|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 30, 2006 16:57:23 GMT -5
Dis, you might know more about this than I do, but I've seen reports that the "hiding among civilians" charge is overstated: Hezbollah doesn't like to be among civilians because of the risk of being tracked and found by Israeli spies. People whose homes have been bombed claim that they were nowhere near any Hezbollah activity. Also, Israel apparently doesn't distinguish between the military and political arms of Hezbollah, which I believe are quite separate. Just believing in Hezbollah's political goals (or living near people who do) is enough to get you bombed by Israel. The military and civilian leaders for the Hezbollah are one and the same. As for the Hezbollah not hiding behind civilians, two minutes ago I just watched a video released by the IDF that showing rockets launched from BEHIND civilian apartment buildings. The IDF can and will release more of it in the future. Unfortunatly, if they release anything now, they will compromise the people they have on the ground. 'The Hezbollah NEED civilian deaths and it's one of their propaganda weapons. And if it's children. so much the better. Stupidly enough, their own people buy into this. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 30, 2006 17:19:42 GMT -5
I am not sur if I should write this on an open board or not. There is an inherit problem with laser designated bombs.
Here is how they work.....
Laser-guided bombs use a laser designator to "sparkle" a target. The reflected laser light from the target is detected by the seeker head of the weapon, which sends signals to the weapon's control surfaces to guide it toward the designated point. Basically they are gravity bombs with control fins. Nothing more. Thewy could not distinguisgh freind from foe and they certainly can't distinguish which light to follow.
So....
If I knew they were laser designated bombs falling in the area and I had a laser of appropiate frequency and power.....
Do I have to spell it out? We will probably hear more about this "problem" in the future.
The IDF is NOT sutpid and they know that they can never lose the ground war, the can only lose the war for world opinion and the Hezbollah will make surte they lose that no matter HOW many deaths there are. The IDF may not be angels, but there are those who will want to paint Israel with the genocide brush.
Dis you have mail.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 30, 2006 17:56:18 GMT -5
The IDF may not be angels, but there are those who will want to paint Israel with the genocide brush. I get your point, but honestly, Israel is coming pretty close to painting themselves with that brush. If Hezbollah had infiltrated an Israeli city and were hiding among Israeli citizens, launching rockets at Israeli targets, I somehow doubt that Israel would bomb their own citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 30, 2006 18:38:08 GMT -5
The IDF may not be angels, but there are those who will want to paint Israel with the genocide brush. I get your point, but honestly, Israel is coming pretty close to painting themselves with that brush. If Hezbollah had infiltrated an Israeli city and were hiding among Israeli citizens, launching rockets at Israeli targets, I somehow doubt that Israel would bomb their own citizens. Man oh man, when did I become an Isreali apologist...... Israel has paintend themselves in a corner. They can only get at the Hezbollah by launching a ground offensive. A ground offensive costs lives. So the IDF is trying to use what is doomed to failure. Franko brought up that he hoped I was wrong about a ground offensive, from a military point of view I wasn't. But obviously the IDF is either buying time OR gotten soft and lazy. Bombs from 40,000 feet do not beat boots on the groound. Worse still, buy not razing the towns to the ground, the IDF is in an even WORSE situation. From the very beginning of time, man learned to kill each other by first launching rocks..arrows...spears....canons..bombs on each other and then following it by ground troops. The IDF is trying to do this without the preceding "softening" of the terrrain. This is a tactical mistake that will cost them dearly in lives. This is not going to be pretty. The reason I support the IDF is an ingrained hate of the Hezbollah militia's taking over a country and what that kind of actions hold for the future. Hezbollah has effectivly build an army that is more effective then the ineffective Lebanese military. They took it upon themselves to start a war with Israel just when it appeared that they were losing the "heros of Lebanon" status. In fact, they were under increasing pressure to surrender their arms. Is it to anyones amazement that this war started? Of course, nobody in the Arab world is looking at that either. If the Hezbollah are successfull, they will be adventurous in ALL of the Middle East. The Arab people will see them as saviours irregardless of the mayhem they bring. IF they have sufficient Arab population then their adventuresome will not stop there. It should escape NO ONE that if the Hezbollah and their ilk control the oil, we are in for the dark ages. This is why this reletivly minor battle must be fought and won. Mind you, I am beginning to believe that Israel may have screwed it up. I am also increadably concerned about nuclear prolifiration. Once Iran has nukes, I fear that the threshold of use will lower to "acceptable" loses. After all, if a thousand deaths can get you sympathy, imagine what ten thousand can do for you. After all, what's ten thousand when the purpose is to unite a half billion Arabs and start the New Age of Islam power? Actually, Iran is dreaming of the New "Persian Empire" and co-opting the Arab world. The cup is not only half empty, it has a leak. We will see what happens in a few days..... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 30, 2006 18:52:51 GMT -5
