[Bobboau]

all it'll take is one stray missle landing in Syria.

[Jetmech Jr.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5182476.stm

****ing great. Lebanon's gonna get some major **** after this.

[achtung]

Not quite sure what was discussed beforehand, as I am just popping into this thread and have not read the previous pages, however I was discussing this with a few of my classmates here at JSA and we think this stands a serious chance of exploding into a worldwide conflict, and at the very least will involve the US. This war with Lebanon threatens to destabalize the entire region, as multiple alliances are called in and "freedom fighters" come to the call of the battle, creating a very WWI-esque situation.

I had the same thing on my mind.  EXACTLY, the same thing.

[Sandwich]

I'm against Israel in this becosue they strike at the whole people. Unselectivly.

FYI, back before this current mess, when Israel was targeting terrorists in Gaza and wreaking unfortunate collateral damage, the IDF chief of staff said that for every targeted strike they give the go for, dozens more are vetoed due to likely loss of innocent lives.

You have NO idea what it would be like if we - or ANY army, frankly - were to target terrorists hiding in civilian areas without regard for collateral damage. Think about it for a minute.

Really think about it.

First they go back into Gaza to get back one soldier, and now they bomb and invade Lebanon to get back two soldiers. Something doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense, the reaction isn't proportional to the action. There must be something else, some publically unknown reason for this, or else Olmert is just trying to look tough so he'll be taken seriously.

You forget the hundreds of Kassams (from Gaza/Hamas) and then Katyushas (from Lebanon/Hezbollah) that have been fired at Israeli towns and cities. Remember the raging debate over the Gaza pullout last summer? Whether giving them what they wanted would bring peace or not?

Yeah. It didn't.

[Flipside]

Well, I do have to agree with Sandwich in some ways there, as I said about one of the towns in Iraq, whilst I don't always agree with what was going on, had it been British Empire occupiers about 60-70 years ago, rather than being a centre for 'problems', it would probably be a mass grave, knowing my countries attitude towards dissent at the time. I'm not saying that mollifies anyones actions, but had Israel been shelling in a truly indiscriminate manner, a lot more Lebanese civilians would be dead than already are.

I don't agree with what's going on, but I also do believe that Israel are trying to limit civilian casualties, but the longer this continues the higher that figure is going to creep, it's a sad inevitability.

I'm still pretty sure this is not the actions of the majority, it's minority acts and I'm pretty sure that most Lebanese will be as happy to see the back of Hezbollah as the Israelis, purely because they won't get shelled every day, but I still find myself wondering what, exactly, the Lebanese army can do against an entrenched enemy who even the Israelis are facing a drawn out and expensive battle to deal with, and they have, without doubt, the most advanced equipment in the region. You may find that demands for the Lebanese government take action about Hezbollah and their ability to actually do anything may be worlds apart.

[aldo_14]

Not quite sure what was discussed beforehand, as I am just popping into this thread and have not read the previous pages, however I was discussing this with a few of my classmates here at JSA and we think this stands a serious chance of exploding into a worldwide conflict, and at the very least will involve the US. This war with Lebanon threatens to destabalize the entire region, as multiple alliances are called in and "freedom fighters" come to the call of the battle, creating a very WWI-esque situation.

Well, frankly, it's scaring the **** out of me.

NB: to be fair, Sandwich, it's not really 'what they wanted', is it?  It's just moving settlements from one area of occupied territory, to another; reinforcing one position by weakening another.  Especially if the border delinated by 'the wall' is annexing chunks of territory, or cutting off areas of economic importance, etc.  I realise neither side will ever get what they want (that's pretty obvious), but ultimately a unilateral withdrawal is nothing more than a dictat, and that's the one thing neither side will accept from the other.

Well, I do have to agree with Sandwich in some ways there, as I said about one of the towns in Iraq, whilst I don't always agree with what was going on, had it been British Empire occupiers about 40 years ago, rather than being a centre for 'problems', it would probably be a mass grave, knowing my countries attitude towards dissent at the time. I'm not saying that mollifies anyones actions, but had Israel been shelling in a truly indiscriminate manner, a lot more Lebanese civilians would be dead than already are.

I don't agree with what's going on, but I also do believe that Israel are trying to limit civilian casualties, but the longer this continues the higher that figure is going to creep, it's a sad inevitability.

I don't think Israel are interested in causing civillian casualties, either; if they were they could just level the region, as we all know.  Unfortunately, such casualties are inevitable in this type of conflict (against an asymmetic guerilla-come-terrorist force that feeds off causing the enemy to kill civvies), which is why I think at the very least it should have been addressed initially through diplomacy (easier said than done, I realise, and once the Gaza invasion began this was likely inevitable).

