The Middle East part 2

[xawery 0]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for dismissing someone's opinions, IF I can produce arguments against said opinions...

Slightly back on topic: it seems that the French are more reluctant to field troops than they initially appeared. Now Olmert wants the Italians to lead the peacekeeping mission. I wonder why that is: perhaps because Prodi has been less vocal in his criticism of Israel?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

its a positve move for turkish troops to go in, they have good relations with both countries. I dont blame the french, they have seen what can happen in that area before with peacekeepers, and probably arnt willing to risk troops again.

[Garcia 0]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for dismissing someone's opinions, IF I can produce arguments against said opinions...

Slightly back on topic: it seems that the French are more reluctant to field troops than they initially appeared. Now Olmert wants the Italians to lead the peacekeeping mission. I wonder why that is: perhaps because Prodi has been less vocal in his criticism of Israel?

Some people in Norway is also reluctant because they feel the norwegian army lacks medics to patch together our guys if they get shot up. However, our goverment have decided to send down 150 (or maybe it was 100) soldiers from a MBT squadron or something...besides, the party that is reluctant is also known for it's members to come with statements and have opinions that are, or very close to being, racism...also, they tend to think much about themself and little about others (at least that is my opinion...people supporting them probably feel otherwise). So no suprise that they start whining

[SPQR 0]

it seems that the French are more reluctant to field troops than they initially appeared. Now Olmert wants the Italians to lead the peacekeeping mission. I wonder why that is: perhaps because Prodi has been less vocal in his criticism of Israel?

They could like to see others' boys to do the dirty job their great army didn't manage to do, even some may like to see the French troops being stup in the mud for not having please the TBA about Irak.

Unless having heavy weapons to defend Hez's assaults and blast rocket launching trys, and having top-notch SAMs to fry israeli fighter bombers penetrating the Lebanese airspace, securing the zone would be useless.

Moreover, as things going on, in a few days, maybe a few weeks, IDf and Hez should start brawling again soon. No use to deploy many troops fast between their two enraged forces  

[mp_phonix 0]

I think the international force wil be useless . .it will probably will do nothing, But I hope it will do what is suposed to do.

You see I "dismissed" scary's opinion because he thinks because he served in the military he knows how my army works and what does work and what does not. You said that maybe they continue to fight because we occupaind & destroyinh houses. Well we left Gaza [no more occupation] and stop destroying houses there ? Well, did it helped ? NO !

they still continue to shoot Qasams. You kick somebody, expect him to kick back - and that goes to both sides.

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]You kick somebody, expect him to kick back

Exactly, when the jews started kicking around the arabs of palestine they really shouldn't have been surprised at all the negative reactions. Nicely put phoenix.

[Badgerboy 0]

I think the international force wil be useless . .it will probably will do nothing, But I hope it will do what is suposed to do.

You see I "dismissed" scary's opinion because he thinks because he served in the military he knows how my army works and what does work and what does not. You said that maybe they continue to fight because we occupaind & destroyinh houses. Well we left Gaza [no more occupation] and stop destroying houses there ? Well, did it helped ? NO !

they still continue to shoot Qasams. You kick somebody, expect him to kick back - and that goes to both sides.

Well it wasn't so much a case of 'kicking him back' was it? More like 'pushing him to the ground and shooting him in the spine'

Don't even try to say the response was proportional. The IDF flattened parts of Lebanon, whislt Israel got a few cars and roofs blown off.

[mp_phonix 0]

Well yes Israel did stupefied its reaction. I would have done something else, Call 5 Reserve brigades - The releas an announcment:

If in 72 hours the 2 kidnhapped soldier will not be return, we are starting taking aggresive actions towards lebanon -> enetering and destrying village by village, house by house, until the soldiers will not be returnd. You see our chieff of staff is from the Air-Force, So that idiot thought he could win a war only with Airplanes. that idiot.Only Infantry will ge the job done.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

and 100+ israeli soldiers were sacrificed to get 2 back, and they didnt get them back either.

[Garcia 0]

I think the international force wil be useless . .it will probably will do nothing, But I hope it will do what is suposed to do.

You see I "dismissed" scary's opinion because he thinks because he served in the military he knows how my army works and what does work and what does not. You said that maybe they continue to fight because we occupaind & destroyinh houses. Well we left Gaza [no more occupation] and stop destroying houses there ? Well, did it helped ? NO !

they still continue to shoot Qasams. You kick somebody, expect him to kick back - and that goes to both sides.

The west bank is still occupied, or did I miss the IDF leaving it? This is the second time I have to explain this to you, so I don't know why I'm bothering. So let's try putting it like this:

If Israel is attacked, do you consider it a attack on the nation Israel, or do you consider it a attack on a part of the nation Israel? If the part of Israel that is longest away from you is attacked, do you consider it a attack on your nation? Probably you do, if not, well...

So, at least try to see this from the palestinians point of view...Gaza may not be occupied, but the west bank still is (that is, unless I've been so stressed lately that I've missed Israel leaving)...therefor palestinians in Gaza consider their nation still under occupation...even though you may leave Gaza and not ever again attack anyone there, even though they attack you, palestinians will have a valid reason for attacking as long as IDF continues to occupy places that is considered palestinian land...

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]Part of the anger turned at Chief of General Staff, Lt. Gen. Dani Halutz. The trigger was his order to his bank to sell his shares. It was given on July 12, three hours after the kidnapping. There was nothing illegal about that move and Halutz reportedly told his secretary to call his bank hours before the kidnapping occurred. However, the fact he found time to handle his portfolio irked people and some called for his resignation.

prior knowledge anyone ?

[Bernadotte 0]

You see our chieff of staff is from the Air-Force, So that idiot thought he could win a war only with Airplanes. that idiot.  Only Infantry will ge the job done.

This reminded me of something you posted before the conflict started with Lebanon:

Air-Strike agains terrorist - damn good. we killed a lot of them by this way. the killing of civilian is unfortanate but you can not expect us to stop doing it because sometimes it kills civilians. [Dont say that every time we do it civillians are getting killed ! that is a lie !]

[mp_phonix 0]

LoL ! LOL ! LOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL !

What do you thought ? that I ment that there should be No air strikes ?

Air-strikes are good, but you can't win a war only with them .  . . .damn !

looks like some of you ppl listen to George Galloway  too much . .shit . .

And BTW ! scary, I figure you are from UK, correct me If i'm wrong please . .

What does that law agains Terror or something that is in the UK now ? something about arresting suspected terrorist ?

They are allowed to arreste suspected, but if we arrest people that they are terrorist it wrong . .damd, then you go and call me hypocrite . .

[Bernadotte 0]

Question for mp_phonix:  Sometimes [armed and dangerous] Palestinian militants infiltrate [enter by force] Jewish settlements.  Has Israel ever attacked such terrorists with an air-strike [missile or bomb] or do you [israel] have a different policy when Jewish civilian lives are at risk?

[i even remember reading about settlers being held hostage, like human shields.  How many Jewish human shield have been killed by the IDF?  After all, [i]"killing of civilian is unfortanate but you can not expect to stop doing it because sometimes it kills civilians"[/i], right? Or were you only referring to Arab civilians?]

[edits]

[mp_phonix 0]

Could you make that question more clear ? [i'm not being sarcastic, really] - edit the post and I'll edit mine.

You mean the militans are inside the settelments shooting and you ask if we bomb them or what ?

Your question is unclear. I understand the words,

I ask you mean Are we using airstrikes agains the terrorist that allready infiltrated the setelment ? the answear is now, because there are army guards inside each settelment, so by the time an helicopter/airplane reaches the terrorist will be killed. Thats how I understood your question. If you are refering to something else tell me

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

And BTW ! scary, I figure you are from UK, correct me If i'm wrong please . .

What does that law agains Terror or something that is in the UK now ? something about arresting suspected terrorist ?

They are allowed to arreste suspected, but if we arrest people that they are terrorist it wrong . .damd, then you go and call me hypocrite . .

yes, we arrest suspected terrorists. and we only hold them 27 days before we release them or charge them, not indefinatly like Israel.

[Bernadotte 0]

Question for mp_phonix:  Sometimes Palestinian militants infiltrate Jewish settlements.  Has Israel ever attacked such terrorists with an air-strike or do you have a different policy when Jewish civilian lives are at risk?

the answear is now, because there are army guards inside each settelment, so by the time an helicopter/airplane reaches the terrorist will be killed.

I see.  So, if you find out where your missing soldiers are being held and you can't get to them with the army will Israel launch an air-strike on the locations to kill the terrorists who are holding them?

[Stealth3 0]

If what phonix says isn't scary, imagine what phonix junior would say

I say we "nuke the terrorists, come on people it will cause civilian casualties but remember this is war and were defending Israel!"

[GoOB 0]

I see. So, if you find out where your missing soldiers are being held and you can't get to them with the army will Israel launch an air-strike on the locations to kill the terrorists who are holding them?

