Saviola

It’s never gonna happen, “100,000 Arabs” will never give you that conventional war. It’s wishful thinking. The Arabs will give you 20,000 insurgents in a deadly rebellious war after laying low as you invade, declare “mission accomplished” and occupy. Then they will run circles around you, shooting down four of your choppers and crews in less than two weeks, engross themselves in your so called democratic process while contemporaneously conducting a fierce war of attrition against your soldiers. They’ll engulf you in a tribal miasma, you’ll need 10 naturalized ambassador Khalilzads (an Afghan Sunni) to field your way through. They will thank you for coming to them so they can kill you, for they lost the capability to come to you for that same purpose. They will further thank you for giving them a tangible opportunity to form religious governments and create Islamic states never afforded them under dictators you instated in the past. They will be grateful to the US for granting them that which it abhors and invaded to prevent in the first place. Until BFC gives us civilians and a Lebanese Ho Chi Minh trail with wildcard neighboring intervention, no matter how massaged this asymmetrical proposition is, it remains a case of we get everything and the Syrians the shaft. Since Iran has a quasi defense treaty with Syria, we demand the simulation of a seaborne arms supply bridge to Lebanese militias allied with Syria who’ll intervene. We demand the introduction of the 3 Iranian submarines to interdict any interception of suspected supply ships. Ask everyone on this forum, they’ll pay for civilians and neighboring intervention, we’ll reward BFC for a wider scope, we have money. No one can put a price on fun that’s full of civilians, mayhem and porous borders. Give the wargaming public the grandiose fun it demands. If you build it, we will pay.

Although an off target topic, taboo in this forum, will be locked, me reprimanded, and you sound a bit rattled; if you insist, here goes: Ahem... To clueless westerners, the word Sunni coupled with Baathist conjures up Lucifer. To the rest who are well “in touch”, Baathists are a higher grade animal than Abramoff’s Republicans and Sunnis represent the Bush administration’s staunchest Mid Eastern allies. They may be minorities in Iraq, but Sunnis are super duper majorities throughout their respective countries in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. What staunch Mid East allies? Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi, and further east, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not so further east? Turkey. All the latter are overwhelming Sunni nation states who prefer to confine Shiites to cantons and ghettos, see their rise in Iraq as a threat, and believe the US gave Iraq as a de facto gift to Iran. Most of the above also believe that Iran should give thanks to the US for eliminating its fiercest enemies, the Taliban and Saddam, and for ignorantly offering the Mullahs southern Iraq as down payment. One never thought one would see the day when US boys are sent in to mop up and die securing southern villages so Iranian agents can slide in and direct poll centers. Only a sap would believe that Baaker Hakim, Jaafari and their Shiite coalition aren’t fond of “an Islamic State”. Or that they might owe allegiance to any other entities than the ayatollahs and their spiritual brethren and neighbors to the east. A US-trained-and-fitted Iraqi army? A lamentable, cowardice and laughable army, alas. This so called army is nothing more than balkanized tribal militias ready to gouge away at any threat to their respective lords and masters the second the US boys leave. Now, enter the Kurds, the only loyal friends to the US in the equation, friends whom Turkey will incinerate once a good opportunity materializes. Had the US liberated Swedes and Danes, gratitude and loyalty woulda come its way. But Bedouins and tribal nomads are world champions of ingratitude, disloyalty and double cross. So Sure the US and Iraq went to war, but it looks like Iran won.

Yes of course, Steve meant he “won’t be including intentional fuel leaks to burn out” a US Stryker Force, either while it’s mobile, engaged or stationary. Before I forget, MikeyD rules.

