tamouh said:
...
If Lebanese government wanted to dismantle Hezbollah by force, there will be one of these two outcomes: 1) Civli sic War (yet again!) 2) Hezbollah becomes the government.
...
I agree with you,
tamouh. Lebanon could not and cannot do what much of the world agrees needs doing:
dismantle Hezbollah (and other terrorist groups, too). If you accept, as I do, that Hezbollah
is a terrorist group (despite its well advertised civic services), dedicated to genocide, then it and all of its members need to be
neutralized. (I prefer to use the simple, clear English word
'killed'.) That, according to
Stratfor (see article at http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47644/post-415531.html#msg415531 above)
might be what Israel is, now, intent upon doing.
According to
Stratfor’s ‘guess’ the Israelis are bombing bridges and destroying infrastructure in order to
isolate and starve (for food, replacements and weapons) the Hezbollah forces in South Lebanon. Next they might drive a major attack up into the Hezbollah stronghold in the Bekaa Valley (accepting (perhaps even welcoming) the risk that Syria might attack) – the aim would be to use Israel’s overwhelming conventional military superiority, including the
shock effect of fast, violent armoured/air attacks, to destroy Hezbollah’s bases there. Finally the Israelis might use special forces and conventional infantry to seek out and kill most Hezbollah members who are ‘dug in’ (in homes, schools, and hospitals, etc) in almost every town and village. This may require extensive bombing/artillery
preparation of the targets with concomitant 'collateral damage.'
Why?
Again according to
Stratfor, because Israel must remove the constant threat (more than a
threat – it’s a fact) of deadly missile attacks on Israeli towns and cities, including Haifa.
Would any nation accept daily rocket and missile attacks on its towns and cities?
Should any nation accept such attacks?
Of course Lebanon can and should fight back,
against Israel. It is, after all, being attacked and invaded.
BUT: Lebanon is not
innocent; it is complicit in Hezbollah’s
aggressive war against Israel (aggressive war (against anyone) is, by the way, according to the Nuremberg Tribunals, a
crime against peace) because it has allowed Hezbollah to use Lebanon as a base. Lebanon (including its roads and bridges, factories and farms, and seaports and airports, too), therefore, is a legitimate target, it is reaping what it sowed.
While neither knowing nor caring who you are or where you are, I think you are a victim of Arab propaganda. Israel’s actions seem, to me, logical and, as Prime Minister Harper suggested,
measured. Hezbollah, so long as it exists, will threaten the very existence of Israel – which is, according to the UN, entitled to exist, within secure borders, where it is, now: smack dab in the middle of the
Umma. Israel is entitled to defend itself – even if that might mean that a whole hockey sock full of Arabs are going to meet those 72 virgins in paradise in the very near future – destroying Hezbollah
and its friends and protectors (even the unwilling ones) is a reasonable and
measured defensive response to Hezbollah’s attacks.
Arabs who wish to live (period) ought to overthrow governments which advocate the destruction of Israel and kill
sheiks and
imans who peach the same.
This war is not making Israel any new friends but that is not very high on Israel's agenda. Its response to Hezbollah's rocket attacks is violent and massive but it may be the only useful response.
