Ignore if you are not interested in Israel/Lebanon Ceasfire...

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

The IDF has been following bad avice for far too long. Even the U.S. has shown itself to be too reluctant to really give Israel a free hand to sort this situation out.
Sadly, Israel isn't in the same situation as Russia where it can take its own course of action. Soon as the U.N. begins to seriously wring its hands, the U.S. gets cold feet and Israel is forced to back down.
If the IDF really wanted to destroy Hizbollah it could do it - it's just the degree of force it could use without causing excessive international outrage. Clearly it would involve massive civilian casualties as Hizbollah is hidden in urban areas. It would also take possibly six months of constant pounding till the organization fell or fled.
The job is half-done but that's the U.N.'s fault.

As usual you're wrong.
No country anywhere has managed to beat a guerilla unit.

Doesn't matter how many missiles/rockets etc an army may have, when it's opponent is a guerilla force, the guerilla force will win out.
History shows this to be true.
In pure military terms, that war is unwinnable for Israel.

In relation to guerilla positions located in areas of dense population : israel locates it's military position in densely populated areas of Northern Israel especially.
The Guardian newspaper did an excellent piece on this last week shwoing positions located beside hospitals/schools in Northern israel.
Looks like the IDF use civilians for cover.

The U.S. could have taken, say, Vietnam at any time. Seriously. The limitations were only set by diplomacy - the risk of war with the Soviets.
Same with Gaza. As I understand it, both the U.S. and Europe have been molly-coddling - even funding and financing - Gaza for decades. Israel has been seriously limited by the U.S. dependence on Arab oil - the diplomatic knock-on effect excessive force in Gaza by the IDF would have on oil markets i.e. upsetting the Saudis.
As most people are aware, the IDF could have literally converted both Gaza and Lebanon into a pile of dust. Guerilla warfare is all well and good if there are buildings and bunkers left to hide in. In reality, guerilla warfare didn't particularly help the Taliban - they were bombed out of their bunkers - and it didn't help the Chechnyans. It depends how hard you hit them.
How long did the Taliban last when confronted by a genuine army? They are only scoring successes against the British since the U.S. pulled out - which speaks volumes.
If Israel and America ever wise up, end the dependence on Arab oil and stop beating around the bush, the Gazan situation could be sorted out in a matter of weeks, I believe.


As usual you're wrong.
No country anywhere has managed to beat a guerilla unit.

Doesn't matter how many missiles/rockets etc an army may have, when it's opponent is a guerilla force, the guerilla force will win out.
History shows this to be true.
In pure military terms, that war is unwinnable for Israel.

In relation to guerilla positions located in areas of dense population : israel locates it's military position in densely populated areas of Northern Israel especially.
The Guardian newspaper did an excellent piece on this last week shwoing positions located beside hospitals/schools in Northern israel.
Looks like the IDF use civilians for cover.

Israel needs it's own version of Vladimir Putin, I think. Under Yeltsin, little progress was made in the Chechnyan war.


Yeltsin *started* the --ing war in the first place.


The Russians did it all wrong and tried to fight Chechnyan militants house to house and they lost a lot of conscripts.


They *have* to do that in order to kill them, and in doing so they hurt and anger the residents. That inevitably leads to the residents identifying more with the militants than the invaders. The same principle has applied since the dawn of time and it will continue to apply for the forseeable future, conscripts or no.

That is why violence really won't work unless one of the beligerants executes a comprehensive genocide.


The result is Chechnyan terrorism is a spent force where it used to be an unstable breeding ground for bombers and fanatics.


As far as I know that has not changed, largely because the conditions on the ground have not changed. The conflict is reported as spreading to the surrounding regions and countries.


The IDF has been too soft for too long and negotiation has only made matters worse


I am not aware of any official Israeli negotiation since 2001. The result is the situation we see today in Gaza and Lebanon.


and they should ignore the U.N. - the U.N. has let us down again, so it seems.

They've been shooting UN troops since time immemorial, it would be nice if they did ignore UN troops for a change. Israel is letting the world down with it's beligerant stance, asn you are letting the UK down with your hatred of mulit-cultural society.

