[Chthon]

Yeah, it is a tough question, isn't it? I mean what comes to my mind first is maybe Iran and Syria are playing chicken, like trying to call the US's bluff on airstrikes, but i'd like to think that the leaders of entire countries wouldn't play games with potential military conflict like that.

I think as a default we should just pan this one up reptilian humanoids.

[falconstalon]

Originally Posted by Chthon

As a Shi'a group, Hezbollah was pretty much created and funded by Iran.

As to why they're antagonizing now of all times, who knows. Maybe they think that since the US is tied up in Iraq then it doesn't currently have the ability to strike.

Maybe they're doing it as a diversion away from something else.

Hezbollah could possibly be trying to act out independently from it's Iranian benefactors as well.

The thing with counterterrorism is that it's tricky. These aren't any old goons out there, Hezbollah are diabolical maniacs and know what they're doing. They likely won't try tactics that are easily predictable.

they were also an ally of israel until the late 80's after some israeli soldier created a tussle at an ashura procession

[Sauron]

You can't attack Iran without considering the effects on Iraq and Afghanistan. You talk about it like it's just a routine procedure.

No country wants to get bombed. I just think that Iran is showing that they can't be pushed around; and that every action will be met with an equal and opposite reaction. Hezbollah basically showed who's boss in Lebanon. Let's not forget that the US is meddling equally in all of this.

And imo it's the ONLY way to deter the US. They need to understand that any US military action will be costly in human and monetary terms.

[mkess101]

Originally Posted by Sauron

You can't attack Iran without considering the effects on Iraq and Afghanistan. You talk about it like it's just a routine procedure.

No country wants to get bombed. I just think that Iran is showing that they can't be pushed around; and that every action will be met with an equal and opposite reaction. Hezbollah basically showed who's boss in Lebanon. Let's not forget that the US is meddling equally in all of this.

And imo it's the ONLY way to deter the US. They need to understand that any US military action will be costly in human and monetary terms.

Showing they can't be pushed around by executing an unprovoked attack against the army of a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government? Bad move. Horrible one actually. And I'm not talking about boots on the ground in Iran. I'm talking about an air campaign that would set their military back quite a ways. And that IS how it would happen if it goes down. Iran just doesn't have the capability to stop it. Their air force isn't bad (it's underrated actually) but the U.S. capabilities are on a different level. (Keep in mind I'm not convinced it's a good idea to drop bombs on Iran. If they keep pulling stunts like what they just did in Lebanon that might tilt my mind if favor of it.)

Of course the U.S. is meddling in all this (probably more than we should be). What Iran needs to realize is that the U.S. isn't alone in being very nervous about the instability a civil war in Lebanon would bring. Europe doesn't want it. China and India, with their newfound need for oil, sure as hell don't want it.

Iran is pushing its finger in the chest of the wrong guys. We don't need to put one soldier in Iran to make their lives miserable. Iran should be trying to show the world that they are willing to work with the world community and want to be part of the solution. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, they are doing the opposite. And this stunt of sending the Hezbollah militias into Beirut to "show who's boss" is like thumbing the eye of the international community. And one of these times Israel might not be as restrained in their reaction to what takes place in Lebanon. Especially if the U.S. takes the leash off them (which I think would be a bad idea, but I'm not in charge).

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by mkess101

Showing they can't be pushed around by executing an unprovoked attack against the army of a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government? Bad move. Horrible one actually. And I'm not talking about boots on the ground in Iran.

Well that's just ignoring the dynamic in Lebanon.

Hezbollah are more powerful than the army. And it was the government that announced that it was going to try and take on Hezbollah. They just got shown who the boss is.

I'm talking about an air campaign that would set their military back quite a ways. And that IS how it would happen if it goes down. Iran just doesn't have the capability to stop it. Their air force isn't bad (it's underrated actually) but the U.S. capabilities are on a different level. (Keep in mind I'm not convinced it's a good idea to drop bombs on Iran. If they keep pulling stunts like what they just did in Lebanon that might tilt my mind if favor of it.)

And you can't do that simply because the blowback in Iraq and Afghanistan would end up with alot of dead americans. America does not want to leave these two nations; and its soldiers holed up there would be sitting ducks. You can both fight and keep the peace. Both nations would flare up in a major way.

The idea of pinpoint stikes is so deeply flawed and the USAF know it.

Of course the U.S. is meddling in all this (probably more than we should be). What Iran needs to realize is that the U.S. isn't alone in being very nervous about the instability a civil war in Lebanon would bring. Europe doesn't want it. China and India, with their newfound need for oil, sure as hell don't want it.

Lebanon doesn't have any oil.

Iran is pushing its finger in the chest of the wrong guys. We don't need to put one soldier in Iran to make their lives miserable.

No. But there are plenty of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They aren't going to dissapear you know.

Iran should be trying to show the world that they are willing to work with the world community and want to be part of the solution. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, they are doing the opposite. And this stunt of sending the Hezbollah militias into Beirut to "show who's boss" is like thumbing the eye of the international community.

You idea of solution means total capitulation to American hegemony. Not every nation wants to accept that - especially after tasting it before and getting rid of its malign influence in its own nation.