Doubtless what’s meant by “bad guys” above are Iraqi freedom fighters and the 2007 Syrian army. By extension, one can infer that the US invaders and occupiers at present and in 2007 must be the angelic good guys. Looking at all the above, most gung ho Blues will read a political statement into all this. However, this is merely a satirical computer gaming observation, for good and bad, black and white, malevolence and benevolence will be in the eyes of the CMSF computer gamer. Even if one assumes international distribution of CMSF isn’t planned, many Shock Force gamers will still itch to assume an electronic Syrian role and show these saintly, soft, cuddly, good US guys what asymmetrical warfare is all about. Of course it’s unimaginable, wholly unrealistic and ridiculous to think that a substantial number of future CMSF Red players will take on the Blues for none other than pure experimental wargaming reasons. Nor was there a global trait known as goodness before the Revolutionary War, Declaration of Independence and Hollywood. [ January 12, 2006, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: El_Operative ]

1) This sounds like a precarious threat. 2) You weren’t there either, nor was anyone on this thread who’s offering not particularly careful “analysis”. Opinions are being offered based on a posted AAR, to suggest one had to be there to inject a not so suitable or accurate “analysis” is preposterous. Lest anyone forgets, this ain’t no military intelligence, DoD or NORAD debriefing, it’s a consumer orientated forum which hosts consumers interested in a product. 3) If “careful” means massaging, stroking and burnishing every action the US forces undertake, few will partake. 4) The Marines instead of Army boys oversight was my bad, I’m guilty on this one. In future, I will be careful with the accuracy of US organizational aspects, but not with your implied definition of “careful”. 5) “Those soldiers did a fine job”. Well, this thread’s views on their performance vary, some agree, some believe they stunk, and some believe it was the F16s and TOWs that “did a fine job”. 6) Will you respectfully delineate the consequences that’ll beset those who post without having fought battles in Iraq and aren’t “careful”? 7) The notion that everything Marines merits worship, is beyond reproach and should be awe-inducing will be destroyed, it’s unrealistic, non representative of the Iraqi theater’s realities and akin to fanaticism. So you be “careful” too.

“Outgunned” with what? Here’s with what according to BFC, How anyone can claim that a non mechanized insurgency, with Paleolithic Russian armament, can outgun a US Stryker force with American gunnery, TOWs and state of the art communications is beyond me. The insurgents didn’t have UAVs reporting enemy numbers, location and formation. They didn’t have the morale boosting knowledge that the cavalry and pulverizing air support were minutes away. Their only advantage? Mild surprise, modest numerical superiority, for they were on offense (after the helo), and a reckless willingness to die. If one carefully reads the battle’s AAR, a US combatant expresses fear of overrun should reinforcements and air support be delayed much longer. The AAR clearly shows the tide only turned after F16s dropped precision ordinance, strafed insurgents’ positions and TOWs were introduced into the battle. Yet even with the F16s, here’s what was reported, “but it turned out that even JDAMs had not put an end to the attacks that day.” Until debilitating air support arrived, the insurgents exceeded expectations mano a mano vs. Marines. So if put into perspective, you’ve the most trained, most equipped and mightiest army on the planet that can’t end an infantry battle without aerial bombardment and a prodigious supply of TOWs. Ultimately, yes, the US had the day, but with what assets and against whom? With F16s against suicidal maniacs with Soviet trinkets. No wonder Rumsfeld no longer talks about North Korea. I think, and I could very well be wrong, duke was unimpressed with the assets and doctrine employed to secure that bird. In this instance, Bigduke wins. [ January 04, 2006, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: El_Operative ]

No, we should believe you. You and Raanan Gissin, the undefeated world champion in the Lying Arts. Don’t get me wrong, there are other former champions who excelled at blatant lies, like Yehud Olmer for example, or Mofaz the Iranian (put a turban on this fella and how is there any denyin’ his mullah ancestry), and the grand ole daddy of’em all, senior Peres, El Grand Hefe de Liars. Next time, to lend more credibility to links, I’ll try to cultivate a hacked handle to NORAD’s and DOD’s mainframes, just for you, you skeptical fiend you.

