Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Israel to target Lebanon entirely

ADC: "ADC is not a regular forum poster and coming here he noticed that Rachamim18 seemed to be overly represented, etc.": Cool. I happen to agree on that note. Forgive me then for being defencive so to speak but even a cursory glance would offer my rationale I am sure.


"Widely known that Israel is looking for a rematch with Hezbollah and will take the first chance for it.": Beg to differ. As someone who only left the IDF 15 months ago, and still has 2 kids in it I offer that I am more than a bit familiar with IDF doctrine and policy. I was an Infantry officer who commanded in the 2006 War (among 3 others) and "confrontation" was never an objective or desire. Containment is all one hopes for when dealing with an Assymetrical Opposition. One cannot "defeat" such an enemy.

The only way to truly defeat Hezbollah would be to commit genocide and even then there would be 3 other organisations popping up to replace it. All the more so given the 4 way alliance cemmented in Damascus last winter where Syria, Iran, HAMAS, and Hezbollah inked a united front. Ergo, a war with Hezbollah will almost certainly devolve into a free for all and could very well develop into a nuclear war.

"Hezbollah fought Israel to a stalemate.": I do not want to be arrogant or insulting but I am not sure what your military experience is to draw such a conclusion.": I might have adreessed the following but wars are fought on "Objectives." The Primary Objective in 2006 was pushing Hezbollah back 15 kilometers. We were given 10 days to do this. We did it in 4 as far as their main elements were concerned. We ended up with 40 klicks front to back and them begging for a Ceasefire.

We had a 40:1 Kill Ratio for most of the war and ended up with a solid 10:1 in terms of 10 confirmed militants for every 1 Israeli casualty and that is not segregating IDF casualties from Israeli non-combatants, if we want to do that it ends up at 23:1.

Most non-military people believe that a victory can only be claimed if you wipe out an emey or totally destroy its infrastrcutre. Any military person knows that this is an impossible task with an organisation like Hezbollah which only wears uniforms in PR stills and training videos. Although a few were wearing surplus IDF gear, most were entirely plain clothed and we weeded militants out house by house, street by street, village by village for the 2 provinces that comprised our theater.

They scored a grand total of 1 kill in terms of our Armour and that was their whole claim to fame! They did nothing suprising aside from having a much better telecom network than expected, more extensive tunneling than expected, and using Anti-Tank gear against our Infantry but aside from that last one, it did not matter! Their biggest victory? using an Anti-Tank round, probably cvompletely ignorantly (i.e. in untrained fashion) and scoring 9 kills when it ignited some of THIER cached ammo in a house, and that house came down on a platoon killing 1.5 squads (9 Infantrymen). You call that a victory?

Where is Hezbollah now? Running simulations in Beka'a with their Iranian handlers, and seelling trinkets and pics in S. Beirut.

"Initial Israeli victory...": Given the fact that they begged for the Ceasefire, and that we were racking kills until literally the very last moment I would imagine you ought to rethink your statement to say the least. We emerged stronger than before, they emerged like a whipped dog in a downpour, although they have rearmed by now and count on that 4 way alliance as a political victory, along with their headstrong victory in a war of wills against the Lebanese Govt.

The Lebanese Govt. is weak, bland, and a host of other ill things but it is not stupid. It wishes to preserve the illusion of independance and so it will never willingly engage Israel on any military level and barely summons the courage to do so politically. Hezbollah is driving THAT train and just might drive it over a cliff. Syria does not even recognise the existence of Lebanon, let alone would it even consider an alliance, tacit or otherwise, with the Lebanese Govt. aside from Hezbollah.

Lebanon is like a shattered egg that someone has painstakingly glued back together, and set back on a teetering edge. It was artificially created by the French to serve the THEN majority (and now minority) Maronite Christians. Each ethnicity has its own army, even the Armenians, and alliances change every other day. This has been the case since the early 1960s but has only gotten progressively worse over the ensuing years.

Hebollah made an important move just yesterday when it vowed to never put down its arms even if Israel surrenders the portion of Sheba'a held by it. Hezbollah's whole raison d'ere was its role as a "Resistance Force" against the "bullying Israelis." Israel left Lebanon in 2000 and only returned when directly attacked. Of course Israel left again with the 2006 Cease Fire (Res. 1701) and only still has part of Sheba'a. Yet, Hezbollah will not put down its guns even when Israel leaves that small parcel. With its inclusion of Hezbollah the LEbanese Govt. has m,ade its bed. There might come a time when they are forced to lie in it but Israel is not looking forward to it.