The international community is a joke. Lebanon is a tiny part of a much greater game.

And one of these times Israel might not be as restrained in their reaction to what takes place in Lebanon. Especially if the U.S. takes the leash off them (which I think would be a bad idea, but I'm not in charge).

Israel won't do anything. They are not on a leash or any other crap about them being pitbulls and badasses.

[ig1983]

Originally Posted by falconstalon

they were also an ally of israel until the late 80's after some israeli soldier created a tussle at an ashura procession

That is an interesting fact which is almost entirely overlooked. The IDF was welcomed with flowers at the beginning of the first Lebanese wars. The Shiite saw the Israelis as an opportunity to get rid of their Palestinian enemies. Then the Ashoura incident occurred. It is both amazing and disappointing that such a minor event can influence Israeli-Shiite relations so consequentially. There is also very little research done on the initial pact between Israel and the shiites. I would be interested if anyone had any more to provide.

[Thaiboxer18]

I remember reading accounts of Israeli soldiers in Lebanon during the invasion and they said they had never met Shi'a before; that could have been a good friendship; both hated the Sunnis and Palis.

As for Hezbollah, ask the victims of the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires if Hezbollah is anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.

[Thaiboxer18]

Originally Posted by TheMMAn

agree 100%. Even the most ardent supporters for Israel on this board will admit to actions by Israel that were wrong and injurious.

I was merely attempting an indictment against the influx of posters who pretend to be Pali supporters, but are plain old anti-semites. Again, this is not aimed at all posters. There are posters who tend to be anti-Israel, and make valid arguments (Kippy Winstead comes to mind).

But then there are a whole new gaggle of posters who start thread after thread of any news that shines a bad light on Israel, while giving passes to the other side. They weakly pretend that their motivation springs from compassion for the Palestinians. However, if you look beneath the shallow surface, you will find no other threads about the millions of people that are oppressed at the moment on this planet. No threads about those slaughtered by despots in Africa. No threads started about the Tibetans. No, there indignation is restrained to a small sliver of land that they have no connection with.

They are easy to spot, because they will declare that "you cannot side against Israel without being considered anit-semitic", in attempt to pre-empt them from accusations of the indictment, even though nobody in the thread accused of it.

Quite true. The last part about the pre-emptive complaints of anti-semitism is a clear indication you are dealing with a douche bag.

[mkess101]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Well that's just ignoring the dynamic in Lebanon.

Hezbollah are more powerful than the army. And it was the government that announced that it was going to try and take on Hezbollah. They just got shown who the boss is.



And you can't do that simply because the blowback in Iraq and Afghanistan would end up with alot of dead americans. America does not want to leave these two nations; and its soldiers holed up there would be sitting ducks. You can both fight and keep the peace. Both nations would flare up in a major way.

The idea of pinpoint stikes is so deeply flawed and the USAF know it.



Lebanon doesn't have any oil.



No. But there are plenty of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They aren't going to dissapear you know.



You idea of solution means total capitulation to American hegemony. Not every nation wants to accept that - especially after tasting it before and getting rid of its malign influence in its own nation.

The international community is a joke. Lebanon is a tiny part of a much greater game.



Israel won't do anything. They are not on a leash or any other crap about them being pitbulls and badasses.

Blowback in Iraq and Afghanistan? Iran is already training and arming militants to take out American soldiers. Are you implying they are currently holding back and would try to intensify these actions if military action were taken against them?

The Iranian capabilities to harm American troops would in all likelihood take a significant hit. They'd be worried about not getting their military decimated by airstrikes. There's no way to say how it would play out I. We're really just guessing here.

Why did the government want to take on Hezbollah? Because Hezbollah constantly flaunts that it is the one really in charge, and that the democratically elected government means nothing.

Lebanon is relatively small in the big scheme of things, but it often is the small things (there's more examples throughout history than we could count) that set off huge wars. Lebanon might not have any oil, but the rest of the region does and instability like that of the nature in Lebanon sends a ripple effect through the region and therefor affects the world economies. To what degree can be argued, no doubt.

Israel's military is capable of hammering Hezbollah. Israel is on a bit of a leash, to deny that is foolish. Israel knows the U.S. wants stability in the region (or some semblance of it at least) and therefor does not do militarily what it is capable of at times. Do you really think Israel isn't militarily capable of crushing Hezbollah in a gloves off war? The political blowback is what Israel fears.

Bottom line: the Mullahs in Iran are borderline nutjobs who bring nothing but uneasiness and instability to the ME. I'd be lying if I said I knew what the best course of action was to deal with them (again, I'd lean away from a military campaign--for now) but things in that region would be better with them out of power. This latest action by Hezbollah just strengthens my belief in that.

[falconstalon]

Originally Posted by ig1983

That is an interesting fact which is almost entirely overlooked. The IDF was welcomed with flowers at the beginning of the first Lebanese wars. The Shiite saw the Israelis as an opportunity to get rid of their Palestinian enemies.

it was more complex than that, as AMAL was sort of geared towards Israel while hezbollah was in fact still in their early stages and they had a love/hate relationship with the palestinians