Is Hizballah stronger than we thought? Militarily?

[Nimrod2005]

This guy, Nasrallah just said that they just hit an Israeli Navy ship off the coast in Beirut? How could that be? Even Saddam couldn't do that? and I am amazed how accurate their bombings have been, hitting cities and civilians...etc. I remember from the Iraq war, how Scud missiles would fall over the place, never had any aim, and it was obvious Iraqi army had nothing...And I don't remember Saddam and the country of Iraq ever launching 200/300 missiles at anything in 48 hours?

This is a militia, not a country, that's why I am asking...

[brentspeak]

1. Well, Hezbollah has managed to control the entire southern Lebanon

They're basically illegal occupiers of that region. And the Lebanese army doesn't want to mess with them.

[Nimrod2005]

3. Must have had extensive training too....? I would say

[Terran1212]

14. They earned their keep by expelling the IDF

So they have a lot of supporters that help keep them there; they also have something like 15% of the Parliament.

[demosincebirth]

22. They expelled the IDF? Where in the hell did you read that?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. Well, we'll find out soon enough. n/t

[bemildred]

12. Looks that way. nt

[Selatius]

4. Their missiles are small and easy to fire

Contrast that with much larger, heavier scud missiles. Not so easy to fire rapidly.

[MidwestTransplant]

5. I doubt they hit an Israeli war ship

only chance would be with a silkworm (or sunborn?) missle from Iran.

[leftchick]

6. they did hit one

IDF confirmed it. It is in LBN.

[Howardx]

8. you doubt they could do it?

do you know anything about it? how close to the shore the ship was perhaps? its very possible. if it was a silkworm (from iran of course!) we would most likely be hearing about a sunk ship not one that sustained little to no damage if the reports are to be believed.

[pointblank]

40. I just read that it

was an explosive laden drone that hit that ship. Same approach that was used against the USS Cole in 2000...Get right up next to it with some explosive and BANG!

[MidwestTransplant]

43. I think the Cole was a suicide attack with a boat?

[pointblank]

44. The Cole was a sucide attack with a boat.

In the Israeli ship's case I was referring to the idea of getting explosives up next to a warship in a small vessel and exploding them, as opposed to launching a missile which would be very difficult to get past the Aegis defense system, which was probably on that ship since Israel is our buddy, unless you were using one of the "Sunburn" missiles that Iran supposedly has...those missiles apparently can defeat the Aegis system.

[Solo_in_MD]

51. Wrong

unless you were using one of the "Sunburn" missiles that Iran supposedly has...those missiles apparently can defeat the Aegis system.

While its a perentages kinds of thing, the Sunburn is quite interceptable by Aegis and other system.

[blurp]

47. Of course it's from Iran

Hezbollah is doing the actual fighting, but they no doubt get help from Iran.

It sort of like the 200 million dollar son of a successful construction company owner in Saudi Arabia paying others to fly planes into tall buildings.

[slackmaster]

7. It looks like we will know the answer soon

:nuke:

[Virginia Dare]

9. The way I heard it explained last night...

from a former CIA Middle East Bureau Chief is that unlike wars past they have a plan now. They want to disrupt the world's oil supply. May or may not be true, but it's a scary thought.

[MADem]

10. Where do they get their shit? Iran. Who does Iran do business with?

CHINA.

Who makes good workmanlike weapons with reasonable accuracy for your average insurgency? CHINA.

Look for the non-union label!!!!

[Virginia Dare]

16. We've underestimated the situation for too long...

somebody's got Hezbollah's back, Iran? Somebody's got Iran's back, China and Russia?.

Meanwhile, Chimpy's giving full Diplomatic salutes to the Chinese Premier and slapping backs with Pooty in Russia. What an ignorant putz he is.

[MADem]

20. FOLLOW THE OIL

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm

China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal
(CRI)
Updated: 2004-10-31 08:51


China's oil giant Sinopec Group has signed a US$70 billion oil and natural gas agreement with Iran, which is China's biggest energy deal with the No. 2 OPEC producer.

Under a memorandum of understanding signed Thursday, Sinopec Group will buy 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas over 30 years from Iran and develop the giant Yadavaran field.

Iran is also committed to export 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil to China for 25 years at market prices after commissioning of the field. .....


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html
The ties that bind China, Russia and Iran
By Jephraim P Gundzik

The military implementation of the George W Bush administration's unilateralist foreign policy is creating monumental changes in the world's geostrategic alliances. The most significant of these changes is the formation of a new triangle comprised of China, Iran and Russia.

