Israel invades Lebanon.

[therealUT]

Protection of the country? They're wiping out a country because of two soldiers. if this were about the soldiers, pull an Entebbe type raid and get them back. Bombing towns is not a great way to create a peaceful neighbor. For every innocent dead in Lebanon, Israel creates about 20 new members of Hezbollah to fight against them. What's better?

At Entebbe, the Israel government knew exactly where the hostages were. In this situation, they have no clue, other than the fact that Hezbollah kidnapped them. Great comparison...

 

[CSpindizzy]

Six years after a treaty which mandated that my country get rid of the said terrorist group? Yes! Further, if I was providing aid and comfort to that group? Yes.

You could have added the list concerning civilian casualties, the following names: Sherman, Grant, Pershing, Eisenhower, Patton, MacArthur, Halsey, and Truman.

So I guess you polled all of those people there and found out they were aiding and comforting those terrorists? Sweeping generalizations if you ask me. You're stretching again. As I said, if all of the Lebanese are aiding and comforting the terrorists, wipe them all out. Why is Bush and Condi coddling these nations? Why not just nuke them?

Sherman never went around shelling entire towns. He burned goods but never order killing of civilians. And in that list I'm failing to see many who actively pursued a policy of unrestricted warfare that included civilians. Well clearly Ike's allowance of Hamburg and Dresden would be an exception as well as Truman with two atomic bombings. But bringing Sherman and Grant into your list shows you mised the boat on who did what and why.

 

[therealUT]

In other words, you cannot back up your position?

In other words, it has taken me 2 tours and 5 books to know what I know today. If you would like to read the following books, be my guest:

A Company of Soldiers Rick Atkinson
The Iraq War John Keegan
Among Warriors in Iraq Mike Tucker
The Iraq War Williamson Murray and General Scales
The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell John Crawford

 

[CSpindizzy]

At Entebbe, the Israel government knew exactly where the hostages were. In this situation, they have no clue, other than the fact that Hezbollah kidnapped them. Great comparison...

So shell a nation endlessly until they turn up? Who knows if they're even in Lebanon. Good policy. I'm sure bombing Lebanon will get them back. I see bombing insurgent strongholds in Iraq has created so much stability as well.

 

[CSpindizzy]

In other words, it has taken me 2 tours and 5 books to know what I know today. If you would like to read the following books, be my guest:

A Company of Soldiers Rick Atkinson
The Iraq War John Keegan
Among Warriors in Iraq Mike Tucker
The Iraq War Williamson Murray and General Scales
The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell John Crawford

So you base your position solely on five books? And are all five completely accurate from cover to cover?

 

[therealUT]

So I guess you polled all of those people there and found out they were aiding and comforting those terrorists? Sweeping generalizations if you ask me. You're stretching again. As I said, if all of the Lebanese are aiding and comforting the terrorists, wipe them all out. Why is Bush and Condi coddling these nations? Why not just nuke them?

Sherman never went around shelling entire towns. He burned goods but never order killing of civilians. And in that list I'm failing to see many who actively pursued a policy of unrestricted warfare that included civilians. Well clearly Ike's allowance of Hamburg and Dresden would be an exception as well as Truman with two atomic bombings. But bringing Sherman and Grant into your list shows you mised the boat on who did what and why.

War is cruelty, and you cannot hope to refine it.

Sherman

Sherman burnt burnt down buildings without regard to who was in them. Of course, most civilians fled the buildings because they understood if they did not, the buildings were going to burn anyway. The people of Lebanon, who have been living with Hezbollah (I keep qualifying this statement and you still try to peg me as saying everyone in Lebanon,) should have broken their ties with Hezbollah years ago. They did not. They should have broken their ties and left their homes when Israel provided Hezbollah with an ultimatum, they did not.

 

[therealUT]

So you base your position solely on five books? And are all five completely accurate from cover to cover?

I guess you missed the part about 2 tours.

 

[therealUT]

So shell a nation endlessly until they turn up? Who knows if they're even in Lebanon. Good policy. I'm sure bombing Lebanon will get them back. I see bombing insurgent strongholds in Iraq has created so much stability as well.