Really? I take it you mean up close and personal right? It was never shot down, how is it you managed to see it, other than while in flight on TV? By crossing the fence and examining it with Hizbullah’s tech team over tea and croissant? Oh, it’s clear now, you’re not a conscript, you’re a high ranking analyst in Aman, Israeli military intelligence. And while you were capable of shooting this piece of **** down, you chose not to. Why? Because you’ve an “unimaginable”, space age, lucid video photography kit capable of dissecting UAVs in flight. Not only that, your capabilities record vital characteristics data via sensory cyber optics on the fly. Only snag with above proposition, your speech, linguistics and boasting traits aren’t synonymous with the stuff of seasoned, credible officers. So trust you? Based on what? Your infatuation with this Nostradamus malarky, abysmal understanding of the politics of war, neutral stance, or super objectivity? What most don’t know, and what was once “unimaginable” is Israel secretly selling US Sidewinders, amongst numerous other American technologies to the Chinese for obscene profits, Israel stealing US intelligence on Iran through Douglas Feith, a neocon pro Israel spy who champions APAC to the detriment of US interests. With allies like Israel, who needs enemies. Just recently, and in clear violation of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), Israel was caught attempting a sale of US fighter Jets technology to Venezuela. Luckily the Defense Department did torpedo it. Asia Times Armament Source Israeli Paper Ultimately, why should Americans be impressed with Israel’s “unimaginable capabilities”? Everything of and about Israel’s military prowess and weaponry is ours, the UK made Israel, we $maintain it and protect it (1973 a la Nixon, Patriots, Iraq 91). All this, while putting up with double cross no nation on earth should have to put up with. So who’s special? The US is special. Who’s capabilities are “unimaginable”? America’s are, not yours. [ December 30, 2005, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: El_Operative ]

JK, This is a link to an ABC News source, for I know nothing is credible in the US unless it’s US. ABC The drone is called Mirsad 1, if googled, other sources are revealed. Of course the challenge with these typa drones’ always been how to arm them with an effective air to surface missile a la CIA in Yemen and succeed. Or even render the drone itself into some form of UAV dirty bomb, another possible use, but hardly probable or likely. UAV technology isn’t new to the Iranians, Iraqis or Syrians, it’s old news. Using drones effectively and to an advantageous end is the challenge for the above however.

If this Alice in Wonderland, hysterically laughable option is viewed by most IDF soldiers as a viable and workable option, then Israel’s commanders have a responsibility to suppress the revelation of such detrimental and self-injurious ignorance. Slowly, but surely the Irans, DPRKs, Venezuelas and Syrias of the world are learning the benefits of lateral military thought when faced with a destructive conventional force. The IDF’s conventional force suffered a humiliating defeat in southern Lebanon in 2000 due to relentless, sophisticated guerilla attacks brought to bear by Hizbullah. The withdrawing Israeli occupation army was forced to abandon and leave to the wolves its then proxy South Lebanese Army which was decimated and destroyed days after the Israeli rapid withdrawal. Since 2000, the Israelis only sneak a peek into southern Lebanon from fixed wing fighter bombers and satellite imagery. The IDF now calculates a zillion times before mounting a manned expedition into Hizbullah land. In fact, Hizbullah is sneaking peeks into northern Israel with its own, self-manufactured surveillance drone, it flew it twice on 45 minutes missions unopposed. On a different note, the present Israeli administration is the main opposing party to an American led Syrian invasion, Sharon prefers a weak and isolated Syria rather than a liberated, potentially democratic Syria. A liberated, and potentially non hostile democratic Syria will trigger the need for peace talks with Israel brokered by the US. The latter will be a step that’ll cause Sharon another stroke _ peace talks? Give back the Golan? Can’t we just NOT get along? Can’t we go back to the way we were? Me Tarzan, you Lame?