If Hezbollah were just fighting on open terms, i.e. rather than hiding in crowded cities, etc, then no probs.  But when, even unintentionally and the best effort is made to avoid it, civillians are dying from the IDFs actions, then I just can't see a way for this end in anything but tears.  (Israels moral defense is that they are unintentional deaths, but after a while numbers begin to overwhelm the intent)  Plus, of course, a concerted effort to destroy civillian infrastructure isn't battling against a 3rd party terrorist group, it's an attack upon the people of the state themselves.

I just can't see a way, again, for this to end in a good way; it's gone too far up **** creek.  Whichever side 'wins', we'll see lasting resentment and trouble for decades to come.

I'm still pretty sure this is not the actions of the majority, it's minority acts and I'm pretty sure that most Lebanese will be as happy to see the back of Hezbollah as the Israelis, purely because they won't get shelled every day, but I still find myself wondering what, exactly, the Lebanese army can do against an entrenched enemy who even the Israelis are facing a drawn out and expensive battle to deal with, and they have, without doubt, the most advanced equipment in the region. You may find that demands for the Lebanese government take action about Hezbollah and their ability to actually do anything may be worlds apart.

I think, offhand, support and otherwise for Hizbollah is divided in religious grounds; so the majority Shia group (generally) is 'for' Hezbollah, and the minority Sunni and Christian groups are against (Again generally).  The problem is, of course, that you've got a democratically elected government and army....and then Hezbollahs own militia forces, effectively a second army.  And the government can't do anything really to stop them because it would cause civil war, so all they can do is give them some symbolic power in the hope of, I would expect, gradual democratisation leading to disarmament.  Not now, natch, because it's a war in all but name, and Hezbollahs' position is being immensely strengthened thanks to them killing a few Israelis in Lebanese territory.

[vyper]

had it been British Empire occupiers about 40 years ago, rather than being a centre for 'problems', it would probably be a mass grave, knowing my countries attitude towards dissent at the time.

Say what you will of imperialism - it was certainly more effective at international development than neo-conservatism is.

And the government can't do anything really to stop them because it would cause civil war, so all they can do is give them some symbolic power in the hope of, I would expect, gradual democratisation leading to disarmament.

See this is where the EU could really lay the foundations for a new Empire - go in and act as an ally to the elected government, mixed with units of the PA's army wipe out the "2nd-army" militant groups and then establish a permanent base within the territory. Install decent border security, entice western investors into the region, and voila - instant empire foundation. Just add 1tblsp balls.

[Black Wolf]

Not quite sure what was discussed beforehand, as I am just popping into this thread and have not read the previous pages, however I was discussing this with a few of my classmates here at JSA and we think this stands a serious chance of exploding into a worldwide conflict, and at the very least will involve the US. This war with Lebanon threatens to destabalize the entire region, as multiple alliances are called in and "freedom fighters" come to the call of the battle, creating a very WWI-esque situation.

Doubt it. The US can not sustain another war ATM, especially not this close to an election (even if Bush can't get elected personally, he presumably wants to see a republican in the drivers seat which wouldn't happen after the inevitable public opinion nosedive another war would cause. Moreover, US involvment would draw attention, supplies and inevitably troops away from Iraq and Afghanistan which they can't really afford. Finally and critically, the US won't sacrafice what small amount of military flexibility it still has on what would be a rather pointless invasion that's sure to end in a "victory" (i.e. another Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq style quagmire), sucking up the last of the US's ability to do anything if someone like North Korea or Iran does something really stupid.

And if you rule out the US, there's not a single other major military power that would support Israel. Russia and China are snuggled up to the arabs, the EU and its major member countries aren't aggressive enough (and rightly so), nor traditionally close enough to Israel diplomatically, and Britain's in a smilar position to the US I suspect given its comittment to Iraq (though not as severe I suppose) (and yes, I know Britain is an EU member). Thus, unless something highly unlikely happens, the conflict's not going to extend beyone the middle east. The only possibilities I can see to bring outside forces in are a major terrorist attack by hezbollah in the US or a European country (whch would be, AFAIK, 100% against their MO) or someone firing rockets at cyprus to draw the EU in.

If it's a true world war you're worried about, worry about NK. They're not much of a threat, granted, but they're much closer to the kinds of flashpoints that can draw in major powers (i.e. they're capable of firing missiles against Taiwan, Japan, Russia, China, even the US).

See this is where the EU could really lay the foundations for a new Empire - go in and act as an ally to the elected government, mixed with units of the PA's army wipe out the "2nd-army" militant groups and then establish a permanent base within the territory. Install decent border security, entice western investors into the region, and voila - instant empire foundation. Just add 1tblsp balls.

I would be interested to see how much better the EU would fare thanthe US at occupying and rebuilding Middle Eastern countries. At the very least it's take a while to replace all the propaganda.