Are you comparing Hezbollah with Nazi Germany?? This is supposedly Israel's response to a few kidnappings, which may in fact have occured during an Israeli raid inside Lebannon. Israel's stated goal is to set Lebannon (not Hezbollah) back 20 years. Not what I would call a "measured response." No. Maybe using Germany was a poor example .... maybe I should have used Japan. We dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. The war was basically over when we did it. So why did we do it? To prevent WWIII from happening. We wanted to pummel the enemy "back 20 years" as you put it. Its no good to have an enemy surrender and have them rebuild and back at war in a few years. That is the problem in the Middle East in my opinion. Everyone is doing everything they can to look good in the world's eye. Pussy-footing as I like to call it. I know times have changed since 1944, but if someone over there (and it looks like Israel has decided that the time is now) decided to say "I dont care what the world thinks, its time for this decades long sh*t, to come to an end" .... well that would be it. War means doing everything you must to win .... I am not going to blame either side for doing "wrong things" ... this isnt trench warfare anymore, it is I havent a clue if you are bad or not but I am not giving you the chance to trick me. Our side did the same thing in WWI, and WWII ... make it hard for the enemy to rebuild and attack again. I can't be hypocritical now and say another country cant do the same to protect their country. Like one poster said ... Israel has to win every war, the Arabs states onlt have to win one. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 30, 2006 19:05:12 GMT -5
Are you comparing Hezbollah with Nazi Germany?? This is supposedly Israel's response to a few kidnappings, which may in fact have occured during an Israeli raid inside Lebannon. Israel's stated goal is to set Lebannon (not Hezbollah) back 20 years. Not what I would call a "measured response." No. Maybe using Germany was a poor example .... maybe I should have used Japan. We dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. The war was basically over when we did it. So why did we do it? To prevent WWIII from happening. We wanted to pummel the enemy "back 20 years" as you put it. Its no good to have an enemy surrender and have them rebuild and back at war in a few years. That is the problem in the Middle East in my opinion. Everyone is doing everything they can to look good in the world's eye. Pussy-footing as I like to call it. I know times have changed since 1944, but if someone over there (and it looks like Israel has decided that the time is now) decided to say "I dont care what the world thinks, its time for this decades long sh*t, to come to an end" .... well that would be it. War means doing everything you must to win .... I am not going to blame either side for doing "wrong things" ... this isnt trench warfare anymore, it is I havent a clue if you are bad or not but I am not giving you the chance to trick me. Our side did the same thing in WWI, and WWII ... make it hard for the enemy to rebuild and attack again. I can't be hypocritical now and say another country cant do the same to protect their country. Like one poster said ... Israel has to win every war, the Arabs states onlt have to win one. The IDF is NOT conducting a proper war. I seriously concerned that it will fail. I hate to say this and I sound callous, but the destruction of south Lebanon will lead to more peace. If people do not have a home or a job to return to, they will look at moving somewhere else. Two thirds of Lebanon don't want any part of this. Another thing..... You want the enemy to fall back twenty years. By that time. most have forgoten what war was all about and tend to live in peace. South Korea young people are wondering why their parents hate North Korea. They see them as half brained brothers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 30, 2006 19:28:07 GMT -5
Are you comparing Hezbollah with Nazi Germany?? This is supposedly Israel's response to a few kidnappings, which may in fact have occured during an Israeli raid inside Lebannon. Israel's stated goal is to set Lebannon (not Hezbollah) back 20 years. Not what I would call a "measured response." No. Maybe using Germany was a poor example .... maybe I should have used Japan. We dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. The war was basically over when we did it. So why did we do it? To prevent WWIII from happening. We wanted to pummel the enemy "back 20 years" as you put it. Its no good to have an enemy surrender and have them rebuild and back at war in a few years. I have to disagree with that. Bombing 2 cities did not set Japan back 20 years and that was never the goal (neither the stated reason nor the true reason) - there were other means to prevent future Japanese aggression. And there are other reasons why the bombs were dropped. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 30, 2006 21:55:20 GMT -5