I do not believe that Israel is concerned with getting them back, at this point. I believe Israel is concerned with crippling a para military organization that has been a thorn in their side for thirty years.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Sherman burnt burnt down buildings without regard to who was in them. Of course, most civilians fled the buildings because they understood if they did not, the buildings were going to burn anyway. The people of Lebanon, who have been living with Hezbollah (I keep qualifying this statement and you still try to peg me as saying everyone in Lebanon,) should have broken their ties with Hezbollah years ago. They did not. They should have broken their ties and left their homes when Israel provided Hezbollah with an ultimatum, they did not.

He burned anything that was strategic and tactical. He didn't just go shell random areas. He was precise in his orders and did so with good reason. He didn't have a policy of shelling or attacking areas that were full of citizens. He warned people in advance of his actions. His goal was not to kill anyone in those moves but to either confiscate supplies or burn them out to keep Confederates from using them. It was a psychological move to break the spirit of the South. Scary that I an Atlantan am actually speaking decently of Sherman.....

 

[therealUT]

He burned anything that was strategic and tactical. He didn't just go shell random areas. He was precise in his orders and did so with good reason. He didn't have a policy of shelling or attacking areas that were full of citizens. He warned people in advance of his actions. His goal was not to kill anyone in those moves but to either confiscate supplies or burn them out to keep Confederates from using them. It was a psychological move to break the spirit of the South. Scary that I an Atlantan am actually speaking decently of Sherman.....

And the IDF is targeting areas in which the Hezbollah are working out of. What part of this is difficult for you to understand? It is not the IDF's fault that Hezbollah will not face them on a battlefield. Hezbollah is trying to use heavily populated centers as protection, and the IDF is going to attack Hezbollah where they are.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I guess you missed the part about 2 tours.

I've seen much of what you have if not more. I've talked to some even back from three who feel the exact opposite. You're missing my point. You think your idea is the correct one and anything opposed to it is wrong. I am saying that it is all relative. I can come up with those who have been there much longer than you and in other areas that will argue with you on every point. it's not all rosy. And it's not all evil.

 

[CSpindizzy]

And the IDF is targeting areas in which the Hezbollah are working out of. What part of this is difficult for you to understand? It is not the IDF's fault that Hezbollah will not face them on a battlefield. Hezbollah is trying to use heavily populated centers as protection, and the IDF is going to attack Hezbollah where they are.

I guess that UN post hit three times was a haven for Hizbollah? So let me get this straight. It is fine to just shell areas even in heavily civilian areas just because there is reason to believe a mobile group is there? So killing 20 people in a strike is fine if there is a chance you could have potentially killed a terrorist or two? Considering these guys work underground and are quite mobile, I'd say the risk is far greater than the desired accomplishment. And turning an entire neighboring nation against you is not the best way to guarantee an end to the conflict. it hasn't worked yet. Why should it now?

 

[therealUT]

I've seen much of what you have if not more. I've talked to some even back from three who feel the exact opposite. You're missing my point. You think your idea is the correct one and anything opposed to it is wrong. I am saying that it is all relative. I can come up with those who have been there much longer than you and in other areas that will argue with you on every point. it's not all rosy. And it's not all evil.

I have not said that it is all rosy. I have said that it is rosier than it is depicted in the media. I also firmly believe that OIF 1 plan was a great plan. Do I have problems with the way Fallujah was handled? Yes. I feel we should have gone into Fallujah in June of 2004 instead of waiting until November. However, that was not Franks problem. He was long gone by then. I also do not believe that we could have built up enough forces to have secured the borders at the same time that we assaulted the interior.

 

[therealUT]

I guess that UN post hit three times was a haven for Hizbollah? So let me get this straight. It is fine to just shell areas even in heavily civilian areas just because there is reason to believe a mobile group is there? So killing 20 people in a strike is fine if there is a chance you could have potentially killed a terrorist or two? Considering these guys work underground and are quite mobile, I'd say the risk is far greater than the desired accomplishment. And turning an entire neighboring nation against you is not the best way to guarantee an end to the conflict. it hasn't worked yet. Why should it now?

First, why are there UN Peacekeepers in the middle of a war zone? Second, UN Peacekeepers are on dispatches stating that Hezbollah missiles are being set up right outside their buildings. So, yes, UN sites are havens for Hezbollah, as are hospitals, churches, mosques, and schools. I am sorry, but, when the enemy chooses to use such places to mount their attacks, then such places become targets.

 

[allvol123]

I guess that UN post hit three times was a haven for Hizbollah? So let me get this straight. It is fine to just shell areas even in heavily civilian areas just because there is reason to believe a mobile group is there? So killing 20 people in a strike is fine if there is a chance you could have potentially killed a terrorist or two? Considering these guys work underground and are quite mobile, I'd say the risk is far greater than the desired accomplishment. And turning an entire neighboring nation against you is not the best way to guarantee an end to the conflict. it hasn't worked yet. Why should it now?

Hezbollah is thankful for your way of thinking. This attitude is part of the reason they choose to fight among civillians, they now people like you will completely get the issues confused.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I also do not believe that we could have built up enough forces to have secured the borders at the same time that we assaulted the interior.

But you did say we should have gone into Syria and Iran about the same time. Hard to do with not enough troops correct?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

So you are having it both ways. What is so wonderful about the operation? Let's go from beginning to end...if there is one.

Want to start with the Cole testimony? Or even earlier?

Cole Testimony

Defense Risks Middle East April 01

Armed Services Committee Oct & Feb

 

[therealUT]

But you did say we should have gone into Syria and Iran about the same time. Hard to do with not enough troops correct?

Again, you keep trying to circle around my argument about the stringent ROE. If we had relaxed ROE, which comes from above the CENTCOM CDR, then we would have had enough troops to take on Syria and Iran, due to the fact that our superior weapons systems could be used to their full potential, and in doing so, they are force multipliers.

 

[CSpindizzy]

First, why are there UN Peacekeepers in the middle of a war zone? Second, UN Peacekeepers are on dispatches stating that Hezbollah missiles are being set up right outside their buildings. So, yes, UN sites are havens for Hezbollah, as are hospitals, churches, mosques, and schools. I am sorry, but, when the enemy chooses to use such places to mount their attacks, then such places become targets.

Because all sides called for them. They've been there since the 70's. The IDF has known about all of these even when they occupied this area a few short years ago. I'm not sure what dispatches you're referring to but I'm guessing the ones that the IDF continued issuing up to the event stating that they would not hit that known position are tossed out the door. The IDF cannot deny that they knew the position nor that they ensured the UN it would not be hit over and over again. It's hard to believe a strike of three direct hits was an accident either.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Again, you keep trying to circle around my argument about the stringent ROE. If we had relaxed ROE, which comes from above the CENTCOM CDR, then we would have had enough troops to take on Syria and Iran, due to the fact that our superior weapons systems could be used to their full potential, and in doing so, they are force multipliers.

Clearly we did not have enough soldiers in uniform to begin with. So I highly doubt RoE would have changed that fact. How do rules of engagement changes suddenly produce enough forces to invade three nations simultaneously?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

No bite on the threat/strategy cspindizzy? :bad: :bad: :bad: :bad: :bad: :bad:

I still love you! :air_kiss: :angel: :wub:

 

[therealUT]

Clearly we did not have enough soldiers in uniform to begin with. So I highly doubt RoE would have changed that fact. How do rules of engagement changes suddenly produce enough forces to invade three nations simultaneously?

You should study military tenets concerning force multipliers.

 

[CSpindizzy]

No bite on the threat/strategy cspindizzy? :bad: :bad: :bad: :bad: :bad: :bad:

I still love you! :air_kiss: :angel: :wub:

When I have a chance to read it all I will. I'm not godlike...however close I am to it though.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

When I have a chance to read it all I will. I'm not godlike...however close I am to it though.

:lolabove: :cry:

Have you been gone for a while?

You have come back with a furry of posts.............

 

[CSpindizzy]

You should study military tenets concerning force multipliers.

I guess all of those who have the same viewpoint as me should as well. I guess those who are paid to 'know' should be schooled in everything you know since obviously years of experience and knowledge are incorrect according to you.