Who won?

There are no winners in war only losers, in this case the biggest loser were the civilians on both sides.

But to better answer your question. The Isreali strategy was a crushing military victory over Hezbollah. Hezbollahs strategy was to inspire sympathy for their cause. As I perdicted a few weeks ago Isreal failed to inflict a KO to Hezbollah and now the Isreal Government is facing a tital wave of criticize abroad and at home.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400390.html

Hezbollah on the other hand resisted the Isreal advance (better than most people expected) but their true victory was that succeeded in gathering sympathy in the Middle East. Theirs was a political victory as opposed to a military one. Just read what the Egyptian Foreign minister said today...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750403.html
 
Last edited:
To an extent I agree with mmarsh. Hizbollah obviously won a big political victory - they created sympathy and support within the Middle East and got a lot of the international community pissed off at Israel. But I think Israel had more military success than it seems. I think they killed more Hizbollah fighters and did more damage to their rocket launching capabilities than it seems at first glance. A crushing blow? No, but certainly one that Hizbollah will have to recover from.
 
One winner - the rest losers ........

Who won - who the h*ll cares? You and I are the biggest losers ... Iran was allowed to twitch their control of Hezbollah and Hamas, and we stood by like bumps on a log, and let them get away with it. All this does is make them that much stronger in the eyes of the other Arab countries in the area and it makes it that much harder when we and the other democracies get around to dealing with their crazy leader and their philosophy of world religious domination.

Every time that Iran is allowed to influence politics in the area they get stronger ... that hurts everyone - the innocent and the not so innocent.

Israel has achieved a temporary breather - Hezbollah and Hamas still exist, and as sure as can be - this breather will NOT last. As soon as the terrorists regroup, rearm and get marching orders from Iran ... the bloodshed will start all over AGAIN (as it has in the past).

As far as your question, Iran is the only winner and everyone else is a loser ... nothing was really settled.
 
The term "winner" and "loser" is relative to time; in the short run, I would agree with Chief Bones in that Iran is the winner. In the long run, however, I think we will be the winner, since the the ball is rolling on the case of Iran vs. the rest of the world. All Iran did was to further expose themselves in this conflict, showing their hand to the nations that hold the real power in the world, and digging themselves a deeper grave. Whether or not we can play the sympathy game as the terrorists have IMO will determine further action against hezbollah, which would spill off to Iran eventually.

Just now I heard Bush going on record about Iran and Syria's involvement with the terrorists, so perhaps the ball is rolling faster than I thought.

But, like many have said, the real losers are the innocents caught in the middle of a petty and childish squabble.
 
Last edited:
Interpeting the Bible is a hard thing to do, but it seems clear that the pieces of the end times seem to be coming together.

On Aug. 22 Mars will be appearing in the eastern skies as a red ball. It will be visible through the27th or something like that.

Do you all think we should be concerned?

I just hope that the defication is not about to make contact with the rotary oscillator!
 
Certainly there are plenty of losers. Civilians that were killed or displaced on both sides of the border lost. Lebanon's economy was wrecked as was the economy of northern Israel. Hezbola didn't annilate Israel but I'm not sure anyone expected that would happen. Israel seems to have lost this one. Israel didn't get its soldiers back and Israel didn't stop the rocket attacks. The cease fire leaves Hezbolla intact and I don't think the U.N. is really going to disarm them or force them away from the border. In 1982, Israel was in the outskirts of Beirut in less than a week's time. Why didn't Israel do the same this time?
 
