| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
It can't emphasized enough that this was not a battle between two states, between two standing armies. Furthermore, Hezbollah have not been disarmed.
Can any UN force really disarm Hezbollah without the Lebanese army's help?
That'll be an important question in the near future, since they have stated that they refuse to disarm Hezbollah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:15 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 2. Obviously I did. How would you think Hizballah would be totally eliminated? Massive killing on Israel's part. Sure, there are other ways to go about it than those two, but they wouldn't be any more "humane." |
1) First of all, I doubt that a nuke coud have possibly eliminated Hezbalah.
2) You ARE throwing nukes out on the table. I realize this isn't the White House or the UN, but do you consider nuclear war a serious option in "this"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. you're right, one nuke would not even come close to eliminating hizballah. "Nuking" doesn't mean just one nuclear weapon being used. But yes, perhaps the total destruction and bombardment of southern lebanon would not have eliminated the group. I suppose that shows how futile Israel's goal and effort was.
2. Yes, I am. Did I ever say I wasn't? In fact I said I was the one bringing nukes into the equation. Do I consider it a serious option? No. What's your point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject: Re: People, he bottom line is... |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| [.You seem to be under the false asumption that victory on the battlefield, and only victory on the battlefield constitutes a win. |
And to be fair, it generally does |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, when the combatants are states.
Still, as I've aleady pointed out- the Iraq 91 war is a perfect example of a state losing a campaign yet the regime 'winning' by remaining in power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hizzbollah would not last 3 weeks against the most mideast nations.
I mean Saddam Hussein or Khomeni or Assad could easliy destroy them.
In the mideast "Hama rules." *
'
* Hama is a city in Syria that rebelled against Hafaz Assad in 1982. Assad responded by destroying the city killing at least 20,000 in two weeks and then he built a new city on top of the old city. Then everything was as if it never happened.
That is how things are done in the mideast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:41 am Post subject: Re: People, he bottom line is... |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
1. Israel was pressured and coerced into it. Do you really think Israel would have ended it's campaign were it not for international pressure? No.
2.Who said anything about carpet bombing or nuking? |
1. don't forget domestic pressure. But sure, I agree international pressure had something to do with it. That is different than what you seemed to be saying (the UN forced Israel into agreeing)
2. Obviously I did. How would you think Hizballah would be totally eliminated? Massive killing on Israel's part. Sure, there are other ways to go about it than those two, but they wouldn't be any more "humane." |
Oh please, you want to talk about humane? Hizbollah was setting up in civilian areas, leaving Israel no choice.
Hizbollah has been rocketing Israel for years and types like you didn't give a rats ass but as soon as Israel retaliates you condemn her as if she were the devil himself.
No WMDs were used in Lebanon.
In 2000 israel gave back Southern Lebanon to Lebanon (which was taken because it was used by the PLO to shell Galilee after Israel retaliated against Ammo depots in Lebanon for a Lebanese backed terror group assassinating a politician)
, a Hizbollah demand. But Hizbollah still kept attacking Israel.
Israel is perfectly just in seeking Hizbollah's end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Hizzbollah would not last 3 weeks against the most mideast nations.
|
Well, that all depends, doesn't it?
People don't seem to be grasping the uniqueness of this situation compared to most other battles/campaigns, IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But that doesn't change the fact that "Nobody wins" is a trite self evident platitude.
|
I must say I agree with the above statement.
My Grandfather got wounded 2 months before World War 2 ended, his best friend got killed 2 weeks before the war ended.
I didn't grow up giving the Nazi salute to Adolfs picture though my best friend when I was 8 was German. Though he knew as much as I did about the war at that time. Except that we tried to find japanese war material where we lived or in the surronding area.
So who won the war? Well it wasn't the German's though they have done better in the peace then my country has. But "Nobody wins" is not quite true.
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: People, he bottom line is... |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
1. Israel was pressured and coerced into it. Do you really think Israel would have ended it's campaign were it not for international pressure? No.
2.Who said anything about carpet bombing or nuking? |
1. don't forget domestic pressure. But sure, I agree international pressure had something to do with it. That is different than what you seemed to be saying (the UN forced Israel into agreeing)
2. Obviously I did. How would you think Hizballah would be totally eliminated? Massive killing on Israel's part. Sure, there are other ways to go about it than those two, but they wouldn't be any more "humane." |
Oh please, you want to talk about humane? Hizbollah was setting up in civilian areas, leaving Israel no choice.
Hizbollah has been rocketing Israel for years and types like you didn't give a rats ass but as soon as Israel retaliates you condemn her as if she were the devil himself.
No WMDs were used in Lebanon.
In 2000 israel gave back Southern Lebanon to Lebanon (which was taken because it was used by the PLO to shell Galilee after Israel retaliated against Ammo depots in Lebanon for a Lebanese backed terror group assassinating a politician)
, a Hizbollah demand. But Hizbollah still kept attacking Israel.
Israel is perfectly just in seeking Hizbollah's end. |
you seem to think i'm taking hizballah's side here. i'm not sure why. My one criticism of israel on this thread (which was implied and not explicit) was: eliminating hizballah is an impossible task given the circusmstances.
I also disagreed with you when you said Israel was forced into the cease-fire by the Intl. community. I think Israel figured it was in its best interest to do so.
efltrainer thinks i'm a right-wing whacko and you think i'm a bleeding heart for hizballah. good times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
