Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Jul 10, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
I sometimes wish that Isreal would show its hand and nuke these people. It may make the rest of them sit up and pay attention.
Meanwhile, in related news......
Published: July 9, 2007 at 12:34 AM
E-mail Story | Print Preview | License
Syria urges Syrians to leave Lebanon
BERUIT, Lebanon, July 9 (UPI) -- Syria is calling on its citizens who are in Lebanon to leave the country ahead of an expected military "eruption" expected to take place next week.
Suppose that the Syrians would make raids, would bomb Golan Heights (internationally recognised Syrian territory) and avoid any attacks against mainland Israel. Would Israel have sufficient cause to use nuclear weapons? I doubt.
What Israel could do? To bomb Damscus? But the Syrians have anti-aircraft systems and could launch missiles toward Tel-Aviv.
Unlikely Israel would use tanks for offensive. The last Lebanese war showed that the Syrians are able to destroy a lot of them using anti-tank missiles.
That was just the personal view of someone who is sick to death of hearing about the Middle East and all its overflowing problems. Keep your furry hat on comrade.
Ahh, but do Israel recognise the Golan as Syrian territory? Do Israel want to lose the access to water that the Golan Heights give them? I'd wager the answer would be 'no' to both.
Well, Biscuits, I expressed my vision, how the war (though I hope it will not happen) would go.
Propose your opinion. What the Syrians and our Israeli friends would do? What would be their moves?
I think you miss my point mate. The impetus for my post was my lack of enthusiasm for any more Middle East headlines.
Israel does not recognise the Golan Heights as Syrian territory, it was annexed. But no one country has recognised the annexation. So international community regards the Golans as ocupied lands.
Israel doesn't want to lose the access to water resources. So the only Syrian option is a thread to make an unacceptable damage (destruction of Tel-Aviv for example).
Sorry mate, how I'm stupid. It's my imperfect English you know.
However there is a practical aspect here. It is possible that peacekeepes (including British ones) would be sent to the Golan Heights. So it is not absolutely abstract theme.
Don't worry. The navigating officer on HMS Bulwark can do the Beruit harbour entry blindfolded following the last little incident in Lebanon. They probably haven't even sent the camp beds back to stores in Plymouth.
Precisely, and one assumes the Israeli policies of preemption come into play.
Added to this, if Syria are predicting some kind of civil war in Lebanon starting very soon, possibly as early as next week - could they not choose to launch their strikes on Golani villages and IDF outposts whilst Israel and world opinion are looking the other way, so to speak?
Bugger. That is all very depressing.
Semantics perhaps, but I was under the impression that the Golan was in fact occupied and not annexed and this because Syria is still at war with Israel.
Wonder why Syria is warning it's civilians to leave the Lebanon now. Nothing to do with the fact that someone has been busy killing anti-syrian politicans in the Lebanon and generaly stirring the s***e.
Separate names with a comma.