Iran is expandng, not contracting, their nuclear weapons program in the face of a UN resolution demanding the illegal regime stop attempting to build a nuclear weapon.
Iran's response effectively shows how pointless the UN is. The UN will do nothing about it either. Just like did nothing about Hezbollah's defiance, Saddam's defiance, Somalia, Mogedeshu, yada yada yada.
Why don't we just up the rent on these assholes and make them move to Europe. I think that chunk of downtown property might be better served as a parking lot or something.
What is illegal about Iran's government? The fact that they had a revolution to get it? Hmmm....
What makes them a regime vs. some other word describing an actual form of government? (A regime is defined as "a method or system of government" or "1. Mode or system of rule or management; character of government, or of the prevailing social system." I have the impression your using that word like a regime is a bad thing, am I right? Just wondering since it seems to be party speak lately... regime change this, illegal regime that... instead of brutal dictatorship or revolutionary socialist theocracy... something that has meaning.
What right do we have to demand they stop enriching nuclear material for energy useage when there is no evidence they are attempting to divert to military uses? I can see going after them for backing terrorism with both dollars and other support but what do non existant nuclear weapons have to do with anything?
Just gotta know... or are we just supposed to shut up and wait for the next war on the checklist to be started? I suspect it's just the setup for fear of a nuclear strike in the near future to rally support for an preemptive attack that maybe just them backing terrorism won't accomplish.
IP: Logged
08:38 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
What is illegal about Iran's government? The fact that they had a revolution to get it? Hmmm....
Revolution? Is that the the left's euphamism for a coup these days?
quote
What makes them a regime vs. some other word describing an actual form of government? (A regime is defined as "a method or system of government" or "1. Mode or system of rule or management; character of government, or of the prevailing social system." I have the impression your using that word like a regime is a bad thing, am I right? Just wondering since it seems to be party speak lately... regime change this, illegal regime that... instead of brutal dictatorship or revolutionary socialist theocracy... something that has meaning.
What right do we have to demand they stop enriching nuclear material for energy useage when there is no evidence they are attempting to divert to military uses? I can see going after them for backing terrorism with both dollars and other support but what do non existant nuclear weapons have to do with anything?
Just gotta know... or are we just supposed to shut up and wait for the next war on the checklist to be started? I suspect it's just the setup for fear of a nuclear strike in the near future to rally support for an preemptive attack that maybe just them backing terrorism won't accomplish.
Words fail me. I suppose you would rather wait until Iran detonates a nuclear bomb in Times Square or Tel Aviv before you'ld be convinced that they are dangerous. When Hilter spent years raving about wiping out the Jews, no one took him seriously. The result, lots of dead Jews. Did you learn NOTHING from history?
IP: Logged
10:04 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
You bring up good points, Scott. I too wondered about why Iran's government is now being called an "illegal regime."
As for their nuclear program, all the nations of the world have a vested interest in preventing non nuclear governments from acquiring it. Just as we've had treaties to limit and downsize the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and former Soviet Union. Once the genie is out of the bottle you can't put it back, so the pervailing attitude is that it's better non-nuclear nations don't get the ability to begin with.
What makes Iran's program suspect is they claim it is for peaceful power generation. This doesn't make sense for a few reasons. The most obvious is their abundance of oil resources. But in addition to that you can look at the history of other countries that use nuclear power. In all cases the country builds reactors and buys it's nuclear fuel from other nations to begin with, and as their program expands they begin to enrich uranium to be able to make their own fuel.
Iran doesn't use any nuclear reactors for their power generation today. None.
So this program is only to provide fuel for a research reactor that isn't even on their power grid?
Yes, it's possible, but given how difficult enriching uranium is, if they wanted to use nuclear power plants, it would be far easier, cheaper and faster to build the plants first and buy fuel from other countries until they can make their own.
IP: Logged
10:06 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9110 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
North Korea said the same thing " No nuclear weapons or research", now what do they have. It is naive to trust any government. We may not really have a right to stop them but as a world unit we can persuade them to abandon it. If they don't listen well consequences happen.