We are a tiny, tiny, tiny nation and every military operation takes a heavy toll on us as a society and as an economy. Yes, if they push it will come ot shove but it is not the first choice by any means.
 
ADC PArt II: "Weaken Tehran...": Even if we exterminated Hezbollah and its demographic it would not shake Iran one inota. Iran is a nation few foreigners understand. During the Iran/Iraq War adolescent boys begged to be allowed to throw themselves in front of Iraqi Tanks just to literally become human speedbumps, knowing it had not real detrimental effect. It was the sense of sacrafice that drove them. "Khomeini's Nightingales?" I suggest any foreigner who has never had the pleasure, should watch Shia celebrating Ashura Mazda. Self Flagellation takes on a new meaning with Shia, especially Iranian Shia.

"Israel was suprised at how well Hezbollah fought back.": Uh, no we were cetainly not. Not at all. Arabs as a whole are very spirited fighters and do not consider rational maneuvers like a Western soldier would. They literally see it as a faster route to PRadise so they primarily (usually) look for confrontation.

What happened was that some of the brass wanted an American style engagement with heavy air power and that was just stupid given the demographic involved. They sent us in a bit too late and then bridled us a bit too much and yet we still met our Primary Objective inr ecord time so it really was not a big thing at all. The main surpise was their utilisation of AT rounds in unorthadox manners and as I said, that got old real fast. the worst battles were due to our own uncooridnation because we were moving way to fast, like a hot knife through butter, like at Wadi Saluki. I have seen foreign analysts talk about my people ,NACHAL 50, not cleaning out the Hezbolli anti-tank elements fast enough, that we should have been given 3 days but we ran right up that hill like it was nothing. We were TOO fast.

When you are cleaning a sector you have to move deliberately but they were running like rats. We were using text book moves on them and even that was wiping them out.

Our main problems were internal, not operational. We had poor cooridnation on Call-Up, we had traffic jams with Armour and Infantry at the Line for nearly 4 days, tanks backed up for almost 25 klicks, and a brass preference (as I said) for using air power over Infantry when we have had decades operating in Southern Lebanon and should have at least had common sense but operationally they did not touch us. Foreigners thought so because the Mk4 is supposed to be untouchable and these untrained irregulars managed to disable a few (although only totalling 1). Then the failure to secure the 2 kidnapped men (who were already dead when they were dragged back through the Barrier fed the ignorant analysts.

What matters in conflict is neutralisation of an immediate threat and the cost:benefit ratio incurred to secure that neutrlisation. Pushing them back north of the Alawi without any reverses, in a phenomenol amount of time, and then having them beg for an out in less than 40 odd days is all that matters in the end.

"Iran sent petrol supplies to Egypt and so they were not an Israeli 'ally' at the time.": Iran and Israel did not have "formal relations" but were firm allies. The Shah was a Wstern puppet propped up by the Western Powers and as such had a natural support of Israel who it viwed as a fellow island in a sea of Islam 9the Shah was Muslim but far, far from pious). It is like Jordan before the formal peace. Our Intel agencies had liasons, we coordinated movements and ops, and so on. With Iran though, we also had the added benefit of abundant and cheap petrol. Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline? Naturally as well, in times of war it had to openly side with the Islamic powers while still supplying Israel with petrol and Intel.
 
ADC: Per your "Iran gaining more control of Hezbollah..." I am not sure you are aware but Hezbollah was created by the Revolutionary Guards who still have almost 2000 men deployed around Beka'a. Their main garrison is just outside of Ba'albek. They have always been Iranian puppets.
 
"Iran sent petrol supplies to Egypt and so they were not an Israeli 'ally' at the time.": Iran and Israel did not have "formal relations" but were firm allies. The Shah was a Wstern puppet propped up by the Western Powers and as such had a natural support of Israel who it viwed as a fellow island in a sea of Islam 9the Shah was Muslim but far, far from pious). It is like Jordan before the formal peace. Our Intel agencies had liasons, we coordinated movements and ops, and so on. With Iran though, we also had the added benefit of abundant and cheap petrol. Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline? Naturally as well, in times of war it had to openly side with the Islamic powers while still supplying Israel with petrol and Intel.

This is a half-truth: Israel supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq War (while the US supported Iraq).
 
Half-truth? Who said it was not supporting Iran? As usual, you argue just to argue. Why not simply offer that Rachamim happens to be correct? Anyway, you are more than entitled to your opinion.
 
Nino: Sorry chum, you are making less and less sense. Admitting someone is correct is not showing weakness, just wisdom. Call it what you will. Kettle black? Whatever, it is still true.
 
