a purpose, and it's most certainly not to recover the kidnapped soldiers. Surely, Israel doesn't expect to "uncover" or "find" the soldiers by bombing Lebanon, and surely, they don't expect Hizballah to cower under pressure by giving them back the soldiers simply because Lebanon is under fire (they never have in the past). So why attack Lebanon then?
If the situation does not escalate any further, and normalcy returns to Lebanon in the near future (i.e. one-two weeks), the Israeli reaction will have accomplished two things: weakened Hizballah militarily as the IDF has been targetting their strongholds, and supplied the Lebanese government, whose majority is anti-Syrian and anti-Hizballah, with the necessary pretext (against the opposition) to finally disarm the militant group. The Lebanese government can now point to the devastation and say to the opposition: see, this is what happens when you don't listen to us and Hizballah is not disarmed. Furthermore, Israel is hoping to once and for all turn the public opinion tide against Hizballah amongst Lebanese (even more so than before amongst the neutrals and the undecided), hoping that the latter will add impetus and/or credibility to any governmental decision to disarm the group. As mentioned in the Syria paragraph however, Syria is hoping that this deep schism already existing within Lebanese society with regards to Hizballah is exacerbated to the point of sectarian violence, so this strategy by Israel may backfire on them, if indeed it is their strategy.
Another more far-reaching (and perhaps more far-fetched) Israeli ambition is to draw Iran explicitly into this mess at all costs, forcing the US to react militarily. It is no secret that Israel's most fatal foe at the moment is Iran, and that the latter presents Isreal with a real theat to its security. Israel must be fuming about hearing soft rhetoric from Washington regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, with Bush now trumpeting multilateralism and diplomacy to solve this impasse, instead of the threat of force, and sees a potential Iranian involvment in this mess as the key to involving the US as well. If Israel attacks Syria, as the article claims (though I doubt it), Israel surely knows that Iran will react and mobilize its troops. After having signed a defense agreement with Syria last month (click here), and after proclamations of Ahmadinejad that a strike on Syria is tantamount to a strike on the Islamic world (click here), surely Israel knows that Iran would probably get involved. If Iran decides to mobilize militarily, this would leave almost no choice for the US but to react with force, or at the very least threaten to react with force. We could then witness an escalation of this conflict to very dangerous levels, although I'm hoping it doesn't reach this far. |
|
|
| venomX |
Does anyone not notice the logistics nigthmare that an operation in Iran would be? I mean, i am well aware that the IDF has an outstanding airforce but to say they can just stride into Iran and have a succesfull or fast military campaign is a bit farfetched. Iran also has a powerful militray and airforce, given that their airforce is not as strong as the Israely one but still they have one which poses a challenge. Recently i've been looking at the map of the area and Israel is definetly not in a very good strategic position, specially if it is to attack Syria and or Iran.
I would think that the only way that they could viably attack Syria/Iran is if the US gave them a hand using Afghanistan and Iraq. But then that would only fuel rebellion that is already ongoing in those countries. And then you have the other muslim countries in the region. Sure some of them say that they're the US's allies but that can change in the drop of a dime, specially if we get the population of those countries rebelling and creating dissent inside those countries.
Another thing im curious and dont have time to research, i have way to much homework, is India's and Pakistan's positions regarding Israel/Syria/Iran? Anyone have any info on that? If they were to be pro Syria/Iran im pretty sure a conflict against Syria/Iran would drag the whole region into a war and it would turn nasty very very fast, even involving the smaller ex-USSR countries. |
|
|
| Lira |
| Have you quoted yourself instead of editing your post? :p |
|
|
|
|