No. Maybe using Germany was a poor example .... maybe I should have used Japan. We dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. The war was basically over when we did it. So why did we do it? To prevent WWIII from happening. We wanted to pummel the enemy "back 20 years" as you put it. Its no good to have an enemy surrender and have them rebuild and back at war in a few years. I have to disagree with that. Bombing 2 cities did not set Japan back 20 years and that was never the goal (neither the stated reason nor the true reason) - there were other means to prevent future Japanese aggression. And there are other reasons why the bombs were dropped. The bottom line is the excess force worked. Japan did not come back for more .... 60 years of governemnt policies, diplomacy, UN intervention has not worked. Israel has to defend itself (whether perceived threats, actual threats, or guerilla warfare suicide bombers) each and every year since 1949. They ended one conflict against the same enemy in 6 days because they used excess force .... now the world wants them to be all diplomatic and fall into the Afghan/Iraq trap? Israel knows how to fight wars. I say leave the whole lot of them alone and let them settle it out. I think too many Westerners now have delusions of grandeur and too many people have their eyes in the Nobel peace Prize. If you left them alone the conflict would be short and sweet. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 30, 2006 22:33:07 GMT -5
Jus in case somebody doesn't know how these bombs work.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Overview
Laser-guided munitions use a laser designator to mark (illuminate) a target. The reflected laser light ("sparkle") from the target is then detected by the seeker head of the weapon, which sends signals to the weapon's control surfaces to guide it toward the designated point. Laser-guided bombs are generally unpowered, using small wings to glide towards their targets. Powered laser-guided missiles, such as some variants of the US AGM-65 Maverick and the French AS.30L, use the same guidance system, but have greater range and maneuverability because they are not limited to unpowered flight. Some LGBs have been fitted with strap-on rocket motors to increase their range; one such weapon is the USAF AGM-123 Skipper.
The earliest laser guidance seekers measured the intensity of the reflected laser light at four corners of the seeker window. The seeker then actuated the control fins to steer the weapon in the direction of the strongest signal return, thereby keeping the weapon centered on the laser sparkle. Later weapons have more sensitive seekers and more sophisticated control systems that waste less energy with course corrections, improving accuracy and range, but the principle remains essentially the same. The first such weapon to be developed was the Texas Instruments BOLT-117.
Most laser-guided bombs are produced in the form of strap-on kits: seeker heads, steering fins, and wings that can be attached to a standard general-purpose bomb or penetration bomb. Such kits are modular, allowing relatively easy upgrades, and are considerably cheaper than purpose-built weapons.
[edit]
Development
Laser-guided weapons were first developed in the United States in the early 1960s. The USAF issued the first development contracts in 1964, leading to the development of the Paveway series, which was used operationally in Vietnam starting in 1968. Although there were a variety of technical and operational problems, the results were generally positive. LGBs proved to offer a much higher degree of accuracy than unguided weapons, but without the expense, complexity, and limitations of guided air-to-ground missiles like the AGM-12 Bullpup. The LGB proved particularly effective against difficult fixed targets like bridges, which previously had required huge loads of "dumb" ordnance to sever.
In the wake of this success, other nations began development of similar weapons in the late 1960s and early 1970s, while US weapons were refined based on combat experience.
The USAF and other air forces are currently seeking to upgrade their LGBs with GPS guidance as a back-up. These weapons, such as the USAF Enhanced Paveway, use laser designation for precision attacks, but contain an inertial navigation system with GPS receiver for back-up, so that if the target illumination is lost or broken, the weapon will continue to home in on the GPS coordinates of the original target.
[edit]
Problems and Limitations
While LGBs are highly accurate under ideal conditions, they present a number of challenges to be used successfully, making them somewhat less than the "silver bullet" sometimes suggested.
The first problem is designation. To insure accurate guidance, the target must be illuminated for several seconds before launch, allowing the weapon's seeker to obtain a positive lock, and the target must remain illuminated during much of the weapon's transit time. If the designator's "sparkle" is turned off, blocked, or moved, the weapon's accuracy will be greatly reduced.
For an accurate attack against a small target, uninterrupted designation is essential. On the other hand, the guidance controls of many LGBs (such as the American Paveway II) cause large deflections (visible as a noticeable wobble) which reduce the bomb's range. To compensate, crews will often release their weapons in an unguided, ballistic arc, activating the designator only to refine the bomb's final impact point. This is more demanding of crew and aircraft, requiring a high standard of basic, unguided bombing accuracy and more attention to the bomb's flight.
Laser designation is very vulnerable to weather conditions. Cloud cover, rain, and smoke frequently make reliable designation impossible. In war conditions, many sorties have been aborted as a result of poor visibility.
In the 1970s and 1980s it was common for aircraft to depend on a separate designator, either carried by ground forces, operated by the forward air controller, or carried by another aircraft in the strike group. It was often deemed more practical for one aircraft to provide lasing for its comrades. Modern conflicts and a growing emphasis on precision-guided weapons have pointed to the need for autonomous designation, and many fighter-bomber aircraft are now being fitted with designator pods to self-designate for laser-guided munitions.
Even if the launch aircraft is capable of autonomous designation, problems remain. Laser illumination can be interrupted by smoke, fog, or clouds, limiting the usefulness of LGBs in poor weather or very dusty conditions. In desert warfare, such as the 1991 Gulf War, laser designation sometimes reflected off the sand, causing weapons to home on false targets. Furthermore, the need to provide designation may leave the aircraft dangerously exposed to ground fire or enemy air support.
An additional concern is the limited "launch envelope" of an unguided weapon. The reflected laser "sparkle" can be described as a basket into which the weapon must be steered to hit the target. If the weapon is released too low or to far from the target, or in a trajectory that puts the weapon outside the seeker's field of view, it is likely to miss. Optimum altitude for an effective LGB attack is relatively high, increasing the aircraft's vulnerability to surface-to-air missile (SAM) attacks.
For these reasons, while all modern air forces have put an increasing emphasis on LGBs and other precision-guided munitions, some tacticians still see an important role for the accurate delivery of unguided bombs. During their 1981 raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, the Israeli Air Force chose to use unguided Mk 84 bombs rather than laser-guided weapons because they felt the need to designate the target would leave the attackers unacceptably vulnerable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 30, 2006 22:56:19 GMT -5
Something I was thinking about and I want to share with you guys.....
I heard the Lebanese prime minister call the Heznuts 'resistance fighters". Well, that's an insult to people like my father. My father was a resistance fighter in WWII and let me tell you one thing, he would rather commit suidcide then bring harm to his town. In fact, EVERY battle and every action was taken FAR away from the town in order not to place the towns people in danger of retaliation. Every resistance fighter would rather die then give up his fellow freedom fighter and where he came from.
So you have my father who fought with honour along with THOUSANDS like him in WW11 and you have the Heznuts who hide behind children and welcome their deaths. Think about this, the Heznuts were PROUD that only two of them died while they brought death to 600 others. Heznuts are not resistance fighters, they are cowards.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 31, 2006 1:19:58 GMT -5
Something I was thinking about and I want to share with you guys..... I heard the Lebanese prime minister call the Heznuts 'resistance fighters". Well, that's an insult to people like my father. My father was a resistance fighter in WWII and let me tell you one thing, he would rather commit suidcide then bring harm to his town. In fact, EVERY battle and every action was taken FAR away from the town in order not to place the towns people in danger of retaliation. Every resistance fighter would rather die then give up his fellow freedom fighter and where he came from. So you have my father who fought with honour along with THOUSANDS like him in WW11 and you have the Heznuts who hide behind children and welcome their deaths. Think about this, the Heznuts were PROUD that only two of them died while they brought death to 600 others. Heznuts are not resistance fighters, they are cowards. I don't disagree with that, but I think you could also call the Israelis cowards for dropping bombs on women and children from the relative safety of their jets.... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 31, 2006 1:26:35 GMT -5
I have to disagree with that. Bombing 2 cities did not set Japan back 20 years and that was never the goal (neither the stated reason nor the true reason) - there were other means to prevent future Japanese aggression. And there are other reasons why the bombs were dropped. The bottom line is the excess force worked. Japan did not come back for more .... That's basically a myth. The bombs had little or no effect on the Japanese surrender. Regardless, your point (as I understand it) is that Israel can end the war quickly by using excessive force. Well, I guess Hezbollah could end the war quickly too, if they had the firepower. It doesn't make it right. But I don't think all this bombing is going to solve anything. There may be short term peace, but Israel is giving a whole new generation (even more) reason to hate them, just as Israeli children are learning to hate the Lebanese. This conflict is a lot more than 60 years old and shows every sign of continuing beyond our lifetimes (unless we are all wiped out). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 31, 2006 9:44:59 GMT -5
The bottom line is the excess force worked. Japan did not come back for more .... That's basically a myth. The bombs had little or no effect on the Japanese surrender. I didn't say it had anything to do with their surrender. I said in the previous post that "even though the war was practically over". It was a message to Japan, to Italy, and to Germany .... you sided with the wrong side and now we have to send a message. Israel is now sending a message. You can call Israel a coward, but if the choice was your child or theirs who do you choose? Like you said this conflict has been going on since the times of Jesus. How long does Israel have to endure the attacks? Would you be happier if Israel sat back and let the "acts of terror" continue and only a few died in random acts that we might not hear about every few weeks? Israel tried to end the wars politically. They gave Palentinians The Gaza Strip, it wasn't enough. They pulled out of Lebanon, it wasn't enough ..... the Arab states aren't going to be happy until there is no Israel. If you could move Jerusalem I am sure the Israelis would move, but you can't, so they aren't going anywhere. I am well aware of the excess force that Israeli is using and while it is disheartening to see and I can sympathize with the innocent lives lost ..... it is a war. Israel can't say "All'e, All'e Outs In Free" and the Hezbollah will come out of their holes and they can fight a war with no civilian casualties. I know you will say the war should not be happening in the first place ... but let's neglect that and assume that the war was envitable, how do you suggest Israel fight it? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 31, 2006 11:35:35 GMT -5
I don’t think that’s true. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s the exact opposite.