In general, and as prudence would dictate, the above statment is true, but not of the Syrians. In fact, you cannot only assume they’ll be stupid, you can count on it. Look at the comedy of errors they engrossed themselves in prior to incurring dangerous and binding UN resolutions: Firstly, they overtly backed Saddam, the losing horse against all odds, not only that, they opened their border in 2003 for all kind of combatants to enter Iraq, as if such action would influence the inevitable outcome. They were so stupid as to not even calculate that such meddling with a giant is bound to be calamitous or payback would be forthcoming. I guess they couldn’t fathom, nor did they wanna envisage massive American presence at their doorstep, a denial case of utmost stupidity. Enter the Lebanese debacle. They managed to lose France, their lukewarm ally of the last decade or so in a few days by insisting blatantly on forcing a second term for a puppet Lebanese president no one wanted but Syrian cronies. As if the latter weren’t enough, they began assassination attempts on every parliamentary and cabinet Lebanese figure who overtly or even covertly opposed the forced extension term of the puppet president. Their galactically stupid calculation was that the elimination of the most vocal and influential voices of Lebanese dissent, even perceived dissent (Harriri) would buy them time in Lebanon and prolong their presence there. In their infinite wisdom, they thought the assassination of Harriri, a statesman billionaire and a well regarded friend of the west, particularly France, would create a wave of short lived condemnation, but it would be back to business as usual before long. The result was the exact opposite of their disastrous plan, they were forced into the most humiliating, precipitous and unanticipated withdrawal under debilitating international pressure. Not only did they lose a flanking, supposedly advantageous military position on Israel, but they lost their cash cow called Lebanon in a few weeks after milking it for 30 years. Their Bekaa Valley 1982 performance vs. Israel in an armor duel was abysmal, sure the Merkeva is a superior tank, but they had the advantage of defensive terrain and couldn’t defend and maneuver worth **** . They were routed within days, lost 30% of their tank force, while the PLO held Beirut for almost a month and only withdrew to Tunis as part of a settlement brokered by the Americans. So the astute observer would ask, is this anti Shock Force this stupid, his more handsome, more intelligent, more astute brother observer would reply, yes it is. Syria hasn’t performed well in any war since its anti crusades commander Saladin sacked Jerusalem centuries ago.

In general, and as prudence would dictate, the above statment is true, but not of the Syrians. In fact, you cannot only assume they’ll be stupid, you can count on it. Look at the comedy of errors they engrossed themselves in prior to incurring dangerous and binding UN resolutions: Firstly, they overtly backed Saddam, the losing horse against all odds, not only that, they opened their border in 2003 for all kind of combatants to enter Iraq, as if such action would influence the inevitable outcome. They were so stupid as to not even calculate that such meddling with a giant is bound to be calamitous or payback would be forthcoming. I guess they couldn’t fathom, nor did they wanna envisage massive American presence at their doorstep, a denial case of utmost stupidity. Enter the Lebanese debacle. They managed to lose France, their lukewarm ally of the last decade or so in a few days by insisting blatantly on forcing a second term for a puppet Lebanese president no one wanted but Syrian cronies. As if the latter weren’t enough, they began assassination attempts on every parliamentary and cabinet Lebanese figure who overtly or even covertly opposed the forced extension term of the puppet president. Their galactically stupid calculation was that the elimination of the most vocal and influential voices of Lebanese dissent, even perceived dissent (Harriri) would buy them time in Lebanon and prolong their presence there. In their infinite wisdom, they thought the assassination of Harriri, a statesman billionaire and a well regarded friend of the west, particularly France, would create a wave of short lived condemnation, but it would be back to business as usual before long. The result was the exact opposite of their disastrous plan, they were forced into the most humiliating, precipitous and unanticipated withdrawal under debilitating international pressure. Not only did they lose a flanking, supposedly advantageous military position on Israel, but they lost their cash cow called Lebanon in a few weeks after milking it for 30 years. Their Bekaa Valley 1982 performance vs. Israel in an armor duel was abysmal, sure the Merkeva is a superior tank, but they had the advantage of defensive terrain and couldn’t defend and maneuver worth **** . They were routed within days, lost 30% of their tank force, while the PLO held Beirut for almost a month and only withdrew to Tunis as part of a settlement brokered by the Americans. So the astute observer would ask, is this anti Shock Force this stupid, his more handsome, more intelligent, more astute brother observer would reply, yes it is. Syria hasn’t performed well in any war since its anti crusades commander Saladin sacked Jerusalem centuries ago.

