I know its a factor in the US military for when you can and can’t use cluster munitions.
They are very good for taking out soft targets like trucks as well. I’m unsure if what you are asserting here is correct…I believe cluster munitions are very good at taking out small soft targets, and I don’t see why they would necessarily be ineffective in urban settings (leaving aside the effect they would have on the population). Oh, I’m sure they couldn’t be used in very built up urban settings easily (large buildings would probably provide odd dispersal patterns and shields), but I don’t think this would universally be the case…and not from what I’ve seen of the targets in Lebanon that have been engaged.
In addition, they are a hell of a lot cheaper.
Sure. But cluster munitions are also good for this as they scatter over a fairly wide area and each bomblet can essentially take out a soft target like a truck or jeep. Even against armor they can be effective I believe, though probably not the optimal weapon for that. But as counter battery weapons they are very good…artillary being generally soft targets (doubt HB has many armored self-propelled guns after all :)). Also, cluster fired artillary could be used in a more wide spread way…again, if you didn’t care about civilian casualties at all. All you’d need is rough coordinates and you could send a counter battery strike right back, with the initial punch using cluster munitions.
Well, thats true. But they aren’t the only system that could be effective in taking out even small targets. And I think their use in these situations DOES stem from the fact that they tend to hit what they are aimed out, without as much colateral damage…even taking into account the ones that go astray.
Yes, I know…though admittedly not first hand, as I was in the Navy not the Army. But I watched the gun cam video footage Finn provided (I think it was in another thread) and clearly the pilot saw the target and was painting it himself to guild the bomb in. That it missed was not due to there being no target there at all but to some other factor.
Anyway, just wanted to respond as the thread seems to be pretty much dead. I appreciate the corrections though…always interesting to get another perspective on this stuff.
Some people seem to think that the Lebanese Government is somehow complicit with Hezbollah.
Just because they have 14 Hezbollah representratives in a very shaky coalition, does not mean that the rest of the Lebanese Government does not loathe them.
My take is that they are sh*t scared of Hezbollah and would like to see the whole lot disappear.
Israel tends to get badly represented in the Western press, anyone remember Jeneen ?
that was tantamount to photo shopping
the Israelis were outraged - I know - they told me
As such, Israel is well aware that /any/ photo opportunities will count against them
so rationally their best course of action is to avoid providing such pictures
Notice how they declared a 48 hour ceasefire as soon as those 50 got killed
to make it perfectly clear that they want non-combatants out of there
Both sides are well aware of the public relations aspect of this scrap
however much the average Israeli may not give a toss about the life of a Hezbollah wife, grandmother or daughter, they do not want to create pictures of them dead or maimed
even though the motive may not be benign
they are trying to keep their actions a lot more honourable than Hezbollah
Incidentally, I am pretty sure that the UN bunker was entirely deliberate, if Hezbollah realize that they can’t get away with using UN troops as sandbags, then the UN are a lot safer.
Frankly, the whle idea of having the UN in there ‘observing’ strikes me as utterly daft.
They could be in there repairing roads (which they are) and evacuating non-combatants (of which I’ve seen no evidence)
I’ve failed to find a cite about what happened last time round.
a lot more Ghanains
but UN ‘peacekeepers’ are, in Israeli eyes, animated sandbags
Ah, I just spotted the ‘We’
Well, what would you do if four of your mates were being used as a human shield ? Let alone four useless people who should not be there.
You know perfectly well that the two guys in the Lebanon will never come back alive, the best that would have come back from the ‘hospital’ raid was two bodies.
The only way of winning just about any war is to be more callous and brutal than your opponent - it is a bit tricky with the international press looking on - but in the long run the winner re-writes history.
There is an argument to be made that there is no collateral damage involved. It must be considered that Hezbollah does what it does because the people allow them to do it. They are, therefore, accomplices in Hezbollah’s actions and therefore deserve the consequences.
I’ve seen this point of view kicked around in different places, so I thought I would offer it here for debate.
