View Poll Results: What rules of engagement should prevail?

Voters
24. This poll is closed
  • Very Severe

    3 12.50%
  • Severe

    2 8.33%
  • 3

    1 4.17%
  • Moderate

    2 8.33%
  • 5

    3 12.50%
  • 6

    3 12.50%
  • Fairly Minimal

    6 25.00%
  • Minimal

    3 12.50%
  • g1

    1 4.17%
  • g2

    0 0%
Results 1 to 30 of 46

Thread: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Jillian & Allison's Daddy Senior Member Don Corleone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    7,588

    Default Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian
    There is the principle of proportionate violence. In Palestine, Israel was firing more than 10x the number of shells as they had been receiving. We all know what's been happening with Lebanon.

    If Hezbollah had fired 20 rockets into civilian areas (military targets don't count), Israel would be justified in sending back a similar number, perhaps even up to 2x or 3x. The Lebanese themselves were expecting that kind of response, so even they would not have complained had the Israelis retaliated thus and inflicted civilian casualties. But Israel, as is their wont, overdid it exponentially. If they wanted to take their gloves off, they should have declared war on Lebanon before going in.
    Now this I understand. Too many barrages, too many places hit that weren't confirmed to be Hezbollah occupied at the time of the launch, yes, I agree. I got the impression from Duke John's post that his position is "Well, since Israeal seems to miss and hit the wrong targets, no more firing artillery into Lebanon". That I don't understand. Proportionality of response is an important consideration.

    I'd be really interested in Redleg's opinion, as an artilleryman, why he thinks there's such an excessively high amount of collateral damage in Israel's actions over the past few weeks (and yes, I know a lot of what they're doing is air strikes as well). But honestly, do you think it's that the Israelis are being sloppy/lazy... i.e. "Well, we have an intelligence report from a week ago that Hezbollah might be in that building, go ahead and fire a few rounds at it". Do you think it's intentional? Or is it the nature of what they're doing just leads to a lot of collateral damage?
    Last edited by Don Corleone; 08-01-2006 at 18:59.
    "A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."
    Don Vito Corleone: The Godfather, Part 1.

    "Then wait for them and swear to God in heaven that if they spew that bull to you or your family again you will cave there heads in with a sledgehammer"
    Strike for the South

  2. #2
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Lebanon: Rules of Engagement

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone
    Now this I understand. Too many barrages, too many places hit that weren't confirmed to be Hezbollah occupied at the time of the launch, yes, I agree. I got the impression from Duke John's post that his position is "Well, since Israeal seems to miss and hit the wrong targets, no more firing artillery into Lebanon". That I don't understand. Proportionality of response is an important consideration.
    Counterbattery fire is a tricky thing wihen one does not have physical observation of the target. There is more to it then that - such as response time of the counterbattery fire. For instance how long does it take a Hezbollah missile team to leave the firing site? The answer to this question will inform the individual to why so many barrages seem to miss the intended targets.

    I'd be really interested in Redleg's opinion, as an artilleryman, why he thinks there's such an excessively high amount of collateral damage in Israel's actions over the past few weeks (and yes, I know a lot of what they're doing is air strikes as well).
    The type of ordance Israel is firing near building happens to weaken the structures. As Tribesman alluded to in this thread or was it the other one about the 54 civilians killed, the amount of ordance fired in promity to buildings that lack sufficent re-inforcement to their concrete can cause the building to collaspe. What must be evalated is the size of the ordance, the promity to the building, and the type of building fired close to. For Instance - I don't think Lebanon building codes require a lot of structural steel and rebar reinforcement in their contrete. A sufficient about of ordance fired close to the building can cause structural damage that is often associated with the type of damage of earthquakes. I remember once having to do a report on a wooden house in Washington that was built to close to the Impact Area. Over a period of five years the artillery fire had basically had condemned the house as structural unsound.

    But honestly, do you think it's that the Israelis are being sloppy/lazy... i.e. "Well, we have an intelligence report from a week ago that Hezbollah might be in that building, go ahead and fire a few rounds at it". Do you think it's intentional? Or is it the nature of what they're doing just leads to a lot of collateral damage?
    The nature of the conflict is what is leading to the number of civilian casualities. Hezbollah is fighting and firing from locations that endanger civilians - and Israel is responding to Hezbollah. As long as Hezbollah maintains the initiative, Israel will lose - not in the military sense, but in active recruiting for Hezbollah and in the puplic opinion throughout the world.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO