The Lesson of Lebanon - The Politics Of War - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

The Lesson of Lebanon

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
jim3au		#11	[-]
Posts: 1491 (13-May-2008 07:06:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There are too many people competing for influence in Lebanon. That is why the place has been so unstable. At little expense, a neighbour can put weapons and money into Lebanon and get them killing each other. Outside forces are using the poor benighted Lebanese to play their little games with. It is a game where they compete using real guns but not having any of the risk. Lebanon used to be the Switzerland of the Middle East. Money and banking, trade, education, health services, tourism and gambling, were all businesses that made Lebanon a very rich and pleasant place to live especially if you were Christian but it was where all the rich Arabs went for a holiday too. It is accepted that the Syrians, Israelis, Iranians and US are players there. It would not take much imagination to believe that the Saudis have interests in Lebanon too. They used to holiday and bank there so it would seem very likely and besides, they do not have friendly relations with all the others.
xtvpry		#12	[-]
Posts: 2166 (13-May-2008 07:15:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	What a lame post! Given the number of polititical assassinations which have clearly originated from Syria, it would seem that the Saudi influence, if it exists at all, is negligable.
Zen9		#13	[-]
Posts: 3532 (13-May-2008 12:36:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Saudi's orriginaly gave money to Syria to stabilise Lebanon, the killing of Hariri meant they pulled the plug on those funds, thats why Syria turned to Iran as its sole supplier of cash left. Saudi always had to hold its nose in such dealings with 'heretics' like the Alawite sect and 'godless' Ba'ath Arab nationalists. When they assinated their chief banker it was a step too far. I would'nt be surprised if Saudi money found its way to the anti-Syria movement that pushed them out, nor would it surprise me if they used their influence with other Arab states to put pressure on Syria to leave.
xtvpry		#14	[-]
Posts: 2170 (13-May-2008 21:56:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	...nor would it surprise me if they used their influence with other Arab states to put pressure on Syria to leave. And which Arab states would those be exactly? Jordon, UAE, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Yemmen, perhaps? Nope, don't think any of those have any influence over Syria or if they do, would they be prepared to use it in the way you think. Saudi money found its way to the anti-Syria movement that pushed them Evidence? If the anti-Syrian movement is funded by the Saudi's, why is it so weak today? Round and round we go chasing one red herring after another. Then you demolish your own argument. the killing of Hariri meant they pulled the plug on those funds, thats why Syria turned to Iran as its sole supplier of cash left. Ah! So Syria is not dependent on Saudi Money at all because 'Iran', as you say, is their 'sole supplier of cash'. So by your own admission Syria does not have to take any cognizance of Saudi views because it gets its money from Iran. Your posts are full of bluster - all smoke and mirrors. Last Edited By: xtvpry 13-May-2008 22:09:13. Edited 2 times.
Zen9		#15	[-]
Posts: 3534 (14-May-2008 00:41:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Saudi was paying money to Syria yes, and now Syria is closer if not very close to Iran, why? Because Iran has money and Syria found out that it could do things upsetting to the Saudi's after all. Killing Hariri the Saudis cut the cash, and Syria had two options, go the West (Russia was'nt as rich as it is now) or go to Iran for money. They chose Iran, and are now very much in hock to Tehran and possibly more than a little nervous of being ordered about by a Shia Theocracy of Iranians. Now Saudi would still like to bank via Lebanon, though clearly current circumstances put that out of the question. In the aftermath of the Hariri business Saudi must still have expected to run money though Lebanon and thus would send support to the Ceder revelution. Removing Syria would along with cutting the cash be punishment for Syria, and presumably the Saudi's hoped that with international backing the "Switzerland of the middle east" could be reborn properly. For a moment it even looked like it might happen. Iran, Syria and Hezbollah however had other ideas and so its clear for the moment Saudi must be doing its banking elsewhere, thus the Ceder movement seems paltry compared to the disciplined and well funded approach of Irans proxiy army. The question is thus, does Saudi accept Lebanon is off the cards for banking? Because if they have intentions to return there and it clearly was convenient for them, being far closer to home, speaking their langauge, then Saudi has the money. Easier to diminate and bribe than Dubai, outside the Wests scrutiny, Lebanon was ideal for them. Like a number of Arab states they privately applaunded Israels attack on Hezbollah and can only view with concern how Hezbollah seem intent on dominating Lebanon. It very clear this is not Syria so much as Iran and the Saudi's are not fans of them by any means. As guardians of the 'twin holy cities' and a Sunni sect, they cannot view the Alawites or the Shia running Lebanon in their interests. To the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, being very hardline, Shia are apostates, heretics and worse than Christians. If Saudi wants things to happen in Lebanon then they will. The question is do they.
jim3au		#16	[-]
Posts: 1492 (14-May-2008 01:04:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Xtvpry, I guess that I will find out about what is happening in Lebanon eventually because I know some Lebanese. The things that stick out in the news reports as far as I am concerned is that Saudi Arabia is complaining at every level about Iranian interference. I would have expected them to be complaining about Syrian interference. The author of this article is not a supporter of the Christian Lebanese or the Israelis. http://www.arabisto.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogEntryID=1079 He blames the start of the fighting on factions within the government trying to gain a strategic advantage but eliminating Hezbollah communications and control of the airport. If I was the government, I would like to do that too. Now once the fighting starts, where it stops is anyone's guess. The author makes that point too. Even when the outside players attempt to apply the brakes to the fighting, it has to be obeyed by those doing the fighting. Then all the outside parties have to want the fighting to stop at the same time and maintain that position until it does. That is very tricky. The other thing that sticks out to me is that all the reports have the Lebanese Army as a neutral force. neutral is the correct term, not neutered. The army still seems to command respect from Hezbollah and the other parties. They are not taking it on. The army is using its power and influence to set limits on the fighting. How long that lasts is an unknown. http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL13383311.html This article shows that the Arab league is involved. It shows that a lot of the competition is between Sunni and Shia. When you posted this, "And which Arab states would those be exactly? Jordon, UAE, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Yemmen, perhaps?" you were show unusual powers of perception because you are right. They are all involved to a greater or lesser degree. What I fear happening is that, as in the past, instead of Saudis and Iranians or Saudis and Syrians or Israelis and everyone, shooting at each other, they will employ their particular surrogates in Lebanon. That is why I feel the solution is not in Lebanese hands. However, the Army is still there and functioning. There is still hope. [For Lebanon] Of course, if a person wanted to be plainly pragmatic and unemotional, it is better that the nations of Iran and Saudi Arabia get their surrogates in Lebanon shooting at each other than they start shooting directly at each other's citizens and territory. Much as I do not like the ruling regime in either state, Coalition forces may have an interesting time and oil prices would reach unbelievable heights in an unbelievably short time. Still, Iran and Saudi Arabia shooting at each other has some attractions.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply