Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
If Israel REALLY wanted to destroy Hezbollah they could.

Did you really just say that? What were they doing the three weeks, not trying to destroy hezbollah?

AAC

Both of your points are well taken Majic.

Last time Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the invaded with almost 80,000 troops, 800 tanks and 1,500 APC's. Even though Israel expanded their current offensive, it is by no means even close to the effort they put into the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. If they had chosen to, Israel could have moved all the way to Beirut and the Syrian border with little problem if they went full bore on the invasion.

Originally posted by pavil
Both of your points are well taken Majic.

Last time Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the invaded with almost 80,000 troops, 800 tanks and 1,500 APC's. Even though Israel expanded their current offensive, it is by no means even close to the effort they put into the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. If they had chosen to, Israel could have moved all the way to Beirut and the Syrian border with little problem if they went full bore on the invasion.

The reason they didn't do that is Iraq. They can take over a city, the enemy hides, waits a day, comes back full force as they are surrounded by buildings. Would never happen. AAC

Israel held onto Southern Lebanon for about 18 years despite attacks on them. If they thought it was in their best interest to do so again, they have the capability of doing so again. They think it is in Israel's interest and worth the attempt by Lebanon and the UN to help the central government of Lebanon assert it's soverignty over southern Lebanon and disarm Hezbollah.

A Lebanon free from armed militias having the capability to attack Israel is something Israel and Lebanon have not seen for almost 30 years. Is that not in the whole region's interest to have a Lebanon that is trully a "whole state" again?

Hezzbolaah has not and will not disarm until major changes in the region happen, not just whats in the interest of the west. AAC

Ok, I'll bite, what would those major changes be?

There is more to fighting and winning wars than fire power and man power. It is more complicated than that and is not the sole predicate of who wins or loses.

Take the United States involvement in the Vietnam war. The United States objective was to defeat the communists, it failed. That's not to say that the United States could of completely vapourized Vietnam with its many nuclear weapons. It had that option but it could never, ever do so. So it lost, and it matters not whether it had the means to win but chose not to. The same applies to Israel's second attempt at invading Lebanon. Israel too has nukes, it could vapourize Lebanon and complete it's stated objective of routing out Hezbollah and destroying it. But it could never do so.

Public and World opinion all come into play with regards to what the outcomes are for wars. Israel had four weeks of unrestrained air strikes and ground incursions and it failed to complete it's stated objective. When the IDF went into Lebanon on the ground they were met with fierce fighting that killed well over 100 elite IDF troops. You'll have to also bare in mind that Israel had 18 years worth of fighting Hezbollah in the very same area and did not manage to destroy it.

Israel's stated objective was to recover the kidnapped soldiers (addressed in the ceasefire agreement) and destroy Hezbollah which was not accomplished. Hezbollah's stated objective was to drive Israel out of Lebanese territory, this ceasefire agreement forces Israel out of Lebanon and behind the Blue Line. It also seeks final status talks over the Shebaa Farms. Therefore Hezbollah completed it's objectives.

To say that Israel could wage total war if it wanted to is not a realistic argument. Like I mentioned earlier, it could nuke Lebanon "if it wanted to" but in all actuality it most certainly could not. It would force the United States to drop it's die-hard support, it would be condemned Worldwide and would most likely be slapped with punitive sanctions from the UNSC. The same applies to a major offensive. It tried that with it's elite troops and they got a right royal bloody nose for their trouble. So they would have to carpet bomb the entire region, which is in the capabilities and they could do so "if it wanted to" but again in all actuality they would make support from the United States harder to come by and would be subject to UNSC resolutions condemning Israel.

So they really are not options and in no way cloud the verdict in who won this bloody war.

[edit on 13/8/06 by subz]

Originally posted by pavil
Ok, I'll bite, what would those major changes be?

The obvious... Israel out of their (In their heads it is their land) land. This is never going to change. AAC

I would hardly say they lost, considering that Israel caused nearly 3 billion dollars in damage, and would have continued had the the UN - with the the backing of the very people in this room - not stepped in and stopped it.

It's war, and people died.

To talk about who won is silly, and really goes to show how lacking in perspective the notion of "winning " is. And yet, to have an entire thread dedicated, with seemingly nationalist pride, of how their team "won" is kind of sick.

I mean, Jesus, all I'm reading for weeks from you guys is "how horrible the Israelis are", and "how they need to stop", and "how it's unfair", and the "poor Palestinians". All of that is perfectly reasonable and understandable.

But, now that there's a cease fire, the very same people are GLOATING about winning! As though Larry Bird dunked a free throw, just as the buzzer rang.

Originally posted by brimstone735

I mean, Jesus, all I'm reading for weeks from you guys is "how horrible the Israelis are",

Could this be a fruedian slip? Or is it just bad taste?

