Is it World War III

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fattwins

Israel is not saint in, fact why doesn’t it conform to the nuclear pacts..

---

Israel has had nuclear weapons for 30+ years. The difference is that Israel is not ruled by completly insane fanatical dictators and has never beat its chest about nuclear weapons. In fact, Israel has NEVER actually claimed to have nuclear weapon. Everyone just knows they do, along with a will to use them in retaliation, and a means to deliver them. That is all you need for a credible deterrent.

The threat of Israeli retaliation is why Israel's neighbors stopped with the strategy of "It has been 5 years... let's try to invade Israel YET AGAIN and push the Jews into the sea. It might work this time!"

That is why Israel deals with guerilla rocket attacks, suicide bombers, and mob violence instead of 5 nations repeatedly trying to conquer it in open war.

Israel seems to have gotten sick of that "low-intensity conflict"...

Massive nuclear retaliation based deterrence works against nation states, even those with fanatical/insane leaders. What remains to be seen is whether MAD will work in that situation... Iran will let us know in a year or three if Israel dosen't bomb them first.

Deterrence does not work against terrorist organizations though.

Quote:

---

but guess what nwe can make our own roads that connect every town, wow even in a free state that isnt ours.

---

I agree the settlements hamper the peace process and will have to go if it ever ends up working, like Israel did in good faith in Gaza. The problem is the PA and the Arab dictatorships that use the Palestinians as pawns are very reluctant to give up their own ludicrous demans (like the right to return) to achieve a workable peace, mainly because they dont' really seem to want it.

It's been proven that they all can't co-exist in peace. It's time for one group to take over and control the entire area. I don't give a fuck who it is, but that seems to be the only answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

It's been proven that they all can't co-exist in peace. It's time for one group to take over and control the entire area. I don't give a fuck who it is, but that seems to be the only answer.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

It's been proven that they all can't co-exist in peace. It's time for one group to take over and control the entire area. I don't give a fuck who it is, but that seems to be the only answer.

---

Typical brilliance. You really can ease up at this point--no one is going to mistake you for someone who can think. As your hero would say, 'mission accomplished.'

Israel has, according to Italian press (so take that for what it's worth), issued cease-fire conditions. I doubt the Lebanese will make any move towards it, given their tough talk about 'being the last country to sign a peace treaty with Israel', but maybe they will for once do something in their own country's interest.

Maybe I missed it but why all the hoo ha over this? Sadly, it's happened before and will time and time again until somebody is insane enough to use nuclear weapons. That will end the cycle because there will be nobody left to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

It's been proven that they all can't co-exist in peace. It's time for one group to take over and control the entire area. I don't give a fuck who it is, but that seems to be the only answer.

---

WORD! I nomininate a president/vice president oligarchy and support the Shane McConkey-Cody Townsend ..er....lift...ticket. Their rapport in HIT LIST is superlative. There is a bit of skiing at Mt Hermon.

i did hear this am that the lebanese gov't may try to put down the hizbollah forces in southern lebanon...sounds pretty risky in terms of keeping the country together...

here's an interesting piece from robert fisk (on friday):
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk07142006.html


Beirut Waits

By ROBERT FISK

It's about Syria. That was the frightening message delivered by Damascus yesterday when it allowed its Hizbollah allies to cross the UN Blue Line in southern Lebanon, kill three Israeli soldiers, capture two others and demand the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails.

Within hours, a country that had begun to believe in peace--without a single Syrian soldier left on its soil--found itself once more at war.

Israel held the powerless Lebanese government responsible--as if the sectarian and divided cabinet in Beirut can control Hizbollah. That is Syria's message. Fouad Siniora, Lebanon's affable Prime Minister, may have thought he was running the country but it is President Bashar Assad in Damascus who can still bring life or death to a land that lost 150,000 lives in 15 years of civil conflict.

And there is one certain bet that Syria will rely on; that despite all Israel's threats of inflicting "pain" on Lebanon, this war will run out of control until--as has so often happened in the past--Israel itself calls for a ceasefire and releases prisoners. Then the international big-hitters will arrive and make their way to the real Lebanese capital Damascus, not Beirut--and appeal for help.

That is probably the plan. But will it work? Israel has threatened Lebanon's newly installed infrastructure and Hizbollah has threatened Israel with further conflict. And therein lies the problem; to get at Hizbollah, Israel must send its soldiers into Lebanon--and then it will lose more soldiers.

