Israel lost war first time

This is the first time, Israel lost war since Israel was being a country in 1948.
Recourses
By this war, Iran fans a slap on the face of Washington.
Follow this time, I am watching, watching test of nuke would be unveiled in Iran.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by emile]

Your grammar is jacked bro...your post doesnt even make sense. Last i saw this was and English speaking/typing site. Thanks for playing. Try again.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Your grammar is jacked bro...your post doesnt even make sense. Last i saw this was and English speaking/typing site. Thanks for playing. Try again.

Lay off him, PoP. English is obivously not his first langauge, but he did well enough that I could understand him. Only takes a bit off effort, so stop being narky.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Your grammar is jacked bro...your post doesnt even make sense. Last i saw this was and English speaking/typing site. Thanks for playing. Try again.

always makes me laugh when someone points out others mistakes and makes one of their own...lol
Secondly, stop being so arrogant....not everyone who uses this site has english as a first language.

The UN asked that in the spirit of the cease fire that they stop now if possible. What does israel do? Get in a few shots by dropping bombs all along the Syrian-Lebanese border killing people for the last few days. Frikkin LOSERS killed a woman and her 3 children. Bombed a bridge killed civilians then came back and bombed the rescuers trying to help them. The word coward is even too good a word for these animals.

Actually this is the second time Israel has lost a war to Hezbollah. Israel was finally forced to withdraw from Lebanon in 2000 after 18 years of bloody occpuation. The withdrawal was due to Hezbollah's constant attacks on Israeli troops.

Hezbollah's stock has risen in the Middle East. Olmert is basically finished. And Israel has lost it's precious auora of invinciblity detterent.

Originally posted by subz


Hezbollah's stock has risen in the Middle East. Olmert is basically finished. And Israel has lost it's precious auora of invinciblity detterent.

There is no country that can go up against guerilla warfare on land. If Israel REALLY wanted to destroy Hezbollah they could. But there would be huge outrage. So could the US solve the insurgent problem in Iraq. Of course, they would kill all the civilians as well

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor

Originally posted by subz


Hezbollah's stock has risen in the Middle East. Olmert is basically finished. And Israel has lost it's precious auora of invinciblity detterent.

There is no country that can go up against guerilla warfare on land. If Israel REALLY wanted to destroy Hezbollah they could. But there would be huge outrage. So could the US solve the insurgent problem in Iraq. Of course, they would kill all the civilians as well

I would dispute that a Geurilla army cannot be defeated. This has been done many times in the past. The cost to your own lives and those of civilians would be high, but it has been done.

[edit on 13/8/06 by stumason]

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
There is no country that can go up against guerilla warfare on land. If Israel REALLY wanted to destroy Hezbollah they could. But there would be huge outrage. So could the US solve the insurgent problem in Iraq. Of course, they would kill all the civilians as well

That changes what I wrote how exactly? Israel lost this war, just like it lost it's war of occupation of Southern Lebanon. There are more aspects to waging war than numbers of troops and technology. Probably more important amongst these would be political will and troop morale. Both of which Israel spent in great quantities in its 18 year occupation.

Nothing subz, I was simply pointing out, that if Israel wanted to keep its aura of invincibility, it could. Btw I don't like Israel, before anyone accuse me of that

How can they win a war when the international community is totally against every one one them. Hezbollah accepted the peacefire first. And then it is flipped on its head to suggest an Israeli defeat. Israeli forces have reached the litani river, thats what they wanted, there will be a buffer zone.

I'm not saying its been easy, its hardly a defeat.

Israel's announced aim was to "destroy Hezbollah" and get their captured soldiers back.

Hezbollah's announced aim was to chase Israel out of Lebanon.

Well, Hezbollah still has the soldiers. Hezbollah is still firing plenty of rockets, they are clearly not destroyed. Israel is leaving Lebanon, and I suspect won't be as cavalier about crossing the Blue Line with 30,000 Lebanese and international troops there.

Israel lost, because they fell for the idea that you can defeat a guerilla army with air power and limited ground operations. In the end, they apparently haven't degraded Hezbollah's ability to launch missiles at all - 230 fell again yesterday. They've killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians and destroyed much of Lebanons transportation infrastructure - Hezbollah photo-ops aside, it's clear by all accounts that most of the dead in Lebanon were noncombatants.

Hezbollah has probably lost quite a few guerilla fighters, and they've lost the South of Lebanon as a military staging area. On the other hand, they've gained standing on the "Arab street", and probably increased their power as a political party in Lebanon. Which may have been their goal all along anyway - IIRC they haven't launched a major terrorist attack in about ten years. They kept the militia to fight Israel in the south, but if this deal lasts that's no longer necessary.

