War in The Middle East

[chika]

Re: War in The Middle East

Let me tell you something, simonchik

And try to remember this because it’s very important for you, and for all those like yourself who, for whatever reason, have “chips on their shoulders” with regards to Hayastan and her people (Hayastantzis).

Hayastan equals LIFE for everything Armenian while Spyurq, sadly but inevitably, equals slow death for everything Armenian.

…Now, due to respect to this forum and its rules, I will go back to the topic “War in the Middle East”…

The Lebanese people are the victims of Israeli aggression against their country.

I have a great deal of admiration for the people of Lebanon who opened their doors and their hearts to thousands of Armenian refugees fleeing the horrors of the Genocide.

Quite frankly our brothers from Lebanon are among the most patriotic Armenians in the world.

I think that if Israel makes our community to suffer even more than they have already suffered in the last few weeks, some of our people will join forces with Hizballah and the Lebanese army to defend their country.

Currently, Israel says it only has Hezbollah in its targets. But the Lebanese government has launched a veiled threat it might start fighting if Israel deploys a large ground force in southern Lebanon.

"We will defend our land until the last soldier, we will pay the price for our land," Lebanese Defence Minister Elias Murr told.

[Nemesis]

Re: War in The Middle East

Btw, let's not root for Hezbollah either OK? Armenians do live in parts of northern Israel and are in the path of Hezbolla rockets.

NO let's DO root for Hezbollah...don't come dictating here. Armenians should not be living among xxxs so they need to either stay to themselves in the Armenian Quarter or go back to Armenia.

[D3ADSY]

Re: War in The Middle East

Obviously, you are a teenager.

Yeah, for two more months. On October 1st we can continue this argument if that suits you better?

Obviously, you are a teenager.

During the past 50-60 years Americans have only been able to fight tiny, weak, impoverished, isolated nations - Granada, Panama, Somalia. In the case of Iraq, it was an isolated nation in 1991 and an utterly broken nation in 2003 when Washinton DC and several other criminal entities decided to wage war on it. Also, in 1991, it was modern technology that defeated Iraq's 70s era weapons on the open desert.

Are you conceding that the US is technologically superior or are you somehow trying to argue that the US should not use it's strengths to it's advantage? Somehow you are trying to put the US in a negative light because they are the best equipped armed forces in the world. What kind of argument is this? Absurd. I might as well now reply to you by saying that North Vietnam was not playing fair because they, like the Russians in WWII, had so much more men that even with their horrendous losses they (something like 20:1, like in Iraq) continued to fight.
Give me a break.

Consider Serbia: American and NATO forces knew full well that if they entered Serbia on land they would have been shattered to pieces. That is why those chose the criminal way out - bombing from afar for over a month until their dicator decided to give up. When they have been faced with a tought foe witin a rugged terrain - Korea, Vietnam - American military has been useless. Even now in Iraq, a bunch of sandal wearing rag-heads are freely running circles around hight tech American forces. Iraq is a great disaster for America. Yet you think America has "enricled" something.

First of all they would not have been shattered. Who was going to shatter them? Arkan's Tigers? Seems like the only time they were excelling on the battlefield was when their enemy was unarmed. America and NATO forces chose the strategically sounder option and went with an air campaign, much like I am constantly repeating would be the case with Iran. This is not criminal, it is war. You are sounding more and more like an infant sore-loser.
Let's look at Vietnam, where you claim the US military was "useless" against a "tough enemy in rough terrain". The Tet Offensive, who people like you in their blind arguments against all things US military argue was a disastrous defeat for US forces, was actually a military victory. The way the media covered the Tet Offensive (and this goes for the Vietnam War in general) is what shaped public opinion. The North Vietnamese were crushed and defeated militarily in the Tet Offensive, they payed an extremely high price and never reached any of their goals. The words of one of the North Vietnamese generals sums it all up for me when he said the offensive was going to be called off, but decided not to because of the media coverage and it's effect on the public. Even if they could not defeat the US here, the media back home was well on the way.
As for the "sandal wearing rag-heads" in Iraq "running circles around high tech American forces" in Iraq, yeah I guess you could say that if you were getting your information from Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaff. Read my previous post on the battle of Fallujah, who ran circles around who buddy?

In their criminal frenzy they rushed into Iraq and Afghanistan but they ended up being the ones that got encircled. Take a good look at AFghanistan - supposedly the only bright spot in the whole "War On Terror" - the only land American forces control is their compound in Kabul. Iran is surrounded? Don't make me laugh. In reality, it is American forces are encircled, surrounded and isolated - but obviously you dont know this because you are too busy watching Rambo. American military forces have not been in such a bad state since the Vietnam war.

