The following site is not always reliable, so if any facts are wrong let me know.
What is the significance of this?
December 11, 2010: Wikileaks confirmed yet another suspected, but never confirmed, relationship between Lebanon and Israel. American diplomatic reports from 2008 detail discussions between the Lebanese defense minister and American officials. The Lebanese minister discussed how Israel could hit key Hezbollah targets, and cripple the Iranian backed Shia force. The minister also believed that Israel could take out Hezbollah without enraging the rest of Lebanon if the fighting was confined to Hezbollah held areas. It was also important that targets in Christian Lebanese areas not be bombed. While most Lebanese are hostile to Israel, they are also uneasy about the Iranian supported Hezbollah militia. Hezbollah gunmen basically control most of southern Lebanon, and the government feels unable to take on the Iranian backed force.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20101211.aspx?comments=Y
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe LA Times also confirms the story:
The following site is not always reliable, so if any facts are wrong let me know.
What is the significance of this?
December 11, 2010: Wikileaks confirmed yet another suspected, but never confirmed, relationship between Lebanon and Israel. American diplomatic reports from 2008 detail discussions between the Lebanese defense minister and Ameri ...[text shortened]... n backed force.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20101211.aspx?comments=Y
In a separate American cable, Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr is described as giving American diplomats advice to pass on to Israel for any Israeli attack on Hezbollah and vowing that the Lebanese army would stay out of such a fight.
"Murr is trying to ascertain how long an offensive would be required to clean out Hizbollah," said the March 2008 cable from former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Michele Sison to Washington. The Lebanese army "will move to pre-position food, money, and water with these units so they can stay on their bases when Israel comes for Hizbollah — discreetly, Murr added."
Within weeks of the conversation, Hezbollah, accusing Lebanon's pro-Western factions of collaborating with the U.S. in an attempt to destroy it, would stage a massive armed takeover of Beirut in weeklong fighting that ended only after Qatar brokered a truce that granted the Shiite militia and political organization effective veto power over major Lebanese government decisions.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/03/world/la-fg-lebanon-war-20101203
I remember at the time that Hezbollah was accused of fabricating information that officials in the Lebanese government were collaborating with Israel to strike at Hez. Turns out it was true. Hezbollah is very popular in Southern Lebanon; in the last election, it and its allies won every seat in that area.
Some related info...
Among the items publicized by Wilileaks (stolen American diplomatic messages) was confirmation that Israel was also trading with Iraqi Arabs, as well as the Kurds. The goods were shipped to Jordan (which openly trades with Israel), then quietly move to Iraq. The Israeli advice includes practical methods of running a state (like Israel) containing several different religious and ethnic groups. The Israelis have been discreetly active in the Kurdish north since the 1990s.
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20101211.aspx
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWikileaks rules.
The following site is not always reliable, so if any facts are wrong let me know.
What is the significance of this?
December 11, 2010: Wikileaks confirmed yet another suspected, but never confirmed, relationship between Lebanon and Israel. American diplomatic reports from 2008 detail discussions between the Lebanese defense minister and Ameri ...[text shortened]... n backed force.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20101211.aspx?comments=Y
Originally posted by no1marauderI can't imagine why anyone would find the likes of Hezbollah and Iran abhorrent.
It's interesting that the diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks are most damaging to Arab leaders who have been secretly conspiring with the US to take actions that their own people find abhorrent.
Originally posted by no1marauderIts like removing Saddam. No one liked him in the Arab world and was recognized broadly as a threat to peace in the region. However, with such ingrained bigotry and hatred towards the US and Israel, most probably would not agree to have them involved in removing Beelzebub himself from the region.
Do you think the average citizen in Arab countries want their leaders to conspire with the US and Israel on how to attack Hezbollah and Iran?
At the same time, however, the world looks to the US to secure peace in other regions around the world like Korea and Somolia and the Sudan. In fact, they often think its their job and responsibility to police the world, however, just stay out of the Middle East. Crazy isn't it?
Originally posted by whodeyYou sure are if you believe that crap.
Its like removing Saddam. No one liked him in the Arab world and was recognized broadly as a threat to peace in the region. However, with such ingrained bigotry and hatred towards the US and Israel, most probably would not agree to have them involved in removing Beelzebub himself from the region.
At the same time, however, the world looks to the US to se ...[text shortened]... responsibility to police the world, however, just stay out of the Middle East. Crazy isn't it?
Originally posted by whodeySee? It's this mentality that's gonna get you ass banged everytime on the international arena.
You tell me. Who in the region liked Saddam around? Who else likes trouble makers like Hezbollah and the Iranian regime around? I'm sure you can find them in Wikileaks if they exist.
Let me attempt to spell it out for you:
Just because people didn't like Saddam, doesn't mean they did like you.
Take a step back and consider this:
"Your enemy's enemy isn't always your friend."
Shocking. Isn't it.
Practically? Just because lots of Iranians don't like the Iranian regime, does not mean they do like the US regime or even want it anywhere near them.
Originally posted by shavixmirEven though the US eventually turned on Saddam, its not likely the Iranians will easily forget who helped him become that thorn in their side.
.........Practically? Just because lots of Iranians don't like the Iranian regime, does not mean they do like the US regime or even want it anywhere near them.
Originally posted by kmax87But he was cute for a while? 🙂
You dont necessarily like the attack dog you train up to kill your enemy. And when it looks like biting the hand that fed it {an oil bourse trading in Euros} then the attack dog had also outlived its usefulness.
Your posting is one reason why I like Wikileaks.