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Originally posted by brimstone735

I mean, Jesus, all I'm reading for weeks from you guys is "how horrible the Israelis are",

Could this be a fruedian slip? Or is it just bad taste?

It's an exasperated figure of speech, based on an often times used midwestern American colloquialism - rather than the conotation that I'm an American Evangelical, simply supporting Israel to bring about the Apocalpyse.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm not sure why some feel that Israel has lost this war. Clearly, they could continue, if they so desired and their firepower could put Lebanon back into the stoneage. As for Iran's nuke, I think the response to that would would likely be global, not regional. Those who think that's funny, aren't sharing a common reality.

If I am wrong please excuse me, but in this war I stand your side because I think you are a Jews. Why I stand Israel? Because Israel has withdrawed Southen of Lebanon, originally no reason could cause war between Israel and Hezbollah. It IS the Hezbollah kidnapping Israel's soldier that lead to this war waged, so all mistake is out of Hezbollah
The basic goal of war out of Israel is the soldier captured should be released. Even this not be satisfied. Israel has lost this war, I do dare to say again

Israel has allowed itself to lose as did the US in Vietnam. Politics has lead to this defeat if it is. But as I see it Israel won militarily and Hez won politically. Israel will get its buffer if the UN has any balls and Hez has won politically because of the destruction Israel caused on Lebanon in the name of beating Hez.

Israel doesn’t want to kill civilians, hey have enough control to get the buffer zone they wanted and they say the UN resolution as a way to set the buffer zone as they wanted. They could continue if they wanted because no matter what they do they will be condemned by most people. All Israel needs is time since they have cut off supply routes to Hez but they have decided to settle on a cheaper, faster and hopefully just about as good way to feel somewhat safe form their northern border.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
The obvious... Israel out of their (In their heads it is their land) land. This is never going to change. AAC

Hezbollah stated aim originally was to get Israel out of Lebanon. Israel was completely out of Lebanon and their pullout was verified by the UN as complete, so why exactly did Hezbollah start this latest hostilites with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers?

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
The obvious... Israel out of their (In their heads it is their land) land. This is never going to change. AAC

Hezbollah stated aim originally was to get Israel out of Lebanon. Israel was completely out of Lebanon and their pullout was verified by the UN as complete, so why exactly did Hezbollah start this latest hostilites with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers?

They still occupied ports and such throughout. AAC

Originally posted by subz
Actually this is the second time Israel has lost a war to Hezbollah. Israel was finally forced to withdraw from Lebanon in 2000 after 18 years of bloody occpuation. The withdrawal was due to Hezbollah's constant attacks on Israeli troops.

Hezbollah's stock has risen in the Middle East. Olmert is basically finished. And Israel has lost it's precious auora of invinciblity detterent.

I agree that they eventually lost the last time they fought Hez, they inflicted alot of cassualties, kind of like our vietnam. This war.. how did they loose? They agreed to a cease fire? So they agree to stop the bloodshed and then everyone calls them the loosers for running away? Common now, that is just retarded.

Not to mention that this cease fire was worthless, the two sides are at it again so again I asked when did Israel or Hazzbollah loose? War is still waging in my eyes.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
The obvious... Israel out of their (In their heads it is their land) land. This is never going to change. AAC

Hezbollah stated aim originally was to get Israel out of Lebanon. Israel was completely out of Lebanon and their pullout was verified by the UN as complete, so why exactly did Hezbollah start this latest hostilites with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers?

Pavil you see , most of the general world thinks of the idea of "Completely Gone" to mean that someone takes all his crap and leaves never to return. The Israeli idea of completely gone is a little more complicated and it seems that their idea of gone means that tanks, planes and unmmaned vehicles do not count as still being there. So when they fly a jet over Lebanons border they believe that this is being gone. Likewise in Gaza. They said they left completely but they never did.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Pavil you see , most of the general world thinks of the idea of "Completely Gone" to mean that someone takes all his crap and leaves never to return. The Israeli idea of completely gone is a little more complicated and it seems that their idea of gone means that tanks, planes and unmmaned vehicles do not count as still being there. So when they fly a jet over Lebanons border they believe that this is being gone. Likewise in Gaza. They said they left completely but they never did.

Show me multiple instances of Israeli violation of Lebanese territory without some prior provocations by either Hezbollah or Palestinian elements. That Lebanon did not fill the vaccuum in Southern Lebanon is the main cause of the current crisis, which incidentally, was one of the the causes of the initial 1982 Israeli invasion. Having armed militas in your country, doing whatever they want is never a good idea, especially when those militias wage war against a neighboring country, who is the military power in the region.

The UN is not the "general world" for you I take it.

[edit on 14-8-2006 by pavil]