In general, and as prudence would dictate, the above statment is true, but not of the Syrians. In fact, you cannot only assume they’ll be stupid, you can count on it. Look at the comedy of errors they engrossed themselves in prior to incurring dangerous and binding UN resolutions: Firstly, they overtly backed Saddam, the losing horse against all odds, not only that, they opened their border in 2003 for all kind of combatants to enter Iraq, as if such action would influence the inevitable outcome. They were so stupid as to not even calculate that such meddling with a giant is bound to be calamitous or payback would be forthcoming. I guess they couldn’t fathom, nor did they wanna envisage massive American presence at their doorstep, a denial case of utmost stupidity. Enter the Lebanese debacle. They managed to lose France, their lukewarm ally of the last decade or so in a few days by insisting blatantly on forcing a second term for a puppet Lebanese president no one wanted but Syrian cronies. As if the latter weren’t enough, they began assassination attempts on every parliamentary and cabinet Lebanese figure who overtly or even covertly opposed the forced extension term of the puppet president. Their galactically stupid calculation was that the elimination of the most vocal and influential voices of Lebanese dissent, even perceived dissent (Harriri) would buy them time in Lebanon and prolong their presence there. In their infinite wisdom, they thought the assassination of Harriri, a statesman billionaire and a well regarded friend of the west, particularly France, would create a wave of short lived condemnation, but it would be back to business as usual before long. The result was the exact opposite of their disastrous plan, they were forced into the most humiliating, precipitous and unanticipated withdrawal under debilitating international pressure. Not only did they lose a flanking, supposedly advantageous military position on Israel, but they lost their cash cow called Lebanon in a few weeks after milking it for 30 years. Their Bekaa Valley 1982 performance vs. Israel in an armor duel was abysmal, sure the Merkeva is a superior tank, but they had the advantage of defensive terrain and couldn’t defend and maneuver worth **** . They were routed within days, lost 30% of their tank force, while the PLO held Beirut for almost a month and only withdrew to Tunis as part of a settlement brokered by the Americans. So the astute observer would ask, is this anti Shock Force this stupid, his more handsome, more intelligent, more astute brother observer would reply, yes it is. Syria hasn’t performed well in any war since its anti crusades commander Saladin sacked Jerusalem centuries ago.

Here’s the gargantuan, monumental flaw with this “represent the will of [its] people” proposition. You’ve an Iranian governor whose base are the poor and underprivileged that was “surprisingly elected”, not US style, but nevertheless “surprisingly elected”. Since when there’s any surprise election winners in western Asia? The mullahs have an imperfect parliamentary and presidential electoral system that’s better than all the dubious Middle Eastern US allies who don’t even hold presidential elections. Their leaders die with wills to bequeath power to irretrievably stupid heirs. But here’s the farce, you’ve a dictator General in Pakistan who came to power via a coup and displaced a democratically elected president who then represented the true “will of the people”. This Musharraf despot whose scientist A Q Khan proliferated nuclear expertise to the scum of the earth is Bush’s darling today. You think nuclear Musharraf represents the “will of his people”? Do you know if you hold free elections in Pakistan today who will win? That’s right, Bush’s “Islamo Fascists”. “The will of the people” is relevant only if it represents and suits Washington’s moods, direction, dogma and ideology. When the Turkish parliament practiced ideal democracy, upheld the “will of the people”, refused America’s $30 billion package and declined US deployment in southern Turkey, I bet Rumsfeld commissioned the Pentagon to devise a plan to nuke Ankara, after toasting Paris that is. By the way, who won the “will of the people” in Palestinian municipal free elections this week? Who? Hamass.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the invasion and appetite for it issue. But I really broached sanctions and limited ops such as aerial bombardment a la Clinton’s Sudan, or Reagan’s Libya. That is if you’ve the proper intelligence and ordinance to destroy fortified subterranean objectives. Of course the crux of the debate here is why da hell would Iran want nukes, they’re being silly say most, they don’t need them, we’re not serious about invading or attacking. Them crazy mullahs are going for the overkill. Moreover, sophisticated observers such as yourself and other posters know the US limitations today. But try to convince the Iranian generals and their hubristic young president that Bush and Israel are bluffing. Bush has systematically sought to project himself to Americans and the world as a president who means what he says, a firm commander who will make the difficult decisions and act when he perceives Americans are at risk. He proved the latter, convincingly or not, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Who was listening attentively, learning, worrying and watching? Syrian and Iranian commanders, as well as Hugo Chavez and the DPRK. Bush convinced all of the above he’s dead serious, they’ve been preparing for an onslaught and acquiring means of deterrence ever since 03. After all, they hear every other day they’re the axis of evil, they’re a threat to humanity, some of them are champions of “Islamo Fascism”, the US “keeps all its options open”, 200,000 battle hardened US soldiers and their armada are in the back yard. What’s your reasoning that’ll convince the Iranians to stand down and stay conventional again? “The US population would have none of it”, is that it? “We’re “spread thin”? Bush is just yankin’ your chain? Trust us, it’s a bluff? If them Iranians are the Neanderthals that they are, why would they listen to the voice of supposed reason whilst every Sunday morning they’re threatened on American radio and every Sabbath on Israeli satellite television. If you don’t believe the US will attack, prudence would dictate that the Iranians can ill afford to support your beliefs and adopt your analysis as to why an attack isn’t imminent. After all, the US considers a fart over the Atlantic "a gathering threat”.