Well, given how many former Nazis became part of the infrastructure of the Syrian police state, it's not so surprising that the perspective of some Syrians might be warped, is it?
After all, if your hereditary dictator (whoops, I obviously mean "democratically elected leader"!) is happy to work with septuagenarians and octogenarians who were Hitlerites, who's the Syrian man on the street to say different? :(

You're right of course. It just always stays with me, imagining how my mate must have felt in that situation. Fucking sad. :(
 
I do not know why Citrone's mate was shocked, etc, and certainly not why they were sad. Former members of the Nazi regime were warmly received all over the world including the US and UK. They were of course instrumental in both nations' rocketry programmes and of course were even protected.

As for anti-Jewish sentiment, that can be found in every single nation on Earth, some more than others but Syria as a whole would be a strong place to find it given its attitude towards Israel. Many know my family has roots in Syria and indeed I even have relatives still in the country. While Jews do live and work, they are forbidden from many sectors of society and ALWAYS under great scrutiny. I do now know of any family that wishes to sya there and so hearing anti-Jewishness while there, even to the point of praising Hitler is a given, not some abberation.

Heck, when I was deployed on Hermon Syrians used to scream that crap almost every day, and I am sure they still do.
 
I do not know why Citrone's mate was shocked, etc, and certainly not why they were sad. Former members of the Nazi regime were warmly received all over the world including the US and UK. They were of course instrumental in both nations' rocketry programmes and of course were even protected.

That isn't quite true though - is it? The UK never "warmly welcomed" former Nazis; some managed to change their identities and took up residence here but they were often caught and put on trial...unlike in the US where they welcomed them into their space program, or in much of South America where they worked for governments. Of course they also had impeccable anti-communist credentials, which is another reason why the US welcomed them. Ever hear of Operation Paperclip?
 
Nino: "It is untrue that Nazis were warmly welcomed in the UK. Some DID change their i.d.s, etc. but others were caught and put on trial, etc.": Nino, your Intel community (not "ies" since it was much more smaller and contained in those years) DID welcome them and even smuggled more than few into your nation. Specific trades were in great demand and only second rate scientists, etc. made their way to the Arab World. Those with the know-how enjoyed much better lives in the West, including sadly, your nation.

For starters you can whet your whistle with SS Major Horst Kopkpw, who after murdering more than 100 of your country's Intel operatives PERSONALLY, was sheltered by your nation. Go figure...


Of course the Irish have you beat many times over but that is another sad story.
 
Operation Paperclip, R18? There was nothing like it in the UK. Sorry but your adopted country (or country of residence or whatever you consider the US to be) was responsible for much of the absorption and redistribution of Nazis throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Vatican also aided the Croatian Ustase.

Oh and who is "my intel community"?
 
Nino: Although born there (NYC) I feel nothing but negative feelings for that nation, but admit to retaining its passport in order to enter nations I otherwise could not for economic purposes as well as to deal with my investments and family issues in the States.


I did not argue with you over the US playing one of the largest roles in the aiding and relocation of Nazis after the War. The Vatican is dirty top to bottom but I will refrain out of respect for any possible Catholic Posters.

"Your Intel Communities?" 5 and 6 are not from the UK now? You are not from the UK now?

As for "nothing like Op. Paperclip in the UK," it is only because of the size and limitations of your apparattus, the cost of the Rebuilding effort combined with the ultra ideological and tactical alliance with the US, et al that negated the need. think of it as n Intel end Lease if you will. You got what you needed while the Yanks did all the work....him...par for the course with the Brits it seems.
 
As for "nothing like Op. Paperclip in the UK," it is only because of the size and limitations of your apparattus, the cost of the Rebuilding effort combined with the ultra ideological and tactical alliance with the US, et al that negated the need. think of it as n Intel end Lease if you will. You got what you needed while the Yanks did all the work....him...par for the course with the Brits it seems.

Non-sequitirs. Britain had no need for Nazis running their counter-intelligence ops nor did they have the money to pay for von Braun and his crew. As for the "Yanks doing all the work", that's pretty laughable given the massive intel blunders made by the US during the Cold War.
 
And yet, in the end, you have not been able to make your argument...AS USUAL .It is OK Nino, we understand you, all that youthfull ambition...
 
Nino: YOU were the one who brought up Nazis! Precious, absolutely precious. It is comforting though kniwing that I can always count on my Nino for some seasonal cheer. Happy New Year by the way.
 
Back
Top Bottom