[Sandwich]

NB: to be fair, Sandwich, it's not really 'what they wanted', is it?  It's just moving settlements from one area of occupied territory, to another; reinforcing one position by weakening another.  Especially if the border delinated by 'the wall' is annexing chunks of territory, or cutting off areas of economic importance, etc.

Erm, you do know that it's a major sore point and a big effing embarassment which is being swept under the carpet here that many of the displaced Gaza settlers are still living in hotels & tent cities around the country, right?

[vyper]

I would be interested to see how much better the EU would fare thanthe US at occupying and rebuilding Middle Eastern countries. At the very least it's take a while to replace all the propaganda.

Well, no one has really tried recently have they? Iraq's been a ****ing joke in terms of post-invasion planning; Palestinian territory has been given occasional aid (which went straight to the impotent authority) as opposed to direct intervention; No one else wants it right now. The carrot and stick approach can work, but you have to remember to bring the carrot in the first place.

[aldo_14]

NB: to be fair, Sandwich, it's not really 'what they wanted', is it?  It's just moving settlements from one area of occupied territory, to another; reinforcing one position by weakening another.  Especially if the border delinated by 'the wall' is annexing chunks of territory, or cutting off areas of economic importance, etc.

Erm, you do know that it's a major sore point and a big effing embarassment which is being swept under the carpet here that many of the displaced Gaza settlers are still living in hotels & tent cities around the country, right?

What does that have to do with planned expansion of settlements in the West Bank?

[Unknown Target]

Doubt it. The US can not sustain another war ATM, especially not this close to an election (even if Bush can't get elected personally, he presumably wants to see a republican in the drivers seat which wouldn't happen after the inevitable public opinion nosedive another war would cause. Moreover, US involvment would draw attention, supplies and inevitably troops away from Iraq and Afghanistan which they can't really afford. Finally and critically, the US won't sacrafice what small amount of military flexibility it still has on what would be a rather pointless invasion that's sure to end in a "victory" (i.e. another Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq style quagmire), sucking up the last of the US's ability to do anything if someone like North Korea or Iran does something really stupid.

And if you rule out the US, there's not a single other major military power that would support Israel. Russia and China are snuggled up to the arabs, the EU and its major member countries aren't aggressive enough (and rightly so), nor traditionally close enough to Israel diplomatically, and Britain's in a smilar position to the US I suspect given its comittment to Iraq (though not as severe I suppose) (and yes, I know Britain is an EU member). Thus, unless something highly unlikely happens, the conflict's not going to extend beyone the middle east. The only possibilities I can see to bring outside forces in are a major terrorist attack by hezbollah in the US or a European country (whch would be, AFAIK, 100% against their MO) or someone firing rockets at cyprus to draw the EU in.

If it's a true world war you're worried about, worry about NK. They're not much of a threat, granted, but they're much closer to the kinds of flashpoints that can draw in major powers (i.e. they're capable of firing missiles against Taiwan, Japan, Russia, China, even the US).

You missed the point of what I said. I didn't say that the US would want to be drawn in, I said they would be. Their troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan would undoubtadly recieve reciprocal violence from this entire situation, them being concrete allies of Israel. Therefore, the US is left with three options; one, pull out unilaterally and immediately to avoid a war, two, stay in the area with the troops it has now, and get beaten to a pulp, or three, institute a draft, pour in troops to protect its holdings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and its ally, Israel, and maybe start the fuse to the Middle Eastern powder keg.

And I'm not saying that the other major powers would have to support Israel; China/Russia are very cosy to Iran, which is very cosy with Syria, which is very cosy with Lebanon. Like someone said prior; all it would take is one stray missile landing in Syria, then it all goes to hell.

And North Korea, honestly except for its nuclear policy, is not that much of a threat. Once it gains ICBM capability, then we're in serious trouble, but as of right now it controls no major resources and is not a threat in terms of conventional military. That's why the world leaders are ignoring everything about it except for its nuclear capabilities.

EDIT: Highlighted what was most important in my last statement.

[NGTM-1R]

Doubt it. The US can not sustain another war ATM, especially not this close to an election (even if Bush can't get elected personally, he presumably wants to see a republican in the drivers seat which wouldn't happen after the inevitable public opinion nosedive another war would cause. Moreover, US involvment would draw attention, supplies and inevitably troops away from Iraq and Afghanistan which they can't really afford. Finally and critically, the US won't sacrafice what small amount of military flexibility it still has on what would be a rather pointless invasion that's sure to end in a "victory" (i.e. another Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq style quagmire), sucking up the last of the US's ability to do anything if someone like North Korea or Iran does something really stupid.

We have no ground forces to commit, true, but if it comes down to open war I suspect you will see at least two carrier battlegroups commited to the theater, and numerous smaller Tomahawk-capable platforms (read that: submarines).