Now, if Israel wants their soldiers back (which was the stated goal in the beginning, not the rockets, remember the rockets only started falling in numbers after Israel started bombing Lebanon) they will have to arrange some kind of deal with Hezbollah. I doubt Israel is going to release the guy that killed that little girl (and I don't think they should), but apparently they have hundreds of other Lebanese prisoners they can still trade.

I disagree I think Israel got what it wanted,

A newtral zone of about 18 miles inside southern Lebanon.

They made it where they wanted all the way to the river, that was the goal.

Yes that's true, they do get that.
I'm not sure that's what Israel's hawks really wanted though.

And if Hezbollah's desire is to mutate into a political (as opposed to military) power in Lebanon, that might easily be seen as an acceptable loss.

I think it may be a bit early to declare Hezbollah the military winner. They certainly seem to have won the PR war though simply by remaining a viable force in the face of the Israeli attacks. I know I have accorded them my own grudging respect as a military force.

What we don't know (and I strongly suspect we never will) is what their numbers were at the beginning of the war, how many new fighters they managed to recruit during the war, and what their numbers are now. Nor do we know how much they lost in the way of equipment, supplies and weapons. The resistance they put up was well beyond what Israel thought they could muster, but for all we really know, Hezbollah could be within days of total collapse.

There is only one thing I am absolutely certain of at this time and that is that Hezbollah dedicated an enormous effort into maintaining their rocket attacks on Israel. The sheer number and consistency of those attacks has been largely responsible for shaping public opinion.

Oh, one thing I have seen during this war that I have never seen in the past is a hesitancy, an unsureness, on the part of the Israeli leadership. I think something may be seriously wrong in the upper eschelons of Israel.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by Astronomer70]

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Oh, one thing I have seen during this war that I have never seen in the past is a hesitancy, an unsureness, on the part of the Israeli leadership. I think something may be seriously wrong in the upper eschelons of Israel.

I kind of second your opinions and views but I believe that the reason Israel was hesitant is due to the fact that perhaps they were waiting for the US to back them up with visible force.

Also the PO was not really there in favor of Israel either. Many damaging propaganda was use against them.

I for one, am joyed too, at their recent loss. I have been on the Lebanese side since day one, even though I am an American. What happened after WWII just wasn't right, and I don't feel that the land Israel occupies is rightfully theirs.

I'm not sure why some feel that Israel has lost this war. Clearly, they could continue, if they so desired and their firepower could put Lebanon back into the stoneage. As for Iran's nuke, I think the response to that would would likely be global, not regional. Those who think that's funny, aren't sharing a common reality.

Who "won" and who "lost".
If Lebanon and the UN force defang Hezbollah and help Lebanon secure it's border with Israel, then definetly the Lebenese Government and the Israel win. If Lebanon regains control of all of it's land and actually keeps moving forward with it's own fledling democracy, free from outside interventions (Syria, Israel, Iran) the whole region benefits. Another country that frees itself from the plague of having terrorist organiztions run around willy nilly is a good thing. If Hezbollah refuses to disarm and attacks the force entering the south of Lebanon so it can remain a force there then who knows what happens next.

My best guess is that Lebanon will be successful in restating it's soveringty over it's border area with Israel and Hezbollah will be removed from the field where they can attack Israel. I don't think Lebanon or the UN has the will or determination to actually "disarm" Hezbollah, but they will be moved out of the area they canattack Israel from. It is in both Lebanon's and Israel's interest to have a stable border area that is free from 3rd party forces waging war from.

The biggest question is how well the Syrian/Lebanese border, especially on the east side of Lebanon will be sealed up to prevent more arms and forces from entering Lebanon to destabilze the area again.

Trying Again

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Your grammar is jacked bro...your post doesnt even make sense. Last i saw this was and English speaking/typing site. Thanks for playing. Try again.

Ours is an international community which welcomes all points of view on the issues.

While it is true that English is the required language here, and I certainly want all members to do their best, the owners have opted not to appoint Grammar Nazis to the staff -- which I consider a wise decision.

Please try to be mindful of the fact that though it may not meet your exacting standards, emile's English is probably much better than your Chinese, and the post you're criticizing represents an opinion on the topic, which your post does not.

And topical discussion is what this is all about.

Meanwhile, speaking of the topic...

Weakness Or Restraint?

Ironically, the perception that Israel is holding back because it is weak may ultimately force the Israelis to take the gloves off and go for total war.

I'm not sure if that's actually the strategy, or who desires such an outcome, but if perceptions persist that Israel can be defeated militarily and attacks against Israel continue, then that doesn't leave them much choice.

Whether anyone else may believe it or not, Israel considers this a fight for survival. Thus if Israel's enemies should manage to convince them that total war is the only solution, they may well end up agreeing at some point.

Then things would really get interesting.