Germany following World War I and following the Treaty of Versailles was essentially destroyed as a nation, both militarily and economically. Set back at least 20 years, as it were. 20 years after that treaty they invaded Poland. South Korean young people may wonder why their parents hate North Korea, but I suspect the attitude amongst many North Koreans is decidely different. Or at least amongst the power elite, who control the country and the military. People do not forget past aggressions, especially the kind where they are humiliated and/or destroyed. The Serbs still mark a battle loss that occurred 500 years ago, and use it as an excuse to hate their Bosnian neighbors. Armenians still remember their slaughter at the hands of the Turks, which occurred when, 1919? The IRA thrived for a hundred years, with nothing but the passed-on stories of historical grievances to sustain them. Heck, the whole mid-East conflict is based on remembered conflicts from generations ago that were never resolved, even though there hasn’t been a full-out war there involving Arabs and Israelis since the early 80’s.
The key is too resolve those conflicts. I agree that sometime you have to step on a person’s neck to get them to see your side of things, but merely stepping on their neck isn’t going to be enough. Eventually they will get up. Again, the Marshall Plan led to Germany and Japan becoming strong US allies, not the implied threat of "we will bomb you again." South Korea, to use your example, is an economic powerhouse that recieves billions in American trade, and is thus quite happy to let US troops stay there. These countries were helped back up, and quite sensibly decided it wasn’t a good idea to bite the hand that feeds them. But if instead of food, that hand kept slapping them, then for sure eventually they would have fought back.
Mark my words; unless Lebanon – or any other Arab country for that matter – is allowed to rebound as a nation, even helped to rebound as a nation, Hezbollah will thrive, no matter how many bombs you drop on them. Israel has beaten the Arabs in every major conflict, and in all the minor ones too, and still they keeping coming back for more. That’s because they have nothing else to do. Until you give them a reason to accept a peace with Israel, they will not do so. Giving them plots of dirt in the Gaza will not be enough, as long as you keep living in air conditioned homes and driving big old SUVs.
I am all for destroying Hezbollah as an entity, and if bombing the heck out of them is the first step, then so be it. But just like Iraq, you CANNOT kill a bunch of them, and then walk away thinking the job is done. That does not work, and will never work. You cannot kill them all, and like the mythical Hydra monster, for every head you cut off, 10 more appear to replace it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 31, 2006 13:35:07 GMT -5
That's basically a myth. The bombs had little or no effect on the Japanese surrender. With respect, MC, the bombs were exactly why the Japanese Emperor decided to surrender. He saw the destructive power and then thought otherwise. Some argue that the destruction of two cities wasn't necessary. However, I remember reading how the Americans opted out of demonstrating the bomb first by dropping one on a deserted island. They did this because they thought the Japanese would move as many allied prisoners to that location as possible. And it doesn't always work either. Right now Israel is being watched to see how quickly they can eradicate the Hezbollah element. It hasn't gone as well as their previous conflicts where they basically steamrolled over everyone else. Hezbollah guerillas are well-armed, motivated and focused. State-of-the-art munitions notwithstanding, Israel hasn't been able to get an upper hand on the yet and they're already two weeks into the fight. They've come up against a very persistent adversary. Honestly, the only way Israel will be conflict-free will be if the return to the boundaries set out for them in a 1947 UN resolution that equally divided Palestine. What are the odds of that happening? Right now, Palestinians have been penned up in territories that comprise about 20 % of what they were originally entitled to. But, even if they eventually agreed to re-establish the original boundaries, there's no guarantee that Israel would have peace. Eventually some faction, somewhere, would find reason enough to start it up again. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 31, 2006 15:34:39 GMT -5
