I don't have a news link, I just saw it on the CBS nightly news, but I imagine we'll be hearing more about it soon, especially since Israel shows no signs of leaving any time soon.
Lebanon's military isn't in the best situation, and I have little doubt they'd be rolled over by the IDF, but they could inflict some pain, and it might entice Syria into the war (doubtful). Their air force is almost non-existant, their mechanized forces are way out of date, but they could have a lot of men, and Hezbollah would likely welcome them.
I wonder what effect this will have on Israel (likely none), or anywhere else in the world.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
only negative. What other effect can war have?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: only negative. What other effect can war have?
Dunno. I guess we shouldn't have invaded Germany then.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Oddly enough, wasn't Isreal WANTING Lebanon's army to move into the southern portion of the country?
Granted, I don't think the intent was to fight them there, but it still gets them to the location they wanted.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Bad idea. Baaaaaaaad idea. I suspect they want to threaten Israel with the possibility of enraging their neighbors.
I hope they're bluffing. Nations that choose to fight Israel generally regret that decision. All this says to the world is that "we can't police our borderlands, but we are perfectly willing to resist one of the most well-armed, well-trained, combat-capable military forces in the world."
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Israel wanted Lebanon's army to move into the south of Lebanon to fight Hezbollah, not to join forces with it, which might just be the case, especially with Israel hinting at a full scale invasion of Lebanon.
I think this time around though, the other Arab nations are mostly going to sit this one out.
I don't think however, that Israel is prepared for a long haul occupation, making a full scale invasion very risky if they have any intention of staying. The people in that part of the world that like to fight occupying forces learned all they needed to from Iraq.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:I don't think however, that Israel is prepared for a long haul occupation, making a full scale invasion very risky if they have any intention of staying.
I think part of the risk in any type of invasion is that you eventually must leave -- and if any of the resistance survives, there is the possibility that the resistance will become popularlized as the ones who "defeated" a foreign occupier.
As I understand it, while Israel has sent troops into Lebanon, they have no intention of taking territory; rather, they go in, they fight, they move on or get out quickly.
--j_k
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think part of the risk in any type of invasion is that you eventually must leave
Not if you're building an empire.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Lebanon’s government is in a difficult situation here; they can’t directly engage Hezbollah, because they would risk angering the radical Muslim element and losing control of the country. They also can’t ignore any land based Israeli offensive because that would anger the radical Muslims and they could lose control of the government. The only thing worse than Hamas controlling Palestine’s government would be Hezbollah controlling Lebanon’s.
That being said, I doubt the Lebanese military will have much of an affect on the Israelis unless they resort to guerilla action, and I can’t see a motivation for that unless Israel decides to re-occupy Southern Lebanon.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Most Arab nations have expressed disgust with Hezbollah for stirring things up. The only nation that might actually send in troops (besides Lebanon, which hardly counts) is Syria. Israel must hold back some of its forces, mainly armor, to guard against a possible flanking attack by Syria, which has lots of armor.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I think part of the risk in any type of invasion is that you eventually must leave
Not if you're building an empire.
True, but that has become less common as time goes on.
--j_k who edited this for grammar
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Armor without Air Power is a waste of money. Tanks are just expensive coffins without air cover.
BC
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And, ye gods, according to the Wiki they are mainly armed with ancient Soviet T-55s. I suppose they have the advantage of being cheap coffins, but I don't see them making much of an impression on Merkavas. What can they be thinking?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
They just want to start a war so that some desperate fool will create the philosopher's stone...damn humunculus.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Merkavas
Wait, the Israelis call their tanks Merkavas?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Yeah. Very classy, eh?
Edit: IIRC, Merkava is the Hebrew word for the chariots that were used to pull the kings and royalty around in ancient times.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yup. Like the chariots of Pharaoh, or the chariot in Ezekiel's vision. (In fact, the prophecy is referred to as "ma'aseh merkava" -- the incident with the chariot.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: They just want to start a war so that some desperate fool will create the philosopher's stone...damn humunculus.
The Israelis have State Alchemists working for them?
Hezbollah is really in trouble.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Yes...I hear that they've started using the red water to create an inferior stone... That's what really was behind the "23" ton bombing of the bunker. Expect to see a lot more of those.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yeah. Very classy, eh?