In my opinion I would not let them have a nuke. They are not stable or reliable enough to handle this commitment. They also don't have strict requirements about technology trading, imagine giving the Hezbollah a nuke because they have the money to buy it and the stupidity to try and use it. This is the ultimate reason they restrict nuke technology, to make sure some crackpot organization doesn't get it. Imagine if the Hezbollah set one off anywhere, what are you going to do, bomb Lebanon, they don't control them, can't just devastate a section of Lebanon they are intermingled everywhere. So there would be no true target to retaliate against unless you want what is happening over there now on a larger scale. Same with the Hamas or any of the million of little terrorist organizations around the Middle East.
As another thought, Iran is controlled by the Ayatollah, a religious figure head. How many people have been killed in the name of religion?
IP: Logged
10:12 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20658 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
Words fail me. I suppose you would rather wait until Iran detonates a nuclear bomb in Times Square or Tel Aviv before you'ld be convinced that they are dangerous. When Hilter spent years raving about wiping out the Jews, no one took him seriously. The result, lots of dead Jews. Did you learn NOTHING from history?
Words fail you because you refuse to use the definitions that go along with them... you just make up your own, changing as needed to insult and belittle anyone that questions your statements or viewpoint.
What part of dealing with the REALITY of NOW don't you get... you instantly label me as left when I specifically said DEAL WITH THE TERRORISM, not non existant nuclear weapns.
What coup... On August 19th, 1953, the government of Mohammed Mossadegh, a nationalist, was ousted in a US-sponsored coup in Iran. That one? Do a google search for Iran and coup and that's all the hits, do a search for Iran and revolution and guess what you get... a revolution is the people, a coup is the military leaders taking over... how do you hold a conversation when you always twist the words to whatever YOU want them to mean and denegrate the opposing person.
So once again even though the rest of the world calls the Iranian REVOLUTION a revolution, to you it's a coup and therefore it's illegal, even though it replaced an 'illegally' installed government WE put in place through a coup our government backed. I may think that the government we put in place was a better idea than the theocracy that followed but that isn't the point. You call the government the people if Iran put into place in 1979 as illegal. I've heard a lot of nasty things said legitimately about the present government in Iran, but it being illegal has never been one of those things until now. Is that from a Republican talking point?
And once again you've stolen STRAIGHT out of the buildup for the Iraq war with another falsehood designed to scare the hell out of the US public so they line up to send their kids off to die on foriegn soil again. "I suppose you would rather wait until Iran detonates a nuclear bomb in Times Square or Tel Aviv before you'ld be convinced that they are dangerous."
This was almost EXACTLY what pretext was used to invade Iraq. We can't afford to wait for evidence... we must invade a foriegn nation in self defense before we have any evidence they are a threat. It was BS then and it's BS now. If you want to go start a war with Iran at least be honest about why... nukes ain't it. If nukes had anything to do with threats to our security N. Korea should be a smoking dent on the globe. We would be doing something about Pakistan and India.
If we are going to war over Islamic extremists fine...say it and do it, blast the mosques of the clerics that are stirring the people up, blast the government buildings, blast the military bases, then sit back and monitor. But we won't attack a mosque even though it's being used as the strategic planning/rallying point for these groups because we don't want to upset muslems?
Strangely enough, in Iraq the Shites and Sunnies are blowing up each others mosques daily... but if we were to do it we'd be declaring war on all of Islam... omfg what BS.
I think everytime we see one of these groups being broadcast live marching through the streets showing off their weapons and shouting death to America, Europe etc..., we should be wiping the whole bunch out within 10 minutes. That leftist or liberal enough for you?
My complaint is you and your type declaring me such because I don't like being lied to and manipulated by my own government and told to shut up because I'm a traitor if I question obvious mistruths.
IP: Logged
12:54 AM
pokeyfiero Member
Posts: 16189 From: Free America! Registered: Dec 2003
Those who fail to heed history, are doomed to repeat it.
The only thing in any of these threads that is absolutly true. Oh man I think I need to find something constructive to do. I'm posting in OT. Somebody please stop me.
IP: Logged
01:56 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Words fail you because you refuse to use the definitions that go along with them... you just make up your own, changing as needed to insult and belittle anyone that questions your statements or viewpoint.
All right Scott let's make one thing clear. I do not insult people...well, 84Bill excepted. I insult IDEAS that are stupid. I insult our education system that allows stupid ideas to proliferate through young minds like yours, I insult agenda driven drivel masquarading as intellectual discourse. I have nothing against you personally. In fact, If I didn't care, I would waste my time trying to get you to stop quoting from MoveOn.org and start thinking on your OWN for a change. That is not an insult, it is just a reality.