Indeed when a single Merkava tank crossed the border into Lebanon yesterday morning, it struck a Hizbollah mine, which killed three more Israelis.

Certainly Hizbollah's attack broke the United Nations rules in southern Lebanon--a "violent breach" of the Blue Line, it was called by Geir Pedersen, the senior UN official in the country--and was bound to unleash the air force, tanks and gunboats of Israel on to this frail, dangerous country. Many Lebanese in Beirut were outraged when gangs of Hizbollah supporters drove through the streets of the capital with party flags to "celebrate" the attack on the border.

Christian members of the Lebanese government were voicing increasing frustration at the Shia Muslim militia's actions--which only proved how powerless the Beirut administration is.

By nightfall, Israel's air raids had begun to spread across the country--the first civilians to die were killed when an aircraft bombed a small road bridge at Qasmiyeh--but would they go even further and include a target in Syria? This would be the gravest escalation so far and would have US as well as UN diplomats appealing for that familiar, tired quality--"restraint".

And prisoner swaps is probably all that will come of this. In January 2004, for example, Israel freed 436 Arab prisoners and released the bodies of 59 Lebanese for burial, in return for an Israeli spy and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers.

As long ago as 1985, three Israeli soldiers captured in 1982 were traded for 1,150 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners. So Hizbollah knows--and the Israelis know--how this cruel game is played. How many have to die before the swaps begin is a more important question.

What is also clear is that for the first time Israel is facing two Islamist enemies--in southern Lebanon and in Gaza--rather than nationalist guerrillas. The Palestinian Hamas movement's spokesmen in Lebanon yesterday denied that there was any co-ordination with Hizbollah. This may be literally true but Hizbollah timed its attack when Arab feelings are embittered by the international sanctions placed on the democratically elected Hamas government and then the war in Gaza. Hizbollah will ride the anger over Gaza in the hope of escaping condemnation for its capture and killing of Israelis yesterday.

And there is one more little, sinister question. In past violence of this kind, Syria's power was controlled by the Hafez Assad, one of the shrewdest Arabs in modern history. But there are those--including Lebanese politicians--who believe that Bashar, the son, lacks his late father's wisdom and understanding of power. This is a country, remember, whose own Minister of Interior allegedly committed suicide last year and whose soldiers had to leave Lebanon amid suspicion that Syria had set up the murder of Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's former prime minister, last year. All this may now seem academic. But Damascus remains, as always, the key.

---------------------
Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent and author of Pity the Nation. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's collection, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Fisk's new book is The Conquest of the Middle East.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim S

There is a bit of skiing at Mt Hermon.

---

One of the few resorts in the world where you can get blown up by a mine while skiing. I looked into it. One side of the mountain is extremely OB, or, in Mid Eastspeak, overly bombed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spdfrk43

I'm in an intensive Arabic course at LAU.

Gotta say, I love this city - its a lot of fun when its not falling apart at the seams...but holy shit, this is more than I ever bargained for.

Don't have time to read the whole debate here, but yeah, the attacks on electricity and H2O would be a bit dubious if they went after the North and Beirut itself. Hizb'allah benefits from a lot of that infrastructure further south and in many cases actually owns and provides the utilities ("all your utilities courtesy of the Party of God" - helps with public relations I guess) to the public dirt cheap. :rolleyes:
As far as I see it, both sides are retarded, and calling for the Lebanese government to crack down with their own military (if you can even call it that) is ridiculous. This state (or failed state) is held together by a thread, and some people like their scissors a bit too much...

That's about it for now from West Beirut. Take it easy all.

Oh, and Splat, I'm rocking my FKNA t shirt right now...gotta represent, right?
Haha. Sorry, trying to keep the mood light here. :D

---

Hope your ok mang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

One of the few resorts in the world where you can get blown up by a mine while skiing. I looked into it.

---

Don't be such a pussy.
Besides, aren't the Bros bombproof?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim S

Don't be such a pussy.
Besides, aren't the Bros bombproof?

---

Oh, don't think I didn't want go....

Spdfrk43 - please get a FKNA tee shirt pic in Beirut for the collection!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Typical brilliance. You really can ease up at this point--no one is going to mistake you for someone who can think. As your hero would say, 'mission accomplished.'