It’s not that simple. For some reason, RedFury’s post prior to yours has disappeared, but no matter. What he posted was similar in substance to yours, except that he asked (sarcastically) if HRW or Reuters were “left wing blogs” too.
Well, as with everything, that is a matter of debate. From the Wikipedia article:
and
So yeah, it is disputed. Of course, the groups that dispute their claims of impartiality are themselves in dispute, and so on and so on, so it’s left to the reader to make their own judgment as to the veracity of HRW’s claims.
What if the hostage taker is firing at other civilians from behind the hostage? Is it not at least conceivable that the life of the hostage might be less important than restoring order?
I think you’re basically demanding an impossible standard of moral purity from Isreal. No matter what Israel does, innocent people are going to suffer as a direct consequence. There is no painless and bloodless way out of the mess.
Hezbollah is doing all it can to destroy Israel. They are just very very weak. Films are showing neighborhoods reduced to rubble. Bridges, factories, roads, airports flattened. Israel is not caring about civilians .It is just saying it cares. This is a one sided slaughter.
Maybe your definition of ‘one sided’ is different than my own. Or maybe the difference between deliberately firing missiles with the intent of killing civilians is equal in your mind to the accidental killing of civilians while trying to hit paramilitary units or targets hiding among those civilians.
Yeah, that Hezbollah…poor little lambs. Of course, you keep forgetting that THEY are saying no ceasefire until their own conditions are met. But I suppose in your own mind all that counts is that Israel stops the shooting. If Hezbollah wants to keep tossing rockets at Israel…well, they are only jews after all. They probably deserve it.
So let me pose another hypothetical: suppose God grants you the power to kill, with one fell stroke, every Muslim extremist who is plotting or supporting terrorism; but the price for this power is the annihilation of every man, woman and child in Israel. Is that a fair exchange, to rid the world of Muslim terrorists once and for all?
A principle is laid down in the OT: Deuteronomy 25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
It is not so much the fault of Israel as civilians being used as human shields.
The accuracy of media reports to the contrary is much in question. Not being there it is almost possible for you or I to know for sure.
If and when you do so and if there’s enough interest in discussing it, I’m willing to open up a thread for those of you that would like to debunk it.
Mayhaps matters in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are not as binary as so many of you appear to think. I know it helped me understand a bit better my own prior question: why is it that the US population is, almost as a whole, so blindly pro-Israel.
The rest of you can take from here – provided you have those two hours to give…
I’ll consider watching the rest of it, but so far I’m disgusted by the spin and bullshit that just the first few seconds of it have. They make the (correct) claim that UNSC resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw.
But, I suppose, by ‘accident’ they neglect to mention the context of that statement, or the other condition that went with it.
First, Israel tried to return the territories, but was met with the Three Noes. So not only did Israel try to meet the first of the two requirements, but they could not specifically because the Arab states refused to comply with the second.
“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”
The resolution called for a Special Representative who would “promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution”
Israel attempted to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accord with the provisions and principles. The Arab states responded with the Three Noes.
Such willful distortion of history does not bode well as it’s the opening salvo of your youtube video.
Maybe I’ve got more time to waste later, who knows.
And I think right there Finn you touched on Reds question…why do most American’s support Israel over guys like Hamas and Hezbollah (not to mention most of their happy go lucky neighbors).
I haven’t looked over your video yet Red, as frankly I’m exhausted…I’ve been up continuously for 36 hours now with only a few brief naps on the floor of a computer room thats about 88 degrees. I’m going to crash soon so the prospects of me getting to it anytime soon are about nill. I will see what Finn has to say about it though, assuming he finds the time to slog through it. And in theory I may have the energy tomorrow (whenever ‘tomorrow’ is for me…I’m having trouble remember what today is. Not as young as I used to be).
I’d much rather read what you have to say about it for on this mattter, as much as you may agree with (and defer to) Finn, he’s just waaay too rabid a pro-Israelite for me to give any weight to his screeds on this issue.
You, OTOH, although we disagree on probably 90% of our political views, I’ve seen retract and change your mind at least once – IOW, there’s still some hope left.