[WeatherOp]

You missed the point of what I said. I didn't say that the US would want to be drawn in, I said they would be. Their troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan would undoubtadly recieve reciprocal violence from this entire situation, them being concrete allies of Israel. Therefore, the US is left with three options; one, pull out unilaterally and immediately to avoid a war, two, stay in the area with the troops it has now, and get beaten to a pulp, or three, institute a draft, pour in troops to protect its holdings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and its ally, Israel, and maybe start the fuse to the Middle Eastern powder keg.

And I'm not saying that the other major powers would have to support Israel; China/Russia are very cosy to Iran, which is very cosy with Syria, which is very cosy with Lebanon. Like someone said prior; all it would take is one stray missile landing in Syria, then it all goes to hell.

And North Korea, honestly except for its nuclear policy, is not that much of a threat. Once it gains ICBM capability, then we're in serious trouble, but as of right now it controls no major resources and is not a threat in terms of conventional military. That's why the world leaders are ignoring everything about it except for its nuclear capabilities.

EDIT: Highlighted what was most important in my last statement.

Or

Israel gets some Arab support,
As the fighting continued unabated, Lebanon sought support from fellow Arabs at an emergency session of foreign ministers in Cairo on Saturday. But sharp rifts erupted over as moderate Arab states denounced Hezbollah for starting the conflict.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal called the guerrilla group's actions "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible," telling his counterparts: "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them."

Supporting his stance were representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, delegates said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.

Another camp led by Syria defended Hezbollah as carrying out "legitimate acts in line with international resolutions and the U.N. charter, as acts of resistance," delegates said.

I don't know where that was quoted from, but if it is true it's very good news. We just let this defuse itself.

And secondly, I really don't think China or Russia would risk their economy to protect a few idiots in ether Korea or Iran. I mean thats just stupid.

[Unknown Target]

Well that's good. But they wouldn't be protecting "a few idiots" in Iran or the Middle East - they'd be protecting their entire economy, and grabbing the rest of the world's economies by the neck. After all, what's in the Middle East but oil?

But anyway, that news looks good. Can you find the source if possible?

[WeatherOp]

Well that's good. But they wouldn't be protecting "a few idiots" in Iran or the Middle East - they'd be protecting their entire economy, and grabbing the rest of the world's economies by the neck. After all, what's in the Middle East but oil?

But anyway, that news looks good. Can you find the source if possible?

No, in effect by starting a war with the US or Europe, they will destroy their ecomomy, while oil is a good source of income, having all imports cut off to help feed all those people, and not being able to trade with the rest of the world, not to metion being in constant warfare to keep hold of the worlds economy.

I don't know, the source for that wasn't posted, but I'll try to find it later.

[Unknown Target]

Ah, but what galvanizes a country into action and makes them forget all their troubles more than a war? If Russia and China decided to go to war (doubtful, but they may), they would be seizing on the opportunity to get revenge for the West's recent, to put it bluntly, *****-slapping. For instance, the US has just refused Russia out of the WTO; that's sure not to go over well with their already lethargic economy.

[Kosh]

Anyway, it would effortlessly kill T-72s right and left.

Yes, then again the T-72 is a 1960's era tank and the Merkava is much more recent. A T-90 would be a better match for it, but I somehow don't think most of the regimes in the area are rich enough to afford one of those.

[Mr. Vega]

Um, Sandwhich, I have a question for you. Having all that armor and a cannon that can shoot down copters is nice and all, but even assuming it doesn't have the massive problems with the drive system that plagued super-heavy german WWII tanks, how many pacific oceans of fuel are needed to keep that behemeth running? Before you can use all this shiny equipment, you must first get it to the battlefield, and maintain it, which is why the F-22 program is a joke, because in actual battlefield conditions where constant mantinence is required, the operating costs for such a collection of million dollar nuts and bolts (the thing's got three ****ing Cray supercomputers) would be absurd.

[NGTM-1R]

Sixty tons is decent ante for a modern tank. The drivetrain works just fine. Technology advances, y'know. The M1 weighs something over sixty tons (sixty-two? sixty-five? Can't remember...) and they function just fine. If you think that, for some reason, this thing can't be moved around and maintained, you're on crack. (Ditto the F-22. You think Crays break a lot or something?) It'll probably run 100-150 miles on a single fuelling. Tanks are not fuel efficent, it's not in the job description, but mechanical reliablity is. It probably doesn't get the kind of gas mileage a Western European tank or the M1 does (Chobham ceramic's a bit lighter then steel) but it'll move around fine, and they can keep it supplied or, you know there isn't much point. And the Israelis are not the kind to overlook those things, and they have traditionally been very good at manuver warfare and hence logistics. You can't manuver without fuel.

(Speaking of which, did the Brits refuse to hand over the Chobham to Israel? It's the standard Western tank armor, seems kinda funny the Merkava isn't using it.)