Growing ties between Moscow and Beijing in the past 18 months is an important geopolitical event that has gone practically unnoticed. China's premier, Wen Jiabao, visited Russia in September 2004. In October 2004, President Vladimir Putin visited China. During the October meeting, both China and Russia declared that Sino-Russian relations had reached "unparalleled heights". In addition to settling long-standing border issues, Moscow and Beijing agreed to hold joint military exercises in 2005. This marks the first large-scale military exercises between Russia and China since 1958.

The joint military exercises complement a rapidly growing arms trade between Moscow and Beijing. China is Russia's largest buyer of military equipment. In 2004, China was reported to have signed deals worth more than $2 billion for Russian arms. These included naval ships and submarines, missile systems and aircraft. According to the head of Russia's armed forces, Anatoliy Kvashnin, "our defense industrial complex is working for this country , supplying the latest models of arms and military equipment, which the Russian army does not have". Russia's relations with China are not limited to military trade. In the past five years, non-military trade between Russia and China has increased at an average annual rate of nearly 20%. Moscow and Beijing have targeted non-military trade to reach $60 billion by 2010, from $20 billion in 2004. One of the key components of commercial trade is Russian energy exports to China.
....

[Virginia Dare]

23. Scary but true....

this is an all out struggle to control what is left of the oil reserves. There simply isn't enough to go around any more.

[Nimrod2005]

24. You're saying that the Cold war was actually very HOT HOT HOT!!!

Never got cold at all probably...The US may be the only country to not realize that?

[Virginia Dare]

30. There's an old saying...

the wife is always the last to know...

[htuttle]

18. And you know where China got a lot of it's modern missile technology?

Israel!

Irony Cycle Completed.

[blurp]

49. They got a bunch from the good ol' USA

back in 1996 or so.

[kenny blankenship]

11. That militia is the most powerful military force in the country including

the uniformed army. The "missiles" being launched are unguided rockets, smaller and much shorter of range than Iraq fired at Israel.

[demosincebirth]

26. They are not a military force. They do what they do well, and thats

create instability in a country. But as a fighting force...no way. Not against the IDF.

[kenny blankenship]

31. Perhaps you were asleep through 2000?

They forced the IDF to retreat from Lebanon.
As for your instability remark, Hezbollah are a large party in the Lebanese parliament now and a partner to the government with several cabinet positions. So it's difficult to evaluate terms like "instability" and to assign blame the way you obviously wish to. Without Hezbollah, Lebanon would only know the "stability" of Israeli occupation.
Can they invade Israel? Of course not. Can they make it very very painful for Israel to invade Lebanon? They've done it before--with an effectiveness no Arab government has ever matched.
(So yeah, they ARE a military force.)

[demosincebirth]

34. Terrorists, yes. fighting force, no.

I see you've probably been reading the Hizbolah handbook about their "great victories."

[kenny blankenship]

35. Since you only reply to information with insults

and label people who clearly aren't going away with hatred, so you need not think about them or see them, there's clearly nothing we can learn from each other from further "discussion".

[demosincebirth]

48. That was no insult, that was a observation and my opinion.

[mmonk]

13. I don't think so.

They may have a few accurate missiles, but in a straight out fight, they will lose. Their ability to strike from the shadows is their only strength (though an effective strength).

[northzax]

19. define 'lose'

this is the point. Hezbollah obviously can't go toe to toe with Israel in a military conflict, few countries can, and none in the region. that's not the point, of course. but the fact is that as Israel 'wins' the conflict, they keep falling further and further behind in the war. Israel's best chance for peace and the reduction of Hezbollah was a prosperous, growing Lebanon. Putting the economy of Lebanon back another 30 years will not actually hurt Hezbollah much, in fact it will probably help them grow even stronger. out of devastation comes desparation, and when the only thing to fill the vaccuum is hate, well, we all see the end result.

Israel will rue the day they responded to the provocation of Hezbollah with such military might, not because they won't win this battle, they will, but because they have just helped create another generation of hate. This is a game played in decades, not hours.

[mmonk]

21. toe to toe=straight out fight.

Everyone will lose, even the victors because it won't end.

[The Stranger]

37. Thankfully, the voice of reason.

Why do so many DUers support the violence, invasion, etc., then claim to be Progressive or "Democrat"?

WHY?