The U.S. could have taken, say, Vietnam at any time. Seriously. The limitations were only set by diplomacy - the risk of war with the Soviets.


What utter tosh. The limitations were on man-power and cash. There is absolutely no evidence that public opinion had any sway whatsoever, the US forces bailed out because they were getting swamped by the NVA and the costs were unsustainable.

"Grozny, the Chechen capital, was engulfed by a pitched battle. After infantry assaults failed, the Russian military set out to pulverize the city into submission. Russian aircraft bombarded Grozny while armored forces and artillery hammered the city from the ground. After Grozny fell, the war moved to the countryside. Russian forces “pacified'' Chechen villages, attacking them with tanks, artillery, and aircraft, often regardless of whether they resisted."



As usual you're wrong.
No country anywhere has managed to beat a guerilla unit.

Doesn't matter how many missiles/rockets etc an army may have, when it's opponent is a guerilla force, the guerilla force will win out.
History shows this to be true.
In pure military terms, that war is unwinnable for Israel.

In relation to guerilla positions located in areas of dense population : israel locates it's military position in densely populated areas of Northern Israel especially.
The Guardian newspaper did an excellent piece on this last week shwoing positions located beside hospitals/schools in Northern israel.
Looks like the IDF use civilians for cover.

Update to the scoresheet ...

August 13th
Ceasefire commences.
Two hours later an IDF patrol kills 3 militants (or so they claim)

August 19th
IDF conducts a "commando" raid near Baalbek (60 miles from the Blue Line).
IDF conducts airstrikes in the area.

August 21st
IDF claims that it shot dead 3 suspected Hezbollah fighters in south Lebanon.

August 22nd
"An Israeli soldier was killed and three others wounded when their tank hit an Israeli-laid mine in southern Lebanon on Tuesday evening, the army said"

August 22nd
"Israeli soldiers entered the Lebanese border village of Rub Thalatheen and seized two residents, the official Lebanese news agency said"

August 22nd
"There was artillery fire near the Shebaa farms area at the convergence of Lebanon, Syria and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights; Israel said it fired only onto its own territory near the border, as a deterrent, but Lebanese officials said Israeli troops had fired into a Lebanese village"

All sourced from the BBC which in turn sourced them from the Israeli authorities (or other sources where stated). I have not seen any reports of Hezbollah attacking the IDF or Israel since the ceasefire took hold, if anyone has seen reports, let me know times dates and sources.

Israel has violated the ceasefire at least 5 times (and shot itself up once). As far as I am aware Hezbollah have abided by the ceasefire.

The U.S. could have taken, say, Vietnam at any time. Seriously.

The US couldn't take Vietnam.

And the US didn't take Vietnam.

You're a fantasist.


As I understand it, both the U.S. and Europe have been molly-coddling - even funding and financing - Gaza for decades

The EU has funded Gaza and Palestine.





As most people are aware, the IDF could have literally converted both Gaza and Lebanon into a pile of dust. Guerilla warfare is all well and good if there are buildings and bunkers left to hide in..

Lebanon isn't a pile a dust.

But even if it were - how come after 34 days of war - Hizbollah was still able to fire rockets to within the interior of Israel - given the destuction to Lebanon that you claim?

You are wasting our collective time with the rubbish you're posting here.



If Israel and America ever wise up, end the dependence on Arab oil and stop beating around the bush, the Gazan situation could be sorted out in a matter of weeks, I believe.

The USA created Israel in 1948 in order to have a conduit to the Middle East and it's oil.
Israel is a proxy - nothing more.

It's about the only factual thing that you have managed to post thus far.

The Vietnam disaster was a bit of a myth. The politicians lost the war not the military.
My theory is also that the West probably wouldn't have beaten Hitler in WW2 without Stalin for similar reasons. Stalin was a monster but it takes a wolf to kill a bear. The only way Hitler could have been defeated was by another leader who was as uncivilized as he was.
Had the U.N. stood between Europe and Hitler we'd have lost the war very quickly.
I believe in human rights and what the U.N. endorses but sadly, human rights applied to tyrants and mass-murderers like Hitler doesn't seem to work. It's like hiring a peace activist as a bouncer in a nightclub - all you'll get is trouble and violence every night in the nightclub. That's why bruisers are hired instead. :o


What utter tosh. The limitations were on man-power and cash. There is absolutely no evidence that public opinion had any sway whatsoever, the US forces bailed out because they were getting swamped by the NVA and the costs were unsustainable.

