Untirely hypothetical at this point but if the Lebanese gov't were to request and be granted help from other ME nations should the US intervene on Israel's behalf? This would be vastly different than fighting a militia, these are modern militaries complete with aircraft. Now, that being said, they are not as well trained or equipted as Israel but they out number the Israeli's by a large margin.

So, should the US get involved? If so, why?

Israel has fought several of it's arab neighborw at once several times in it's short history.

The results were always the same. Israel won after inflecting sevear damage on there emenies

Remember in 72 when IDF shoot down "72" Syrian migs with no IDF loss's coming from those migs.

Remember in 72 when Isrealy "wild weassles" distroyed SSOO many Syrian.

Remember also in 72, Syria lost soo many radar/missleradar sites that Syria shut them all down to save what few they had left!

Do I want this to turn into a regional conflict-D"UH-NO!

Has Israel delt with this before-yeppers and they can do it again.

With what troops? The United States has recently increased US troop numbers in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I dont think the United States would be capable of forming an overwhelming force to intervene in a war that it has never, ever wanted to be militarily involved in.

If the United States got involved in a Middle Eastern war alongside Israel you can guarantee a complete military conflict involving all of the Middle Eastern countries. Including US allies such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

It would be a rallying cry to all muslim nations and irrespective of whether those governments are loyal and allied to Washington, they would not be able to quell domestic unrest calling for their intervention on Lebanon/Hezbollah's side.

If there was one sole decision that would spark World War Three it would be the United States getting directly involved in a war alongside Israel. IMHO, that is why the United States has never done so.

[edit on 30/7/06 by subz]

eventually ALL nations will come against Israel, and Israel will win!

What???? Once again, Snazuolu, thanks for the laugh

Originally posted by Snazuolu
eventually ALL nations will come against Israel, and Israel will win!

I wonder how the Israeli's would feel about you telling the rest of the world to "bring it on"? Especially after they read your other post where you claimed that the Jewish people earned the holocaust??

I don't think they would be all to happy with you.

I would say thanks for the laugh, but it is far too saddening to even break a smile.

Is nothing that US could do if the nations in the middle east turn against Israel all at the same time . . .

Israel has never been in a modern war that involve more than one country with enough technology to match Israel-US supported technology . . .or close to it. . .

Unless the reason for all the fuzz with Israel is to get other Arabs nations or Persian nations like Syria and Iran to join so it will be an excuse to take over Syria and Iran.

But is one problem . . . if Israel is the major contributor to a major scale war in the middle east bedside the US you bet that the entire middle east community will join to fight.

Sorry for the reality check but . . . they will be in their Right to do so.

US will be once against look upon and fought as an invader and Israel as an aggressor.

It will truly become a war of religion, wars fought because of religious grounds never have a victorious side only death, chaos and devastation. . .

Unless the president of our nation has lost his mind he will keep our nation and our soldiers away from the conflict of Israel and Lebanon-Hezbollah. . .

I think it would entirely depend on the situation at the time. If Iran joined and sent tank brigades through iraq and into Israel and Syria were firing its chemical weapons (legally) into Tel Aviv, then that'd be a pretty different situation from, say, Egypt sending bullets or Jordan putting an embargo on Israel.

Anyway, whats it matter what the US would do? If Syria attacked Israel, by the time US troops were in the region, the war'd be over.

marg6043
or Persian nations like Syria and Iran

To be clear, Syria is not a persian nation, only Iran is persian, and Afghanistan has some persians within it ( i think next would come pakistan and possibly the pahlavi in India). Syria is populated by peoples native to the region and arabs.

they will be in their Right to do so.

Indeed. Any nation has the right to engage in war.

US will be once against look upon and fought as an invader and Israel as an aggressor.

The big difference from the situation now, with occupied palestinian territories and the US in Iraq, would be that there'd be no State Powers supporting the insurgencies. The mainline Armies would be defeated in weeks, and then the real threat would be the insurgencies. THe palestinians are supported and fed materials and advice by the iranians and syrians. With a puppet government in Damascus, Beruit, Tehran, Baghdad, heck, even Riyadh and Cairo and Amman and Istanbul, there'd be long term guerilla warfare, but it'd be unsupported. Insurgencies fail only when they are unsupported.