I don’t think that’s true. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s the exact opposite. Germany following World War I and following the Treaty of Versailles was essentially destroyed as a nation, both militarily and economically. Set back at least 20 years, as it were. 20 years after that treaty they invaded Poland. South Korean young people may wonder why their parents hate North Korea, but I suspect the attitude amongst many North Koreans is decidely different. Or at least amongst the power elite, who control the country and the military. People do not forget past aggressions, especially the kind where they are humiliated and/or destroyed. The Serbs still mark a battle loss that occurred 500 years ago, and use it as an excuse to hate their Bosnian neighbors. Armenians still remember their slaughter at the hands of the Turks, which occurred when, 1919? The IRA thrived for a hundred years, with nothing but the passed-on stories of historical grievances to sustain them. Heck, the whole mid-East conflict is based on remembered conflicts from generations ago that were never resolved, even though there hasn’t been a full-out war there involving Arabs and Israelis since the early 80’s. The key is too resolve those conflicts. I agree that sometime you have to step on a person’s neck to get them to see your side of things, but merely stepping on their neck isn’t going to be enough. Eventually they will get up. Again, the Marshall Plan led to Germany and Japan becoming strong US allies, not the implied threat of "we will bomb you again." South Korea, to use your example, is an economic powerhouse that recieves billions in American trade, and is thus quite happy to let US troops stay there. These countries were helped back up, and quite sensibly decided it wasn’t a good idea to bite the hand that feeds them. But if instead of food, that hand kept slapping them, then for sure eventually they would have fought back. Mark my words; unless Lebanon – or any other Arab country for that matter – is allowed to rebound as a nation, even helped to rebound as a nation, Hezbollah will thrive, no matter how many bombs you drop on them. Israel has beaten the Arabs in every major conflict, and in all the minor ones too, and still they keeping coming back for more. That’s because they have nothing else to do. Until you give them a reason to accept a peace with Israel, they will not do so. Giving them plots of dirt in the Gaza will not be enough, as long as you keep living in air conditioned homes and driving big old SUVs. I am all for destroying Hezbollah as an entity, and if bombing the heck out of them is the first step, then so be it. But just like Iraq, you CANNOT kill a bunch of them, and then walk away thinking the job is done. That does not work, and will never work. You cannot kill them all, and like the mythical Hydra monster, for every head you cut off, 10 more appear to replace it. But they aren't going to accept that aid and leave Israel alone. The first step is to pummel them and then help them up .... I believe the US wants this to occur and why they are not saying anything. I bet they have told Israel, "Bomb the sh*t out of them, we will help them rebuild as a nation" ... but step one is to either A) give them the land they want and hope no one else attacks Israel, or B) Bomb the bejebus out of them so they can't get back up without some help. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 31, 2006 15:38:38 GMT -5
Honestly, the only way Israel will be conflict-free will be if the return to the boundaries set out for them in a 1947 UN resolution that equally divided Palestine. What are the odds of that happening? Right now, Palestinians have been penned up in territories that comprise about 20 % of what they were originally entitled to. But, even if they eventually agreed to re-establish the original boundaries, there's no guarantee that Israel would have peace. Eventually some faction, somewhere, would find reason enough to start it up again. Cheers. If Israel gives them that 30% of land (I have to admit I didnt know there was a UN resolution saying Palestine was entitled to that) don't you think the neighbouring Arab states are going to think it will be easier to attack Israel. They will see it as a sign of weakness and they will work together to eradicate the rest of the land from Israel. I think whatever comes of this there has to be a "No Man's Land" around Israel. A buffer like in North Korea where no one can enter. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 31, 2006 18:23:23 GMT -5
Palestinians are their own worst enemy. Especially when one is a Shieit and the other is a Sunni. When they don't join together to attack Danish newspapers editors or Israeli farmers, they fight with eachother.