"Grozny, the Chechen capital, was engulfed by a pitched battle. After infantry assaults failed, the Russian military set out to pulverize the city into submission. Russian aircraft bombarded Grozny while armored forces and artillery hammered the city from the ground. After Grozny fell, the war moved to the countryside. Russian forces “pacified'' Chechen villages, attacking them with tanks, artillery, and aircraft, often regardless of whether they resisted."

So it is your statement that Chechyna is at peace and that the Russian have won?
(can't wait for this answer!)

The Vietnam disaster was a bit of a myth. The politicians lost the war not the military.


You've lost it mate.

The US military were beaten by the NVA :
All the equipment, all the men, all of the technology could not defeat the NVA.

The Vietnam disaster was a bit of a myth. The politicians lost the war not the military.


Says who ? I'll tell you who : The politicians.

Says who ? I'll tell you who : The politicians.

Don't mind him - he's a clown.

Crappy's posts are now just taking up valuable bandwidth on this site - space which could be used for more meaningful posts.
He's in total denial now.

"But even if it were - how come after 34 days of war - Hizbollah was still able to fire rockets to within the interior of Israel - given the destuction to Lebanon that you claim?"

First, it was crazy to even imagine the IDF could remove Hizbollah in a matter of days. It would probably take anything between 3 - 8 months.
As I understand it these guerillas have bunkers sometimes located under buildings where the rockets are stored. Israel probably destroyed 40 per cent of the total supply (maybe more, maybe less). They also captured some Iranian Guard. The process needed far more time but I'm certain the job could have been accomplished.
Deleted : not on topic.


The US couldn't take Vietnam.

And the US didn't take Vietnam.

You're a fantasist.




The EU has funded Gaza and Palestine.






Lebanon isn't a pile a dust.

But even if it were - how come after 34 days of war - Hizbollah was still able to fire rockets to within the interior of Israel - given the destuction to Lebanon that you claim?

You are wasting our collective time with the rubbish you're posting here.




The USA created Israel in 1948 in order to have a conduit to the Middle East and it's oil.
Israel is a proxy - nothing more.

It's about the only factual thing that you have managed to post thus far.

Sounds like the usual .........[/QUOTE]

Stay on topic, Carerra.

"But even if it were - how come after 34 days of war - Hizbollah was still able to fire rockets to within the interior of Israel - given the destuction to Lebanon that you claim?"

First, it was crazy to even imagine the IDF could remove Hizbollah in a matter of days. It would probably take anything between 3 - 8 months.
As I understand it these guerillas have bunkers sometimes located under buildings where the rockets are stored. Israel probably destroyed 40 per cent of the total supply (maybe more, maybe less). They also captured some Iranian Guard. The process needed far more time but I'm certain the job could have been accomplished.
.

First of all, we're to stay on topic from now on.
Got it?

No wasteful posts about Chechyna or Vietnam.
If you want to post about them - start a new thread.
Threads are to stay on topic from here on in.
Any meandering will be editied.

Second : Israel declared that it was intent on removing Hizbollah that it why it invaded Lebanon on 12th July.
The invasions objectives was the distruction of Hizbollah.

Despite this invasion the rate of attacks by Hizbollah on Israel actually increased as the the conflict drew on.
In fact just before the ceasefire, Hizbollah launched it highest number of rockets throughout the conflict.

Which tells you that the invasion and destuction of Lebanon was in vain AND
it tells you that even with this destruction Hizbollah are still in situ.

Sounds like the usual cut and run tactics to me. It's easier to delete the post than stand ground and face the argument. :cool:

You don't present much of an argument to "face" Crappy, mainly because you rarely present credible evidence or even bother to name your sources. When you can present an argument backed by credible evidence that is on topic we'll give you credit for it. In the meantime your deluded ravings will be treated as it deserves.