And this is the kicker. How are they surrounded? Who are they surrounded by? Maybe your definition of surrounded, encircled etc is different than what most normal people would agree it to be. The ability for a military unit to leave it's camp and travel to any part of the country as it pleases and then return back to it's camp is not what it means to be encircled. The German 6th army at Stalingrad was encircled, and you make it sound like the two things are comparable.
Iraq and Vietnam are two more things that are not comparable. The Iraqi military never engaged the invading american forces, they disbanded and went home to prepare for guerrilla attacks and irregular warfare. One of the colonels in charge of defending Baghdad didn't even know his country had been invaded until he ran into a tank that morning!
The condition in Iraq is far from perfect, but having successfully invaded, occupied, overthrown the government and installed a new one (we can argue about that in a whole new thread), I think your comments are bordering on comedy.

I have no doubt in my mind that the only way America can defeat Iran is if it uses a nuclear device on them. I also have no doubt in my mind that they will never be able to do such a thing without Israel getting hit as well. I also don't have a doubt in my mind that Russia (and China) will never allow such a thing to occur to Iran. Thus, Americans are technically and strategically sitting ducks in the Perisan Gulf.

Technically they are superior to everyone in the region, I've tried to argue this with you in terms of the Navy and Sunburn missiles but like with everything else you have simply avoided them, brushed them aside and posted vague comments about how much of a failure American military campaigns are and how terrible their current situation is. With nothing to back such claims up.
Strategically they have Iran surrounded. Every direction. In every military way.
You can argue geopolitics all you like, I am talking militarily here, and you are yet to counter me.

I will no longer discuss this matter with a stubborn teenager. You are diverting attention from the real topic at hand. Please go argue your Rambo case eslewhere.

You cut half my post out so you could carry on avoiding direct replies to the the points I have made. Much like the great army of Iran that will conquer the whole US war machine, you have nothing to fire back.
You may study geopolitics but you are the one who is stubborn when it comes to military subjects. If you had proven that my arguments are flawed, I would accept and realise that I have learned something. This has not been the case. You have resorted to insults and diversion tactics (which you accuse me of), and avoided almost everything I have said.

When you decide to reply with a proper argument to refute my own I will be more than happy to reply.
Finally, it's getting really late here so I apologise for the many mistakes that probably plague this post.

[D3ADSY]

Re: War in The Middle East

U.S. doubts Israeli figures about damage of air war

Israel is overstating the damage its air war has inflicted on the Hezbollah militia, which hides its weapons in tunnels and civilian neighborhoods throughout Lebanon, Bush administration and intelligence officials said yesterday.
Israeli assessments are "too large," said one U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. But he added, "We are not getting into numbers."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2631-9200r.htm

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

Oh come on. Who is in denial to advance their argument? Surely not the one claiming that Iranian forces are superior because they have more numbers. After seeing the two maps/diagrams you must also be delusional if you still believe it is US forces who are surrounded. You have also failed to show how Iran will carry out strikes yet you still persist with this argument.

This reaks of typical status quo bromide. I never said Iranian forces are superior. Do not put words into my argument that I did not make. It's childish. I stated that Iran has the strategical and tactical advantage if there ever is a war. Why do top U.S. generals believe the American military is outstretched and undermanned and undersupplied and in danger in Iraq? They must know something armchair war supporters do not know.

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. I'll walk you through it.

Fallujah was a relatively untouched, peaceful place after the invasion with a mayor that supported the Americans. Things changed a little after Airborne units decided to base themselves inside the city. Then came the killing of protestors who were defying a curfew by said Airborne units. Control of the city passed from Airborne to Armoured to Marine etc a number of times. Then there was the killing of the Blackwater private contractors, this led to the siege of Fallujah and Operation Vigilan Resolve. Because of political pressure this was called off (hence my comments about reading the book to understand what really bogs down US forces), around 80 Marines and hundreds of insurgents aswell civilians had died. Had the marines been allowed to finish things off, just as they wanted to, that would have been the end of it.
When you say the US captured it only temporarily and that the insurgents were back as soon as they pulled out you are correct up to this point, but even then it nothing to do with the Insurgents and their capabilities.

It has everything to do with insurgents and their capabilities. You clearly are not familiar with military history if this is the kind of things you believe. In any war, guerrillas and insurgents have always had advantages over vertically structured systems and armies. You are not familiar with fourth generation war and I recommend you read it. The "war on terror" is a vague war, and "terrorists" are vague enemies. They are an amorphous non-state entity and if you know anything about what has been going on in Iraq is that the tactics of terrorists are fourth generation war tactics. Insurgents/guerrillas/terrorists do not face conventional armies head on, but wear them down through time through limited engagements. In the words of William Lind: "In Fourth Generation war, the state loses its monopoly on war. All over the world, state militaries find themselves fighting non-state opponents such as al Quaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the FARC. Almost everywhere, the state is losing."