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. That might depend on what is meant by 'off the coast'.

If the ship was in coastal waters, a couple hundred yards out, even a half-mile, it wouldn't be too hard to hit with little shoulder-mounted rockets. If the ship was a mile or two out, that would indicate a completely different capability.

[bloom]

17. That's the thing about Syria and Iran

IF they do get on board - this will be a different deal.

Supposedly they support Hizballah - I guess we are going to find out how much.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. I'd say they're at least as strong as the Iraqi insurgents.

And they're beating the strongest military in the world.

[sendero]

27. Anyone who thinks..

.... Hezbolah cannot give Israel a run for their money need only look at how we're faring in Iraq. Sure, we are not losing huge number of men, but we are being worn down, drained, attritioned.

That's the kind of war they will fight and to say they can't "win" is foolish.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. That's not really the same situation.

Israel isn't occupying Lebanon. (Yet.)

[sendero]

36. It has similarities though..

... in that guerillas can make mincemeat out of advanced standing armies. Happens all the time.

Vietnam, Afghanistan/USSR, and now our total inability to control the situation in Iraq.

[MadHound]

29. Hezbollah will be no walk in the park

They've got enough troops, weapons, ammo and money to give Israel a real serious fight. If Syria and Iran get sucked in, then it could get real interesting. Of course if that happens, the US will also get sucked in, along with most of the rest of the ME countries.

This pissing contest has got to stop, before it ignites a much, much larger conflict. Of course the logical one to do that is off in Russia, playing President with his bestest friend Pootie Poo, and ignoring reality. Of course even if he was on the ball, how much credence and pull does he have left after the Iraq debacle?

[madrchsod]

32. the idf could roll over the hizballah army if it wanted to.

whether it would be wise internally and what the fall out world wide would be is the problem. right now i`d say the idf is getting ready to roll..as soon as the rockets run out the idf will move and this is why they destroyed the runways and roads in and out of lebanon.

[deaniac21]

33. The IDF has a history of rolling over all of the arab countries

at the same time.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Like in '67, when the arab countries attempted to annihilate Israel first.

Although reading some of the posts here, you'd think the occupation and everything else came out of a vacuum, and the Israelis have just been kicking the asses of their neighbors for the past 60 years because they 'feel like it'.

What do you suppose would have happened in '67 if the arab nations had won that war--- a war which they started? A 40 year occupation of Israel proper? Or extermination of all the Jews they couldn't drive into the sea?

[The Stranger]

39. Yeah, but many did not want to occupy the land seized, including

Ben-Gurion, knowing it would create generations-long conflict.

Also, just a note, but the usual Israel-as-Victim rhetoric doesn't work here.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Um, thanks for telling me what works and what doesn't, Jack.

Who are you, again? You gonna tell me which opinions I'm allowed to hold or which facts - a lot of these threads are woefully short on historical FACTS - I'm allowed to present?

You're just lucky the mods aren't shunting all the Israel stuff off to the I/P zone. Painful for you to find out, I'm sure, that not everyone here agrees with the International ANSWER party line about Israel being behind all the evils perpetrated by Bush and the Neo-Cons. (Hmmm. Guess again- how about Saudi Arabia, for starters?)

Actually, I agree with what Ben-Gurion said. I think it was an atrociously bad idea. I wouldn't call Israel the "victim", Both sides have made mistakes, but the Palestinians have consistently screwed the pooch every time there was a real chance for lasting peace. Every time from 1948 to 2000, when all they would have had to do was accept Israel's right to exist. And each time they throw down the gauntlet, their lot gets worse.

Israel's response may have been out of proportion this time- it may have been a colossally bad idea- but that doesn't mean they weren't provoked, and needlessly.

[deaniac21]

46. When the Arab countries were defeated in 1948, Syria and Jordan

occupied the Palestinian and that Israel had not taken and wouldn't allow Palestinians to stay.

[The Stranger]

50. Holy creation of new historical facts!

Where did you get this from?

[deaniac21]

45. 1948 too.

[Solo_in_MD]

52. I believe you meant in 1973

where the Arab countries had their best showing against Israel. They had top of the line Soviet equipment and for the first time the effectiveness of anti tank missiles was shown in actual combat. After a rocky start, Israel would have destroyed the Egyptian army in the Suez and laid siege/taken Damascus without intervention from the US and USSR. However, it was fairly close for the first few days.

[Marie26]

41. They've apparantly got drones.

I'm impressed.