Our schools do NOT teach people to think. They teach people to regurgitate memorized tid bits of rote data to be consumed as cognitive truisms. It wasn't until my Junior year in COLLEGE that I actually came across a teacher who took the time to teach my class how to think. The word epiphany is woefully inadequate to describe the eye opening experience it was. I took 4 more classes with that Professor. His approach was simple, he taught Socratically and his word for the day every day was interpolation. He would feed us stats, data, quotes, and the like and then he would say "OK, what does it mean". And you had better have your hand raised.
So you will forgive me if I have a short fuse for people who haven't learned this essential skill. I am not angry with you, I am angry with our education system.
quote
What part of dealing with the REALITY of NOW don't you get... you instantly label me as left when I specifically said DEAL WITH THE TERRORISM, not non existant nuclear weapns.
I don't label you, you do that to yourself when you write posts that sound like they have been ripped from Howard Dean's Play list. If you want to be taken seriously use your own words, not someone elses.
quote
What coup... On August 19th, 1953, the government of Mohammed Mossadegh, a nationalist, was ousted in a US-sponsored coup in Iran. That one? Do a google search for Iran and coup and that's all the hits, do a search for Iran and revolution and guess what you get... a revolution is the people, a coup is the military leaders taking over... how do you hold a conversation when you always twist the words to whatever YOU want them to mean and denegrate the opposing person.
So once again even though the rest of the world calls the Iranian REVOLUTION a revolution, to you it's a coup and therefore it's illegal, even though it replaced an 'illegally' installed government WE put in place through a coup our government backed. I may think that the government we put in place was a better idea than the theocracy that followed but that isn't the point. You call the government the people if Iran put into place in 1979 as illegal. I've heard a lot of nasty things said legitimately about the present government in Iran, but it being illegal has never been one of those things until now. Is that from a Republican talking point?
Not the 1953 coupe which was inspired by the CIA, BTW. I'm talking OBVIOUSLY about the 1979 coup that overthrough the Shaw who had to flee to France in Exile. Perhaps you read about it, it was in a few papers.
Republican Talking Points? Uh, no, it's just called history. You know, its from one of those books you didn't read.
quote
And once again you've stolen STRAIGHT out of the buildup for the Iraq war with another falsehood designed to scare the hell out of the US public so they line up to send their kids off to die on foriegn soil again. "I suppose you would rather wait until Iran detonates a nuclear bomb in Times Square or Tel Aviv before you'ld be convinced that they are dangerous."
Scott.....WAKE THE **** UP! What the hell is the matter with you. Have you not even HEARD of the recent UN resolution for Iran to stop enriching uranium. Excuse me, the UNANIMOUS UN RESOLUTION! That one? Even Russia and China signed it for Christs sake.
And as for our boys dying on foriegn soil, would you prefer they die on AMERICAN soil? HELLO!
Hitler, WWII, read about it. Learn from it.
quote
This was almost EXACTLY what pretext was used to invade Iraq. We can't afford to wait for evidence... we must invade a foriegn nation in self defense before we have any evidence they are a threat. It was BS then and it's BS now. If you want to go start a war with Iran at least be honest about why... nukes ain't it. If nukes had anything to do with threats to our security N. Korea should be a smoking dent on the globe. We would be doing something about Pakistan and India.
Well there you have it. Hey everybody, Scott says we have nothing to fear from Iran and North Korea. We can all go back to sleep now. Everything is going to be just fine.
Thanks Scott, I feel so much safer now knowing that Iran is not planning on building Nuclear Weapons and using them against us despite chanting "Death to Isreal and Death to America", and that the entire world's condemnation of this program (that does not exist since it is "BS") is just a misunderstanding on our part.
quote
If we are going to war over Islamic extremists fine...say it and do it, blast the mosques of the clerics that are stirring the people up, blast the government buildings, blast the military bases, then sit back and monitor. But we won't attack a mosque even though it's being used as the strategic planning/rallying point for these groups because we don't want to upset muslems?
Scott, that was a flip flop of epic proportion. John Kerry would be in Awe!
War or no war. Take a stance.
quote
Strangely enough, in Iraq the Shites and Sunnies are blowing up each others mosques daily... but if we were to do it we'd be declaring war on all of Islam... omfg what BS.