Unless the president of our nation has lost his mind he will keep our nation and our soldiers away from the conflict of Israel and Lebanon-Hezbollah.

Indeed, why bother to get involved. The yehudis can take care of the situation on their own.

subz
With what troops? The United States has recently increased US troop numbers in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The majority of US active combate brigades are not in Iraq or really tied down anywhere. The US has a tremendous warmaking capacity right now.
Also, with a wider regional war, the US is in a far better situation than it is now. THe US Army excells at destroying actual armies. THe troops in iraq can be spared to smash up Tehran and Damascus, whats going to possibly get worse in baghdad while they are gone anyway? Bombings? IEDs? Thats already happening. And then, when the syrian-iranian armies are defeated, the whole region can be just as effectively (and I am not saying its all that effective in the first place) as iraq is now.
Not a good situation for syrians, iraqis, and iranians, but, hell, if they don't want it, they could allways not go to war.

Originally posted by Janus
The Arab nations like Syria are not stupid and will have learned from these wars; to underestimate them would be very foolish

Indeed, the arabs aren't poor fighters. But still, there is only so much. In the old days they were proxies of the soviet union. Now, they aren't supported by any super-power, whereas Israel is. And, Israel has nukes. Once the Syrians start firing chemical shells into Israel, or against invading Israeli Armies, the board would be cleared for them to respond by nuking damascus and or even using the nukes tactically.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The mainline Armies would be defeated in weeks, and then the real threat would be the insurgencies. THe palestinians are supported and fed materials and advice by the iranians and syrians.

Why defeated in weeks? because US? why would US attack sovereign countries just because they are at war with Israel? that will make the situation worst . . .

Insurgencies Are a threat If Israel or US invade Palestine, Syria or Iran to stop a round attack on Israel the killings and the insurgency will never die . . .

No matter what US does in Iraq it will never die as long as US keeps occupying Iraq.

Is a mess in the middle east because so many foreign influences trying to dictate the lives of the people.

No matter how good the intentions of the west the middle east people will always side with their own. . . they will never side with foreign invaders or an aggressive nation that they until now consider not to be a nation.

That is not my calling that is what the middle east people feels.

No matter if some want peace and prosperity like in the west they will never side with Israel, never. . .

Snazuolu is referring to the book of Revelations that in the war of armegheddon that ALL nations of the earth will come against Israel.

You do not need a Revelation book to understand that in the Bible times it was not other nations establishes with substantial power or recognized but the ones in the middle east . . .

Originally posted by marg6043
You do not need a Revelation book to understand that in the Bible times it was not other nations establishes with substantial power or recognized but the ones in the middle east . . .

What?

Absolutely not. Let em all duke it out themselves.

And stop supporting Israel. Dont these idiots in Washington realize that Iraq was the straw that broke the camels back?

About the only Arab Nation that could do anything would be Syria. At this time, they are in no position to make any moves into Lebanon, regardless if invited or not by the Lebanese Government. If they were to move into Lebanon, Israel would smack Syria upside it's head for doing so. Iran won't be able to help Syria if they get invovled with a full blown war with Israel.

The big question will be will Israel allow Arab nation peacekeepers to be part of the force that will eventually be deployed into Southern Lebanon.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

And stop supporting Israel. Dont these idiots in Washington realize that Iraq was the straw that broke the camels back?

NO BECAUSE THEY ARE MORONS. Simple as that. Let them fight their crusade without me! Oh yeah, and most of the US who does not support the WOT.

Originally posted by princeofpeace

What?

Learn you history . . . when the book of revelation was written they were counting that the end of world was to be during the life time of the people that redacted the bible. . .

When the revelations said that All the nations of the world the only nations that were recongnize and big enough to be considerate powerful were located in the middle east . . .

Modern world didn't exited, US was not even dream about . . .

I cant understand your grammar bro thats why i said "what"? I still didnt "get" your last post. Use some periods or a comma and run a spell check or something because your posts are confusing.

Thanks in advance.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by princeofpeace]

Originally posted by princeofpeace
I cant understand your grammar bro thats why i said "what"? I still didnt "get" your last post. Use some periods or a comma and run a spell check or something because your posts are confusing.

I am no your bro and my grammar is just fine . . . it seems that you have problems with understanding some facts here. . .and changing the subject doesn't work. . .