I see no solution that doesn't include violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 31, 2006 18:47:55 GMT -5
If Israel gives them that 30% of land (I have to admit I didnt know there was a UN resolution saying Palestine was entitled to that) When you have time, Skilly, please google either of the following: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 Here's a map of the original agreement.  Now compare it to what it looks like today  Note that the Palestinians are mostly confined to Gaza and the West Bank. Military rule was lifted in Gaza when Israel left in 2005. However, I read earlier today that Israel has recently started pounding key areas in Gaza (when I have a link I'll post it). Could be Skilly. I mean, really, whose to say? Or, it could be that this is what many of the Middle East wars have been fought over. As I was saying earlier, agreeing to something like this might be the solution to the Palestinian issue. It would eliminate one major excuse to go to war with Israel anyway. However, Israel is probably the only nation in the region that can mobilize its country for war in just hours (literally). History has shown (Yom Kippur exempted) that Israel will not only take the fight to their aggressors, but also pounds them into dust in the process. You think they'd remember this though, Skilly. Check this cut and paste from Telegraph.co.ukIsraeli intelligence reported that Syrian forces had been put onto their highest state of alert, while Israel has called up 15,000 reservists who many believe will be despatched as reinforcements to the disputed Golan Heights, between the two countries.Later in the article you'll read that a missile fired at Afula, Israel, was Syrian-made. Well, it's not like they've tried to do this. Sinai was originally Egyptian territory (Israel pulled out completely in '82), the West Bank rightly belonged to Jordan (however, the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem were under UN control so both Arabs and Jews could have equal access), Gaza was Palestinian and the Golan Heights belonged to Syria. Syria has since demanded that the Israelis return the Heights all the way to Lake Tiberius. Until he went down, Ariel Sharon was in the process of negotiating the return of the Golan but that has yet to come to fruition. I was over there in '96, Skilly, and the Israelis would be nuts to give back the Golan. They not only have settlements there but they often refer to it as the "eyes and ears of the country." Very strategic. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 31, 2006 19:35:46 GMT -5
Dis,
Looking at the map you posted, would there be two Jewish countries? Israel and another? The Arab states split the Jewish states. For the Arab states it would be easy to join Egypt, Syria, Jordan or Amman. But was it the UN's intention to split Israel and keep it one country?
Will read your posted link and google your suggestion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 31, 2006 19:52:12 GMT -5
Dis,
According to a few sites I read, 75% of the land given to the Jewish people by The UN Partition was desert and they still accepted the terms because they wanted to settle a Jewish nation quickly after the Holocost. The Palestinian population voted in favour of the Partition but ALL the Arab states (Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen) voted against it. When the resolution was adopted the Arab delegation declared it invalid.
If this is the case, I can't see how giving the Palestinians more land is going to solve anything. It will appease the Palestinians, but the neighbouring states are still going to be hell bent on getting rid of Israel. And with a split Jewish state it could be easier to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 31, 2006 20:18:58 GMT -5
That's basically a myth. The bombs had little or no effect on the Japanese surrender. With respect, MC, the bombs were exactly why the Japanese Emperor decided to surrender. He saw the destructive power and then thought otherwise. You are correct (my memory of the details was fuzzy). However, the Emperor did not fully accept America's terms. The main reason that Japan didn't surrender before the bombs were dropped was that they wanted a guarantee that the Emperor would remain the "Sovereign Ruler," which America did not provide (even though Truman's advisors were in favour of it). After the bombs were dropped, Hirohito agreed to America's terms provided that his authority remained intact, and America accepted the surrender with the caveat that "The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers". So, both sides were able to save face: America could claim "unconditional surrender" while Japan could talk about "the cessation of hostilities" and pretend that the Emperor would remain "sovereign." In the end, the same settlement might have been acheived without dropping the bombs. The US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 31, 2006 20:27:37 GMT -5
The US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” Democrats ,..... pfffftttttttt. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 31, 2006 20:48:25 GMT -5
I didn't say it had anything to do with their surrender. I said in the previous post that "even though the war was practically over". It was a message to Japan, to Italy, and to Germany .... you sided with the wrong side and now we have to send a message. Israel is now sending a message. As BC said, that "message" was not the reason that there wasn't another war with Japan. In fact, were it not for that message, the world just might be a whole lot safer today. They say history repeats itself.... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 31, 2006 21:03:23 GMT -5
Dis, Looking at the map you posted, would there be two Jewish countries? Israel and another? The Arab states split the Jewish states. For the Arab states it would be easy to join Egypt, Syria, Jordan or Amman. But was it the UN's intention to split Israel and keep it one country? Will read your posted link and google your suggestion. Skilly, I can't honestly answer this without researching it a tad more. I'm not sure if it was an intentional division or not. But, there were reasons why the Israelis fought their "War of Independence" in 1948. I'll get more into it when I have time. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 31, 2006 21:16:17 GMT -5
Dis, According to a few sites I read, 75% of the land given to the Jewish people by The UN Partition was desert and they still accepted the terms because they wanted to settle a Jewish nation quickly after the Holocost. The Palestinian population voted in favour of the Partition but ALL the Arab states (Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen) voted against it. When the resolution was adopted the Arab delegation declared it invalid. If this is the case, I can't see how giving the Palestinians more land is going to solve anything. It will appease the Palestinians, but the neighbouring states are still going to be hell bent on getting rid of Israel. And with a split Jewish state it could be easier to do. Well, giving land back that they annexed in the Six-Day War would be a start as would handing over the former Palestinian lands (again, if nothing else it would eliminate one excuse used by every anti-Israeli faction out there). But, tactically speaking it would be disasterous. Watch how narrow Israel would look if they gave back the West Bank to Jordan. And we've already discussed the importance of the Golan Heights. Incidently, there are quite a few Israeli settlements in the Golan. I knew a few Israelis from the En Ziwan Kibbutz, which was not too far from our camp. They were quite clear in that they would take up arms against Israel if they ever decided to give the Golan back Syria. Not a problem Israel needs right now. However, like I've said in the thread already, trouble will always be around so long as the State of Israel exists. Your research reinforces that. Signing off for tonight. Will check in when I have time tomorrow. Good topic. Thanks. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 31, 2006 22:46:06 GMT -5
Any borders drawn by the UN are as meaningless and those drawn up by the League of Nations.