ahem.... What's meant by "mighty armies" are the ones and only US armies in the region. You've the mighty US Afghan army, the all mighty US Iraq army, America's ally in the war on terror, Pakistan which if pressed will lend its territory for US special ops, and you've the docile Central Asians who will lend air space and landing strips if needed. By the way, I do like your logical and permissive approach to the nuclear issue S_lite.

The threat of pieces of **** Scuds? Seriously, the Israelis are so technologically advanced, last October they successfully tested their own version of the Patriot. They have possession of counter measure American and Israeli missile technology that’ll pulverize any ballistics the Arabs can’t and won’t bring to bear. It’s the other way around, the Arab dictators fear the **** outa Israel and Israel laughs hysterically at their capabilities and cowardice. It’s the Arabs who are petrified of being thrown in the gulf, rather than the Israelis into the sea. Iran is surrounded by mighty armies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asian states friendly to the US, but the Iranians are asked “why are you paranoid”. Even though we call you evil and say you can’t have this, you mustn’t be allowed that, your way of life doesn’t suit us, “why do you fear us.” The Iranians aren’t stupid, they see the North Korean intransigent stance, and they know a bomb is their only salvation. Israel's nuclear arsenal is strategically intended to deter Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, all far away, Islamic states or endowed with an Islamic bend bordering on a gathering fervor. Regardless of all the hype, Iran’s bomb won’t materialize till 5 - 10 years from now if ever. The Israelis and Americans say in months or a year because they seek to instigate, raise “sexed up”, WMD-like fears to sway European, Russian, Chinese and Arab opinion towards sanctions then aerial bombardment. As for Pakistan, it may not stay in the west’s lap for ever, coups can take on an eastern, nationalistic tone too. Nor will Turkey stay non nuclear within NATO till the end of time. Not while the Americans and Israelis keep making love with the Kurds down south, not while the Kurds make autonomous deals with Norway to develop potential energy and oil fields in northern Iraq. It all stinks of statehood vis a vis the Turks, they won’t stay quite indefinitely. World peace can only be achieved by nuclear proliferation rather than non proliferation. Everyone will be afraid of everyone else, no one would dare mess with his foes for fear of mutual annihilation. Look how the Indians and Pakistanis are flirting and talking, how the Americans respect the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans to an extent, how England is cordial with France. There is no such thing as crazy dictators with a bomb, dictators are crazy about life, absolute power and riches, not their demise. People often said Kaddafi was crazy, was his last move what that is? Had Saddam known the US would intervene when he swallowed Kuwait, he woulda never crossed. Had Kuwait been nuclear-powered he woulda never crossed. [ December 16, 2005, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: El_Operative ]