I think everytime we see one of these groups being broadcast live marching through the streets showing off their weapons and shouting death to America, Europe etc..., we should be wiping the whole bunch out within 10 minutes. That leftist or liberal enough for you?
OK so the "pretext for war is BS" but we should wipe "the whole bunch out within 10 minutes" (presumably with Nuclear weapons since nothing else could do that)?
quote
My complaint is you and your type declaring me such because I don't like being lied to and manipulated by my own government and told to shut up because I'm a traitor if I question obvious mistruths.
Lied to? When? Show me the lie.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 08-07-2006).]
You mean aside from their most recent resolution.. That Isreal and Hezboalla should stop fighting.. Ya that did a lot.
"Stop now! Or we will be forced to issue a very terse letter to your leaders".. Whatever.. Tell me again why we waste money on this useless organization and waste valuable property in NY on it?
IP: Logged
11:54 AM
lurker Member
Posts: 12351 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
As a "tool" of the US it is indespensible. The ONLY real power the UN has is when the US government decides to use it as a cover for its operations. The UN has always been nothing more than a US puppet (a front) to be used only when and where US policies need to be enforced.
quote
Originally posted by Uaana: Tell me again why we waste money on this useless organization and waste valuable property in NY on it?
IP: Logged
01:02 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Two people were in front of a statue of a minuteman. The minuteman was ardently pointing to the horizon while reading his musket for action. The inscription at the base read, "To arms! The enemy is approaching!" One of the two people had his hand up over his eyes scanning past the soldier and the other hand was held out to the side in a shrug with a dialoge bubble that read, "I don't see anything."
quote
Originally posted by Toddster: Lied to? When? Show me the lie.
IP: Logged
01:22 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Two people were in front of a statue of a minuteman. The minuteman was ardently pointing to the horizon while reading his musket for action. The inscription at the base read, "To arms! The enemy is approaching!" One of the two people had his hand up over his eyes scanning past the soldier and the other hand was held out to the side in a shrug with a dialoge bubble that read, "I don't see anything."
Hmmm, well, considering I'm the one saying, there is the enemy (Islamic fascism) and you are the one bashing Jews for defending themselves against terror attacks, I'll give you good odds on who is the minuteman and who ain't
Ahh, the old "Last Word" but not necessarily "Last Post" ploy. Pitiful.
BACK ON TOPIC, if I may, The UN can't seem to get Lebanon on board with a solution. Forger Hezbollah for a moment. I just don't get Lebanon. They have an armed militia INSIDE their borders starting wars with Lebanon's neighbors and yet the Lebonese government just sits there and does nothing while their land is occupied, their citizens killed, and their property destroyed. How gutless can they be!? Exactly what is the point of the Lebonese government? Governments FIRST job is to protect it's citizen.
Originally posted by ReTarddster: Ahh, the old "Last Word" but not necessarily "Last Post" ploy. Pitiful.
It wasn't a "ploy" but ok, I'll go along with it just for the sake of arguing with you... Thats obviously what you want.
quote
BACK ON TOPIC, if I may, The UN can't seem to get Lebanon on board with a solution. Forger Hezbollah for a moment. I just don't get Lebanon. They have an armed militia INSIDE their borders starting wars with Lebanon's neighbors and yet the Lebonese government just sits there and does nothing while their land is occupied, their citizens killed, and their property destroyed. How gutless can they be!? Exactly what is the point of the Lebonese government? Governments FIRST job is to protect it's citizen.
Gutless? Pretend (if you can) that you are a Lebonese official. How would you go about "protecting" your people?
IP: Logged
01:25 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Gutless? Pretend (if you can) that you are a Lebonese official. How would you go about "protecting" your people?
Kick out Hezbollah. DUH!
Bill, please, just stop posting. We know you hate Jews. They are to blame for every miserable day of your life, yada yada.
This is a serious thread about the war and the UN's part in it. You clearly do not know much about the situation and are are blinded by your own anti-semitism to provide a valid view point.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 08-08-2006).]
I have an opinion about why Lebanon is standing by and not fighting back.