Israel has, according to Italian press (so take that for what it's worth), issued cease-fire conditions. I doubt the Lebanese will make any move towards it, given their tough talk about 'being the last country to sign a peace treaty with Israel', but maybe they will for once do something in their own country's interest.

---

Who would have thought you'd take my comment as being anti-semetic? :rolleyes:

Israel gave back land, and the Hezbollah took it as a sign of weakness, thus the current events. Follow me Dex? We both agree! You're just too fucking stupid to know it.....Israel is willing to do things in a diplomatic/peaceful way,
and the others in that area are too stupid to quit killing themselves.

Do you ever wonder why I fuck with you so much? :fm:

On another note...The Lebanese government seems fragile. Hezbollah holds seats in Lebanese parliament. It seems Lebanon is afraid to confront Hezbollah in fear of another civil war. They've partnered with a terrorist organization, and now they're paying for it.


Hezbollah is terrorist based, so if the USA takes a side, you can guess what court they'll be in. The whole thing is fucked and needs a dramatic climax to find a resolution.

Iran is stoked. http://www.tetongravity.com/ubb/icons/icon3.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

On another note...The Lebanese government seems fragile. Hezbollah holds seats in Lebanese parliament. It seems Lebanon is afraid to confront Hezbollah in fear of another civil war. They've partnered with a terrorist organization, and now they're paying for it.
http://www.tetongravity.com/ubb/icons/icon3.gif

---

True that. Basically if Lebanon confronts Hezbollah it'll just be a civil war. I mean they will become considered allies with Israel in the eyes of Hezbollah, and thus will have to go down with them. I don't really think they had much of a choice. Hezbollah is part of the life in Lebanon. If the government had gone against it, it would've found one it would've liked.

Bush seems as eager to nail Iran and Syria with some blame as he was to find WMD in Iraq.
But the G8 don't look too comfortable about believing anything he says.
Putin certainly seemed to enjoy making a fool of Bush this past week.
I get the feeling the US has a finger on the trigger of some big shit in this conflict.
And Putin knows the fallout of a large scale war will land on him, whether monetary or nuclear.


Religion, weapons, and politics....what an ugly combo: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...214951,00.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim S

Maybe I missed it but why all the hoo ha over this?

---

In a word...Iran.

Israel has said that Iran is far closer to developing a nuclear weapon than anybody thinks and they(Israel) won't allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Hezbollah's attack was more aggressive than previous attacks, and Israel is talking and acting far tougher then when they have been attacked in the past. The US and Israel are pointing fingers at Syria and Iran every chance they get. Iran seems determined to have a showdown with the West. Hezbollah is an extension of the Islamic revolution in Iran, and all of this started on the day the UN had set for Iran to respond to the incentives package sent to them by the security council.

Even if all of this is a bad case of unfortunate timing, it's...well, very unfortunate timing.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

In a word...Iran.

Israel has said that Iran is far closer to developing a nuclear weapon than anybody thinks and they(Israel) won't allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. .

---

Didn't Israel take out Iran's nuclear plant years ago?
Why not do it again in the same fashion?

They took out Iraq's nuclear plant. not irans. And israel would have to be pretty stupid to bomb Iran, lest it validate the Ayatollahs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim S

Didn't Israel take out Iran's nuclear plant years ago?
Why not do it again in the same fashion?

---

They took out the French built reactor in Osirak, Iraq in 1981.

Iran is a little tougher for them. There is no reactor in Iran, only research facilities, many of which are hardened to attack. That means it would take a masssive bombardment to insure they were destroyed. What makes this particularly difficult is the fact that the Iranian research facilities are right at the edge of the range of the Israeli war planes. It would be a one way trip without inflight refueling. Inflight refueling would take cooperation from another government, permission to enter airspace, etc. Also, Iraq was ruled by a secular government. Iran is ruled by the Mullahs. An attack on Iran would be seen by many in the Arab world as an attack on Islam itself and is more likely to invite a harsher response against Israel.

All in all, the situation with Iran is a lot more complex than was Osirak in 1981.

There is always the chance the world community will be able to intice Iran to put it's research on hold. So far this seems unlikely as Iran has been almost biligerant in response to the world community concerning their nuclear ambitions.