After things kept getting worse for months, Operation Phantom Fury was launched, effectively taking the leash off the USMC/Army/Iraqi forces. To call the outcome of Phantom Fury anything but a US victory is wrong. Around 90 Marines died and 1000 insurgents were killed with approxiametely another 1000 captured.
So my point is, Fallujah was the most intense combat since Vietnam that US forces had faced, the biggest resistance put forth by Insurgent forces, and this is the end result; less than two hundred US dead and thousands of insurgents killed or captured.

Since neither you nor I were there, it is pointless to claim truth. The U.S. government can be lying for all I know and subterfuge and misinformation is a regular part of the state.

I do not agree with nor do I really support the "war on terror", but this is a different subject altogether. One point I would like to make however is concerning your statement that the US cannot defeat insurgents/terrorists/guerrillas. I disagree, and I use the city of Fallujah as my proof.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant as the results are there for everyone to witness, but in history and the present. State armies have never if rarely defeated guerrillas and insurgents because state armies are vertically structured systems that are susceptible to disorganized and decentralized units of warfare. What are "terrorists"? Who are "insurgents"? What are their motives? The fact that the Americans have no clear goal or road map is indicative of the loss. When is victory achieved? When all terrorists are defeated? What is a terrorist? How do you know all terrorists can be defeated when terrorism is not a thing but a tactic? It will always exist and the more America disrupts the more it will fuel such hatred of America and increasing the ranks of the horizontally organized insurgencies. You and Americans forget that this is war waged by a wide variety of non-state Iraqi and other Islamic forces for goals and purposes and motives that reach far beyond politics, erathly utopias and 'military victory'. It is a cultural and ideological war now. They have all the morale and are not afraid to die for their cause. How do you defeat that? You cannot defeat them because the differences are rooted in the power of the mind and ideology and not on conventional means. And it is due to this frustration, America's military's inability to root out these terrorists that like Vietnam, they begin targeting innocent people, civilians and villages. In Vietnam, the thinking was they had to destroy the village in order to save it. Orwellian and inverted, isn't it? My guess is you never watched PBS Frontline on the insurgency.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/insurgency/

And thanks to Israeli's recent incursion, al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other non-state forces will thrive and grow.

One could argue that you could replace hubris with media.

This is a typical response warmongers gave after the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam. They blamed the media for the loss, and not on the true culprit, that state armies cannot defeated ideologically and mentally superior non-state insurgents and guerrillas with home field advantage who are willing to die for their cause.

I suggest you read about fourth generation warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Generation_War

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

This is to everyone. Let's keep the focus of the thread and avoid personal attacks and diversions. It is unnecessary.

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

How did Hamas and Hizbollah come into existence?

Israeli crimes against humanity:

http://www.halturnershow.com/IsraeliAtrocities.html

http://ourworld.cs.com/nonzion/id81.htm?f=fs

http://www.inminds.co.uk/palestine-history-and-responsibility.html

http://www.nogw.com/israeliatrocities.html

http://www.uruknet.com/?p=m24922

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/03/as_safir110302.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/articlesmossad.html

[skhara]

Re: War in The Middle East

Consider Serbia: American and NATO forces knew full well that if they entered Serbia on land they would have been shattered to pieces.

IDF is trying the same tactic. The Serbia case was codenamed "Stage 3". They initiated "Stage Three" which specifically aimed to make civilian life unbearable because they couldn't touch the Serb army on the ground. So a massive terror tactic was initiated until the military could no longer bear to watch the civilian destruction.

[HayotzAmrotz]

Re: War in The Middle East

Khorhin shnorhakalutun.

Shnorhakalutiun naev qez qo Hairenasirutian hamar, eghbair.

Iser mer Hayq-i thogh menq bolors linenq miatzial inchpes mi hzor bruntzq!

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

IDF is trying the same tactic. The Serbia case was codenamed "Stage 3". They initiated "Stage Three" which specifically aimed to make civilian life unbearable because they couldn't touch the Serb army on the ground. So a massive terror tactic was initiated until the military could no longer bear to watch the civilian destruction.

The fundamental difference is that unlike Hizbollah, who are essentially gaurillas, Serbia had a real army. Moreover, they were well experienced, well organized well spirited and well dug in. Their ground forces would have been potent against NATO lead forces, especially within the forested mountains of the region. Having served in the military and having studied military history most of my life, I honestly believe that NATO ground forces would have been decimated if they invacded Serbia.

Nonetheless, Hizbollah, as good as they may be, don't have the numbers, the heavy equipement or the proper terrain to fight with. The key to Hizbollah success will be battlefield anti-tank and anti-aircraft missle technology. So far they are doing pretty well if you trake into consideration that Israel is throwing its full might on them. Also note that Israel is using their elite Golani Brigade within the region, so they are serious. I heard reports today that six more Isaeli troops were killed and several more tanks were hit inside Lebanon.