We have all seen the news and the opinions about the disarming of the Hezbollah, most say Lebanon isn't strong enough to do it. They say that it would start a civil war, Lebanon doesn't want that. Maybe they were hoping that Israel would wipe out a good number of Hezbollah and weaken them enough for Lebanon to take over. I don't think Lebanon anticipated such a large incursion though. If Israel does wipe out a good amount of Hezbollah it would make for an easier transference of power back the Lebanon govt. What could Lebanon do anyway, they can't even take down a fractional militia (Hazbollah) much less fight Israel?
This is just a thought and no way do I have any supporting facts
IP: Logged
07:54 PM
Aug 9th, 2006
Fastback 86 Member
Posts: 7849 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Sep 2003
Considering the trouble that Isreal is having fighting Hezbollah on the ground, I very much doubt the wobbly government of Lebanon could have done much. Further, Hezbollah had the support of the people in southern Lebanon, thanks to thier buying the people off with more services and such than the actual Lebanese government could offer. Finally, considering the fact that Hezbollah hates Isreal and Lebanon is no fan of Isreal either, I rather doubt that the Lebanese government really cared of Hezbollah hung around. They kept the populace happy and the enemy in check. There really wasn't a problem for Lebanon until Hezbollah pushed too far and woke the sleeping beast.
On the other hand, Grim may be onto something, with Lebanon letting Isreal take care of Hezbollah for them. I kind of doubt it, though, because Isreal is tearing apart all of Lebanon, not just the south. Maybe it was a calculate risk.
Originally posted by Toddster: Kick out Hezbollah. DUH!
With what? Your stunningly good looks? What army do you have? What force can you apply POLITICALLY? Come on Todd.. You cant just walk up to some dude carrying an AK an ask him to leave in a polite way.. Oh excuse me sir but could you take your AK47 elsewhere? HA!!! thats laughable! I can see you rolling up into the hood.. sir.. I don't like drug users in my town... so like... can you leave? Ya dope!! It don't work that way. LMAO!
quote
Bill, please, just stop posting. We know you hate Jews. They are to blame for every miserable day of your life, yada yada.
Skrew you todd! I asked a legitimate question and you come up with a grade school answer. You have obviously been living in never land because in the real world you just dont make people go away because you want them to. duh!
quote
This is a serious thread about the war and the UN's part in it. You clearly do not know much about the situation and are are blinded by your own anti-semitism to provide a valid view point.
And I have ASKED a serious question. WHAT would YOU DO? your answer was not even an answer, it's just wishful thinking.
IP: Logged
03:54 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Hezbollah had the support of the people in southern Lebanon, thanks to thier buying the people off with more services and such than the actual Lebanese government could offer. .
This is the key. The fact that many of the people were bought off by Hezbollah with medical care, food, etc. means that many of these people are NOT fanatical Israeli hating salivating monsters driven to fight with rage. Many would just as soon drop their weapons and run away if somebody tougher comes along and takes down the REAL enemy, the Hezbollah leadership. I don't think Israel has anything to do with it.
I disagree with the assessment that the Lebonese army is not up to the task too. Afterall, an internal war between Hezbollah and Lebanon would make CLEAR that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization to those who currently refuse to add them to the terror list. Hence, Hezbollah would have no other choice but to leave Lebanon. The problem is that the Lebanese Government simply does not want to lose power to Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a minority in the government right now but they have been doing the same thing as the Nazi's by buying off the people (for votes) in an attempt to gain legitimacy. If the government declares war on Hezbollah then they stand to lose the favor of the people who benefit from Hezbollah gifts (from Syria and Iran).
This is why history is repeating itself (aka Nazi Germany). The Lebonese will go down the same path if they do not get rid of Hezbollah NOW while they have the support of the UN. They just don't have the guts.
IP: Logged
01:02 PM
Aug 10th, 2006
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
The Lebonese military really doesn't stand a chance against Hezbollah, they are completely outgunned and out organized, and out financed. If they took on Hezbollah, I think Syria would invade and occupy Lebanon again just to 'protect' the Lebonese... or Hezbollah and their own interests.
IP: Logged
01:28 AM
PFF
System Bot
Fastback 86 Member
Posts: 7849 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Sep 2003
From what I read, the official Lebanese Army is hovering above a joke. From other sources I read that Isreal, with the ass kicking military they've been working on since they came into existance, is having a tough time fighting Hezbollah on the ground, in much the same way the US is having trouble with guerilla insurgents in Iraq. Ergo, if Isreal is having a tough time stomping Hezbollah out of exisitance, it stands to reason that the Lebanese Army wouldn't stand a chance. Assuming, of course, that reports of the Lebanese Army's monsterous shortcomings are accurate.