Who cares where the tribes of Africa live. Here are the imperialist boundries we are deciding/imposing for the world? Makes no sense.
If Czechs and Slovaks can't live together; if Irish Protestants and Catholics can't share a country; if Serbs, Croates and Muslims can't live in harmony; if Orthodox jews and reformed jews and hassadic jews can't live together in harmony in a democratically elected parlaiment, how can outsiders presume to settle other peoples problems with artificial borders.
Israel has no right to tell Lebanon whether to elect or support Hezbollah or the puppet government; but they do have the right to stop whoever is directing bombs and missles against them.
Israel has no right to tell the Palestineans whether to support Hamas or not; but they do have the right to stop suicide bombers and snipers.
At this point, it's up to the protagonists to settle their differences. If it takes more pain on both sides to get them to the table, let them experience all the pain that is necesssary and not a single death more. When they are ready they will come to the realization that it's time to negotiate a sustainable peace and recognize the rights of both sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 31, 2006 23:02:08 GMT -5
Guys, Idon't think this war is about Hezbollah and Israel as it is as much about Iran and their dreams of becomming "the voice of Islam". I said it before and I will say it again, the Heznuts are beign used by Iran to rally the Arab people. Another thing.... The Heznuts needed a Qana SO BADLY that it makes me wonder how they got EXACTLY what they wanted at the time they wanted and of course the IDF gave it to them. Stupid IDF should of had videos of bombings in order to prove that they were chasing rockets, not people. Imagine how they would turn the world opinion on the Hez if they showed a video of the Hez firing rockets and then hiding inside building full of people. Anywho..... IDF FINALLY launched a substantial ground offensive. The are probably going to surround the Heznuts from the Litani river and choke them off. Either the Israelis fight a proper ground war or call a ceasefire. This pussyfooting with trying to hit rockets AFTER they left is stupid at best. Syria is sabre rattling. I thought that you actually needed a saber to do that, not a pastry fork. Iranian government is trying to take advantage of what they started. Their foreign minister popped into Lebanon, no doubt offering crocodile tears with their "sincere" condolence. Iran involvement at this stage could have ENORMOUS CONSEQUENCES. I sincerely hope that the Lebanese prime minister has enough brains not to take the bait. At best, Israel will turn his country into ruble, at worse, his shortsightedness could turn this region into flames.....even irradiated flames. A few more stupid mistakes on both sides and we can have ourselves highly destructive regional war...  ..and world economic disaster. ALL of the Arab governments better wake up to Iranian dreams of empire. Irans wet dream...........  |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Aug 1, 2006 2:18:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Aug 1, 2006 13:36:21 GMT -5
It's important to remember that Hezbollah and Hammas are NOT the problem. They are very popular organizations supported by the majority. THey are not just a gang of thieves (they are that too) but they are revered as heros by the youth and cheered by the downtrodden aged.
If hammas and hezbollah were outlawed tomorrow, there would be five new extremist groups vying to replace them.
The old refrain of winning the hearts and minds is not working. Palestineans/Arabs/Muslims will not be satisfied until the Jews and Israel cease to exist in the Middle East. Then they will continue to dictate to the rest of the world how to eliminate western decadence, censure newspapers and treat women.
Religeous fundamentalism is a problem that extends beyond boundaries. Intollerance of whatever a mullah ascribes to Allah will continue to be a problem wherever people want to live free.
Fortunately we can discuss more important issues like the starting lineup for the Hab's or the salary cap in New jersey.
|
|
..and world economic disaster. ALL of the Arab governments better wake up to Iranian dreams of empire.