My friend's little kid finally made it out of Beirut yesterday. They got a driver to take them over to Damascus before the border was closed. They flew into London yesterday. What an ordeal! And what a relief.

There are still a lot of Americans stranded there though. It's awful...

Sprite

Nasrallah recently made the comment this weekend in a televised statement that "We are now fighting a battle for the Islamic Nation." Days go by and the conflict is getting worse and worse, somebody has to call it a war (what it is) and get it to stop.

Pardon my stupidity. :rolleyes: D'oh!!!
Where's the "I'll now hit myself in the head with a 2 x 4" icon ?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe...ive/index.html

Bush frustration sparks expletive

Monday, July 17, 2006; Posted: 8:56 a.m. EDT (12:56 GMT)

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush expressed frustration Monday at attempts to get U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to do more to end the conflict in Lebanon.

In the conversation, Bush also says he plans to send U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the Middle East.

During a photo opportunity where there was an open microphone, Bush was heard expressing his frustration to British Prime Minister Tony Blair using an expletive.

Bush and Blair were aware that the event was a photo opportunity and that the media was present. Blair later turned off the microphone.

Earlier in the day, Blair and Annan called for the deployment of an international force in southern Lebanon, in order to end the spiraling conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

The text of their conversation is as follows:

Bush: What about Kofi Annan? I don't like the sequence of it. His attitude is basically cease-fire and everything else happens.

Blair: I think the thing that is really difficult is you can't stop this unless you get this international presence agreed.

Bush: She's going. I think Condi's (U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) going to go pretty soon.

Blair: Well that's all that matters. If you see, it will take some time to get out of there. But at least it gives people....

Bush: It's a process I agree. I told her your offer too.

Blair: Well it's only or if she's gonna or if she needs the ground prepared as it were. See, if she goes out she's got to succeed as it were, where as I can just go out and talk.

Bush: See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over.

Blair: Cause I think this is all part of the same thing. What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if he gets a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way, he's done it. That's what this whole things about. It's the same with Iran.

Bush: I feel like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen. We're not blaming Israel and we're not blaming the Lebanese government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

They took out the French built reactor in Osirak, Iraq in 1981.

Iran is a little tougher for them. There is no reactor in Iran, only research facilities, many of which are hardened to attack. That means it would take a masssive bombardment to insure they were destroyed. What makes this particularly difficult is the fact that the Iranian research facilities are right at the edge of the range of the Israeli war planes. It would be a one way trip without inflight refueling. Inflight refueling would take cooperation from another government, permission to enter airspace, etc. Also, Iraq was ruled by a secular government. Iran is ruled by the Mullahs. An attack on Iran would be seen by many in the Arab world as an attack on Islam itself and is more likely to invite a harsher response against Israel.
All in all, the situation with Iran is a lot more complex than was Osirak in 1981.

There is always the chance the world community will be able to intice Iran to put it's research on hold. So far this seems unlikely as Iran has been almost biligerant in response to the world community concerning their nuclear ambitions.

---

I think you could make an argument that most states in the Gulf Region (saudi arabia, UAE, Yemon Egypt) would love to see Iran's potential nuclear capability taken out. A Shiite country with the bomb scares them as much if not more than it does the west. Whether or not they would turn a blind eye to bombing by the jews is another matter.
I remember very well when israel bombed the osirak reactor. They were castigated in the west for this. The only newspaper that applauded it was the Wall Street Jounral (I always wondered what the Mullahs in Iran thought since they would have been on the receiving end of the nuke had it been developed).
Had this not been done, our troops would have most certainly faced a different fight in Gulf War 1.

I have not read the previous 19 pages here but I will weigh in here anyway.
I firmly believe the reason we are now hearing from every 2 bit shitpot dictator is because they realize we have shot our load in Iraq. We are at our weakest both militarily and diplomatically since the end of WW2. They are flexing their muscles on the world stage because this stooge in the Whitehouse doesn't have an f'n clue how to keep them in check.This asshole is all bullshit and bluster and everyone knows it but him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

One of the few resorts in the world where you can get blown up by a mine while skiing. I looked into it. One side of the mountain is extremely OB, or, in Mid Eastspeak, overly bombed.

---

I put in about 10 days in Har Hermon back in 1991, pretty sick winter, definalty want to watch the OB skiing, you might end up hitching a ride from some Druze back to Damascus.