The loser is Hezbollah. Before this latest scrap, they held all of South Lebanon, which was a functioning country with a working economy and a vibrant society. Now, the local and national infrastructures are ruined, the economy is mostly gone, the society they were supposed to be defending is shattered, and they are totally unable to remove that bloody big invading army that has gone right through their territory and then decided that it liked the view and will stick around for a while. In addition, they have lost a lot of their fighters and quite a bit of their arsenals, and in the trade, they have managed to inflict only light damage to the Israelis. Before the fighting started, mortars and missiles were coming down into Israel, but with the ceasefire, they have ALL stopped. Now, one would expect, that with a victory, the other side would be battered, bleeding and forced to withdraw... Hmmmm... can't say I've seen a lot of that.
As for the so-called political victory, that was won before the first shot was fired. It is a simple fact of life that if the Israeli Army fights with anyone, Arab sympathy will be with the people they are fighting against. The Israelis made no effort to wage any kind of political war, knowing very well that it was useless to do so. They were looking for one thing, and the UN may yet give it to them without them having to fire any more shots. The winners here are the Israelis, although it is, for the moment, a half victory. The final victory will come when the Lebanese Army really controls South Lebanon and Hezbollah is fully disarmed. I have my doubts that that will ever happen, but if it does not, we can expect to see the third installment of the Israel-Hezbollah war in the near future.

Dean.
 
Last edited:
Nicely done Dean ... your summation was pointed and well reasoned out ... however ... you miss the fact that every time that Iran can twitch the reins of their terrorist arm, and cause any discomfort for Israel, they make points with the rest of the Arab countries surrounding Israel that wish for the erasure of Israel from the face of the earth. Continued activism of Iran without being held accountable by the western world, can only make it that much harder to take them to task for their actions when enough is enough ... and ... the western nations finally get around to dealing with Iran.
 
Chief Bones said:
Nicely done Dean ... your summation was pointed and well reasoned out ... however ... you miss the fact that every time that Iran can twitch the reins of their terrorist arm, and cause any discomfort for Israel, they make points with the rest of the Arab countries surrounding Israel that wish for the erasure of Israel from the face of the earth. Continued activism of Iran without being held accountable by the western world, can only make it that much harder to take them to task for their actions when enough is enough ... and ... the western nations finally get around to dealing with Iran.
Click to expand...
It was pointed out that Syria is willing to fight Israel to the last... Lebanese, and that Iran is willing to fight Israel to the last Lebanese and... Syrian! There is a great deal of truth in that, and yes CB, I do realize that. In fact, the Syrian tweaking of Hezbollah has been very subtle and incredibly effective, and they are no doubt incredibly happy that this has occurred. Iran is indeed a problem that will have to be faced sooner or later, but for the moment, the international community through the UN may in fact have trumped Iran and Syria. If they follow through effectively in ths situation, and Hezbollah is disarmed, Syria will lose two things; most of their political clout and physical control of Lebanon, as well as any way of directly attacking the Israelis. The Iranians will lose the same, although they are better positioned to support Hamas. However, the "but" in all of this is huge, and I am very pessimistic about the capability of the UN to do anything. The biggest UN donors are currently ineffective, (US and UK) the other traditional donors are close to tapped out or would not be allowed to participate, (Canada, Germany, probably France) and NATO seems content to sit this one out. Neutralizing Hezbollah is going to be a dirty job, and I really do not see who can do it. All I can think of is Poland, France, NATO (other than those already mentioned), Japan, maybe China, and hell, that's about it. But seriously, I do not see any of those countries clamouring for the job. This is a really shitty situation, but Israel has little to lose, as they can now play the waiting game. If things progress to their satisfaction, everyone will be happy. If not, we'll hear the booming from here.

Dean.
 
Last edited:
Dean
The spoiler in this whole stinking mess is that I also do not see any country(s) that would be able to neutralize Hezbollah by disarming them. The ONLY country that would be able to come even close, would be the United States and that would bring all of the other anti-American Arab countries crawling out of the woodwork with their own terrorist groups in order to give the US a black eye.

Barring the disarming of Hezbollah, death and dying is the ONLY SURE THING on the horizon in this situation. Chances are that it will be the Peace Keeping Troops no matter what the country (or) makeup of the force.
 
Last edited:
"The army loses by not winning. The guerrilla wins by not losing." Henry Kissinger.

Hezbolla dropped 250 rockets into northern Israel the last day of the fighting. Israel did not take away the ability of Hezbolla to fire rockets into Israel, nor do they have their two soldiers back. Israel has achieved a fragile cease fire and a U.N. mandate for Hezbolla to be disarmed near the border, two things they had before the fighting started.
 