Why do you think that is? You make it sound like the Israelis are doing the Arabs you speak of a favor. It’s like gloatingly saying, you know, the Bush administration does allow native Americans to live in the US. The Arabs that live in Israel are called the Arabs of 1948, they lived in Palestine before the Protestant reformation and in biblical days en masse, supplanting them from Nazareth and environs is like forcibly awarding your Iowan farm to Venezuelan nationals. Their demographics give the Israelis chills of horror. You think native Americans wouldn’t like to see Anglo Americans disappear off the face of the earth? State legislators never end placating natives and making their notables rich by granting lucrative gaming entitlements to reservations. Guilt perhaps? A lot is said of Arab hatred of Israelis, but the hatred is mutual and the root cause is never touched upon. No Israel existed before the 1940s, it’s an Anglo transplant. The Israelis are nearly doing to the Arabs of 1948 and their brethren in the West Bank what the Nazis did to Jews in Poland. Arabs and Jews of Sephardic, non European origin are treated as 3rd and 10th class citizens respectively in the Jewish state. It’s vastly disingenuous and uninformed to think neighboring Arab dictators are a threat to Israel or even desire to threaten it. Iran isn’t an Arabic nation, it’s Persian. The Arab armies are there to oppress, subjugate and smash Arab nationals. If it wasn’t for fear of popular Arab opinion, Arab dictators would seek sexual relations with Sharon. They want his stamp of approval. Look at Iraq today, it’s crawling with Israeli intelligence officers and business interests.

For the record, Hezbollah doesn’t possess, nor does it have any need for a piece of crap rocket like Kassam. The Kassam rocket is a homemade Palestinian rocket, manufactured in machine and tool shops under debilitating Israeli occupation. In fact, Hezbollah wouldn't be able to procure one even if it sought to. Hezbollah has possession and access to much more sophisticated and deadly surface-to-surface Russian rockets and ATGMs. Some 12000 of them supplied by Iran by way of Russia and the DPRK. These rockets destroyed the Israeli Abassiah outpost and the six AVs within it in a matter of minutes in the last exchange. The sole reason why Israel no longer feels adventurous enough to undertake sweeping operations in south Lebanon is because of said rockets and modern ATGMs.

I beg to differ, the US did “give a toss” about the Iraqi invasion of Iran, only not overtly and on satellite television. It was in fact the US who advocated the first Gulf War, it supported and encouraged Saddam to invade, it even supplied him with intelligence and low level military aid to crush the newly formed Iranian Islamic Republic. It was a form of payback for the humiliating ousting of their ally the Shah. Moreover, it was further payback for the US hostage crisis and the failure of the CIA to predict a sweeping Islamic revolution in Iran. The US strategy and covert policy was even more sinister, it didn’t advocate nor seek a swift victory for Saddam, a clear, quick outcome and cessation of hostilities didn’t suit its grand design for the gulf. The Reagan administration sought to sap both the Iranian and Iraqi military strength, it advocated the destruction of both armies and their assets while favoring a pyrrhic victory for Saddam. The US ultimate goal was to weaken the Iranians to a point whereby they cease to be a regional power who’s a threat to its oil rich gulf neighbors. As for Iraq, the Americans’ objective was to neutralize its threat to Israel and allow the Jewish state to maintain overwhelming military superiority in the Mid East. As we all know today, neither US objectives were satisfactorily achieved. And had it not been for US intervention in 1990, the Iraqi objective would’ve failed miserably. The Iranians presently are a regional power who’s heading nuclear. And unlike what the US predicted, the Iranians materialized into a military threat to Israel rather than their gulf neighbors. Moreover and ironically, it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait, a country that feared Iran and which the US was trying to protect from Iranian aggression and hegemony. In consequence, the Iraqi leader came out of a war with a huge, albeit ineffective military machine, but no resources to pay for its maintenance and the enormous debt he acquired. So right about then, Kuwait looked real good to him, and again who had no objection to and encouraged his new adventure? You guessed it.