The Hizbolah problem, I think, is a localised one. To eliminate Hizbolah, there is no alternative but to take the fight directly to Iran. This did cause some uproar in the bar the other night when I expressed this view but Iran can be confronted in a variety of ways.
First of all, it should be spelled out to Iran that it has to stop funding terrorists (period) and it must give up its nuclear ambitions.
If the diplomatic route fails, however, Israel has to take the fight to Iran and cut the head off the hydra, so to speak. This is a view now endorsed by Iranian Americans who feel that if Iran is hit hard, the masses will probably overthrow the mullahs and clerics.
But if that doesn't happen, there is every probability a quick, hard series of strikes will cripple the Iranian nuclear program (or at least set it back by decades).
Hizbollah is just a localised manifestation of a bigger problem and that problem should be addressed. That's my view.



First of all, we're to stay on topic from now on.
Got it?

No wasteful posts about Chechyna or Vietnam.
If you want to post about them - start a new thread.
Threads are to stay on topic from here on in.
Any meandering will be editied.

Second : Israel declared that it was intent on removing Hizbollah that it why it invaded Lebanon on 12th July.
The invasions objectives was the distruction of Hizbollah.

Despite this invasion the rate of attacks by Hizbollah on Israel actually increased as the the conflict drew on.
In fact just before the ceasefire, Hizbollah launched it highest number of rockets throughout the conflict.

Which tells you that the invasion and destuction of Lebanon was in vain AND
it tells you that even with this destruction Hizbollah are still in situ.

Personally, it seems to me I'm winning (sound the fanfare :) ). I mean, how would you handle the heat of a bike-race if you cut and run when someone gives you an argument for your money? What happens if you get beaten in a Time Trial (real life)?
I'm battling 1 and against 2 at present (maybe bigger odds) and I'm battling with one hand tied behind my back as Limerickman resorts to either direct deleting of my points or removing the thread, or hinting at such a step or whatever. :confused:
Isn't that a bit cowardly? At the end of the day, I'm just a cyclist.
I don't think I'm any more offensive than Wurm and this is supposed to be a heated forum.
What are you so scared of?

You don't present much of an argument to "face" Crappy, mainly because you rarely present credible evidence or even bother to name your sources. When you can present an argument backed by credible evidence that is on topic we'll give you credit for it. In the meantime your deluded ravings will be treated as it deserves.

Personally, it seems to me I'm winning (sound the fanfare :) ). I mean, how would you handle the heat of a bike-race if you cut and run when someone gives you an argument for your money? What happens if you get beaten in a Time Trial (real life)?
I'm battling 1 and against 2 at present (maybe bigger odds) and I'm battling with one hand tied behind my back as Limerickman resorts to either direct deleting of my points or removing the thread, or hinting at such a step or whatever. :confused:
Isn't that a bit cowardly? At the end of the day, I'm just a cyclist.
I don't think I'm any more offensive than Wurm and this is supposed to be a heated forum.
What are you so scared of?

I've asked you to stay in topic : the threads topic is Israel/Hizbollah.

The Hizbolah problem, I think, is a localised one. To eliminate Hizbolah, there is no alternative but to take the fight directly to Iran. This did cause some uproar in the bar the other night when I expressed this view but Iran can be confronted in a variety of ways.
First of all, it should be spelled out to Iran that it has to stop funding terrorists (period) and it must give up its nuclear ambitions.
If the diplomatic route fails, however, Israel has to take the fight to Iran and cut the head off the hydra, so to speak. This is a view now endorsed by Iranian Americans who feel that if Iran is hit hard, the masses will probably overthrow the mullahs and clerics.
But if that doesn't happen, there is every probability a quick, hard series of strikes will cripple the Iranian nuclear program (or at least set it back by decades).
Hizbollah is just a localised manifestation of a bigger problem and that problem should be addressed. That's my view.


You're assuming that Hizbollah in Lebanon and the Iranians are linked.

In terms of taking the fight to Iran - as you put it - one would have establish that there is a link between Hizbollah in Lenanon and Iran.

In terms of Iran and it's politics - the current goverment of Iran and the Iranian president got 54% of the vote in 2005 general election.
Therefore it enjoys widespread support from the Iranian people and it has a mandate.
It should be noted that the Iranian clerics also back the current Iranian goverment.