2dold4this said:
"The army loses by not winning. The guerrilla wins by not losing." Henry Kissinger.

Hezbolla dropped 250 rockets into northern Israel the last day of the fighting. Israel did not take away the ability of Hezbolla to fire rockets into Israel, nor do they have their two soldiers back. Israel has achieved a fragile cease fire and a U.N. mandate for Hezbolla to be disarmed near the border, two things they had before the fighting started.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you missed another point. The Lebanese Army will be moving into South Lebanon, which Israel also wanted. Hezbollah can do many things, but if it fights the Lebanese, then it loses all of its legitimacy and its support will dry up. So the way this one should work out, the Israelis hand over captured territory to the UN, which in turn will hand it over to the Lebanese. In addition, the UN Forces are now armed participants rather than unarmed observers, and have the right to react far more robustly than they have been able to do in the past. In additon, Hezbollah must be very careful in dealing with the UN, as attacking them can also be dangerous to their image.
Yes, Israel did have a UN mandate for the disarmament of Hezbollah, but now they also have the mechanism by which it can be accomplished, which is something they never had. The real result of this war was to remove the vacuum in which Lebanon had allowed Hezbollah to prosper, and force the Lebanese government to exert its authority in the south. It should have done so years ago, but in fairness, its failure to do so can be laid more at the feet of the Syrians. But the price they have paid for that oversight is very very high.

Dean.

Chief Bones said:
Dean
The spoiler in this whole stinking mess is that I also do not see any country(s) that would be able to neutralize Hezbollah by disarming them. The ONLY country that would be able to come even close, would be the United States and that would bring all of the other anti-American Arab countries crawling out of the woodwork with their own terrorist groups in order to give the US a black eye.
Click to expand...
The US cannot and will not send troops into this mess. However, any of the Arab countries can disarm Hezbollah, as Hezbollah would lose its support if it started to fight other Arabs. The problem is that very few, if any Arab countries want to be seen as protecting Israel, so I do not think we will see any there. If Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, maybe Turkey and ironically perhaps Greece were to send troops, the job could indeed be done. France would also be quite effective in this one.

Chief Bones said:
Barring the disarming of Hezbollah, death and dying is the ONLY SURE THING on the horizon in this situation. Chances are that it will be the Peace Keeping Troops no matter what the country (or) makeup of the force.
Click to expand...

You are probably right. But for the moment, I choose to be a bit more optimistic on this one, only because the Lebanese government is finally moving into the south. That alone makes the job of Hezbollah far more difficult.

Dean.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dean said:
Yes, but you missed another point. The Lebanese Army will be moving into South Lebanon, which Israel also wanted. Hezbollah can do many things, but if it fights the Lebanese, then it loses all of its legitimacy and its support will dry up. So the way this one should work out, the Israelis hand over captured territory to the UN, which in turn will hand it over to the Lebanese. In addition, the UN Forces are now armed participants rather than unarmed observers, and have the right to react far more robustly than they have been able to do in the past. In additon, Hezbollah must be very careful in dealing with the UN, as attacking them can also be dangerous to their image.
Yes, Israel did have a UN mandate for the disarmament of Hezbollah, but now they also have the mechanism by which it can be accomplished, which is something they never had. The real result of this war was to remove the vacuum in which Lebanon had allowed Hezbollah to prosper, and force the Lebanese government to exert its authority in the south. It should have done so years ago, but in fairness, its failure to do so can be laid more at the feet of the Syrians. But the price they have paid for that oversight is very very high.

Dean.
Click to expand...

The mandate is a problem. We don't have a chapter seven resolution and we don't know the make up of the peace keeping forces. Hezbolla doesn't have to attack the Lebanese army. The Lebanese army would have to attack Hezbolla.
 
I was really suprised when Hezballah declared that they won... He shouldn't talk about a victory cuz about 1100 civilians died because of him. And also Israel killed a lot of Hezballah guerillas so I think that Israel is the winner.

Also I know the loser... Civilians, civilians, civilians...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top