IP: Logged
01:44 AM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
You mean you didnt already know that U.N. was the abbreviation for UselessNess ? All its really for is to give some more governmental jobs out with a title so they feel important.
IP: Logged
10:32 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
So was the American Revolutionary Army. You either have the guts or you don't to do what you must.
I didn't realize that guts beat anti-tank weapons and ak-47s etc... I thought they just got spilled by them.
Before Hezbollah took the Israeli soldiers and started off this latest conflict, Lebanon stood a chance of getting rid of them. Syria was out and they could have called on help from the rest of the world in cutting off their funding and arms supplies. This conflict may have something to do with Syria not wanting to lose influence in Lebanon as much as Iran wanting to attack Israel through a proxy. If the Lebanonese government had gone to war against Hezbollah themselves they would have been completely outnumbered and the last leader that helped oust Syria was assassinated. Hezbollah has damn near bottomless funding and resources coming from Syria and Iran, if the Lebonese government had gone to war they have been wiped out in an instant.
This is not a simple situation where 'guts' wins... and if it is, everyone is in trouble because I don't think anyone has more 'guts' than the terrorist groups willing to die to forward their cause. Even our revolution wasn't that simple, it was just to difficult for England to continue with the problems going on in Europe and elsewhere at the time. We had the help of Spain, France and the Netherlands, who has offered to come to the aid of Lebanon to oust Hezbollah?
IP: Logged
09:49 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
I didn't realize that guts beat anti-tank weapons and ak-47s etc... I thought they just got spilled by them.
Uh boy.
What you don't realize is that the Lebanese army has 11 Mechanized brigades! The Lebanese army is more than a match for Hezbollah if they were not supported by Iran and Syria.
The PROBLEM is that the army tends to support Hezbollah. It has nothing to do with capability but with will.
IP: Logged
10:06 PM
Uaana Member
Posts: 6570 From: Robbinsdale MN US Registered: Dec 1999
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.1% ( $540.6 million)
Military service is compulsory but only for 12 months.
So they may have a decent sized military percentage wise, but conscripts who are only in for 12 months would be next to useless against any regular trained military force. They were big enough on paper to get Syria out, but Hezbolla is being supported by Iran with their regulars being trained and supplied from outside forces.
If Lebanon were serious about getting them out they'd extend the enlistment period to at least 24 months, and ask for outside assistance in training and supplies. (The Brits would be a good, semi neutral group to help them get things looking a little more professional)
IP: Logged
10:48 PM
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
What you don't realize is that the Lebanese army has 11 Mechanized brigades! The Lebanese army is more than a match for Hezbollah if they were not supported by Iran and Syria.
The PROBLEM is that the army tends to support Hezbollah. It has nothing to do with capability but with will.
About a 1/3rd of the army would maybe support Hezbollah, and that would kick off another civil war.
Oh boy... 11 mechanized brigades of 1960's and 70's weapons they can't even get parts for against a group that is holding off the Israelis that spend $9 BILLION a year on their military. Lebanon spends about a 1/2 billion a year and hardly any of that is on equipment. Then the issue of who makes up their military... during the civil war there were about 40 armies duking it out.
Keep going for the simple answers for complex problems and never admit a miscalculation.
I just read this quote relating to an interview, seems appropriate. "Never argue with an idiot - they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 08-10-2006).]
IP: Logged
11:24 PM
Aug 11th, 2006
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Oh boy... 11 mechanized brigades of 1960's and 70's weapons they can't even get parts for against a group that is holding off the Israelis that spend $9 BILLION a year on their military.
Not debating here. I'm asking. Are they "holding off" the Israeli's? I thought they were intentionally holding back to give diplomacy a couple of days to work, and to avoid loss of Israeli soldiers.
IP: Logged
01:35 AM
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
Holding off may be a bad choice of words... but Israel in a month + has not managed to break the hold of Hezbollah on Lebanon with one of the most advanced, well equipped, well trained military forces in the world and a full understanding of the battlefield they are engaged on. I don't think a splintered military with out of date equipment would fair any better without major backup from the rest of the world, and UN forces aren't going to be providing that.
fficial_s&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Iran+coup&spell=1