It's a valid tactic, and if the Israeli soldiers get killed in the strike it's their own bloody fault for hanging out with terrorists!

[mp_phonix 0]

I see.  So, if you find out where your missing soldiers are being held and you can't get to them with the army will Israel launch an air-strike on the locations to kill the terrorists who are holding them?

Ermm . .I don't think so.

Oh and i miss spelled, again. ?I meant "No" not "Now"

@stealth3

wtf ? I'm against nukes anyway . .[/

[Bernadotte 0]

I see.  So, if you find out where your missing soldiers are being held and you can't get to them with the army will Israel launch an air-strike on the locations to kill the terrorists who are holding them?

Ermm . .I don't think so.

Why not?  I thought you said air-strikes against terrorists are "damn good" and that you kill a lot of them that way.  

[*Pete* 0]

enemy is using the "human shield" tactic.

solution, destroy the "human shield"

it seems what israel tried to do...1280 lebanse dead, of those atleast 1100 civilians, a third of them children.

speaking about the "human shield", everyone is using it, in different ways, to some degree.

American/Coalition forces in iraq try to have children around them when on patrol (using candies, or other nice things), this will lessen the risk of being attacked by insurgents.

is this wrong?...i dont really know, it works in two ways, better contact with the locals, and specially with the kids...and less casualties for both sides.

but when a bomb goes off, or a mortar lands nearby, the kids arent wearing bodyarmour.

Where did Israel place some of the mobile artillery??

right next to arab areas of israeli cities, if hezbollah retaliates with rockets, they might hit idf soldiers and arab civilians, but the jewish israelish were spared from this treatment.

...human shield?..maybe you would like to call it "arab shield", its cheaper.

where will an army put its base, if not inside a city it is to defend/patrol in?...using human shields?, maybe.

there was a time, when two armies met, the only difference between them was the training and the amount of the soldiers, it was never suicide to meet the invading army on a battlefield, sometime the battlefield was even pre-determined by both sides (ancient greeks specially).

but since WW2 this has started to change, now the armies are not often equal.

Would Hezbollah for example be brave, or plain stupid, would they go out to a open desert with the weaponry they have, to face jets, choppers, tanks and a massive army backed by a equally massive artillery?

the only tactic they could, and should use, is hide, hit and run..,come from the hideouts, fire rockets, and run before enemy strikes back.

also ambushes work well, mine roads, ambush tanks and infantry...but hide from jets, choppers and artillery, to which you can not do any harm at all with the weaponry you have.

war, makes no sence, but follows logic.

[Bernadotte 0]

speaking about the "human shield", everyone is using it, in different ways, to some degree.

True.  I was very surprised that nobody accused President Bush of referring to the entire nation of Iraq as a human shield in his 2005 State of the Union address when he said:

Quote[/b] ]Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home.  -- G.W. Bush

He might as well have added how lucky America is that allies like Spain and Britain have made targets of themselves for terrorists who otherwise would have attacked the USA.

But this really belongs in a different thread...  

[*Pete* 0]

speaking about the "human shield", everyone is using it, in different ways, to some degree.

True.  I was very surprised that nobody accused President Bush of referring to the entire nation of Iraq as a human shield in his 2005 State of the Union address when he said:

Quote[/b] ]Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home.  -- G.W. Bush

He might as well have added how lucky America is that allies like Spain and Britain have made targets of themselves for terrorists who otherwise would have attacked the USA.

But this really belongs in a different thread...  

so true.

Bush transformed a "peacefull" Iraq into a "terrorist-magnet", so now the terrorism has increased in Iraq to the extremes, while Usa (who is "fighting terrorism") is safe from it.

he, in a way, has used the whole Iraq as a "human shield" to prevent strikes against america, now the american forces (in Iraq) and who ever assists them (Iraq govt.) are the primary targets for terrorism...Human shield, it sounds silly, but there is some truth in it, depending on how you look at it.

to be honest tho, i think Bush just got "lucky" with Iraq becoming a terrorist-magnet, his main purpose has been to get the oil and to get Saddam.

[mp_phonix 0]

I see.  So, if you find out where your missing soldiers are being held and you can't get to them with the army will Israel launch an air-strike on the locations to kill the terrorists who are holding them?

Ermm . .I don't think so.

Why not?  I thought you said air-strikes against terrorists are "damn good" and that you kill a lot of them that way.  

Yes but bombing them inside a settement is considerd as friendly fire

that was your question ?