Who wants to build a strong Army capable of defending Lebanon?

[J. Abizeid]

Originally Posted by Abou Sandal

[fieldset="Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's speach of 29 May 2009"]

Few questions to the loyalists:

1-What did you provide to the Lebanese Army for 4 years in power, other than empty promises and fake slogans?

2-How many weeks would you give before seeing the opposition equipping the Army with heavy defensive weaponry, once in power?

3-Would you accept to ask Iran to provide the Lebanese Army with the needed weapons? If yes, would you ask Sanioura government to do it? And if he still refuses, what would your position be?

و مرّة جديدة ... سقط القناع

If you are asking the Loyalists to make a decision based on dignity and self determination, Akid, Akid, Akid you are not going to get an answer.

[yaraman]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

Let's be realistic. Iran cannot afford to give Lebanon any of its sophisticate SA systems, such as the TOR/SA18 it recently acquired from Russia. The most Lebanon can hope for is a batch of the shoulder fired Strela 2s or maybe the locally made Misagh (based on Chinese technology). While these will be no match for the IAF, they could be a threat for Syrian planes (which is why Syria never gave the LAF any of its huge stockpile of Strelas).

WAW, I cann't pretend to be a weapon specialist as you are. As a simple witness, I saw the graveyard of 23 MIRKAVAs in Wadi al Hoggeir and some burning Appachies. I looked at the sea, even here in Italy, If I could see البارجة في عرض البحر . you may say it's not enough but I ensure you, the one who's using the arms matters at lot, then comes the weapon.

About the SOL AIR systems , as I understood SHN in one of his speeches , we still have some surprises.

[J. Abizeid]

Originally Posted by Observer

Nothing given to Lebanon is for free. Nothing.

That is not always the case.
Just like any other country, Iran will support Lebanon if a strong Lebanon in the face of Israel is in its best interest which it is now, as long as Iran is targeted by the US and Israel. Lebanon needs to be smart enough to take advantage of this opportunity before the Middle East regional and international politics shift.
As a matter of fact, Lebanon is more vulnerable towards Syria today than during the Bush administration since Obama started changing policies in the Middle East.
In conclusion, If Iran wants to help, take it and run while you can. It’s free today; it might not be free tomorrow.

[Maro]

As long as hizbullah are intending to keep their full arsenal.. the army will be always playing a subsidary role.
Frankly speaking, a strong army cannot run in parallel with a certain hizbullah controlling the south and the southern suburb of Beirut. We should seek a method that integrates hizbullah's potential in the army and make it under the army's command.

[Abou Sandal]

Originally Posted by Maro

As long as hizbullah are intending to keep their full arsenal.. the army will be always playing a subsidary role.
Frankly speaking, a strong army cannot run in parallel with a certain hizbullah controlling the south and the southern suburb of Beirut. We should seek a method that integrates hizbullah's potential in the army and make it under the army's command.

Is this the assessment of a specialist or just your opinion?

Because it's weak as a military tactical argument. And the worst part of it, is that you seem like advocating to keep the Army as it is, until HA is no more.

Which is something that is unacceptable and that we refuse and reject.

[Zayn]

Originally Posted by Maro

As long as hizbullah are intending to keep their full arsenal.. the army will be always playing a subsidary role.
Frankly speaking, a strong army cannot run in parallel with a certain hizbullah controlling the south and the southern suburb of Beirut. We should seek a method that integrates hizbullah's potential in the army and make it under the army's command.

al-Sayed is conditioning the building of the Lebanese Army on a strategic alignment with Iran. Basically, what he's saying is that if the Opposition wins the elections, they will align the country with Iran and obtain the same weapons that Hezbollah has been receiving all these years.

So, in essence, he is integrating Hezbollah into the state itself. If the Opposition wins elections then there will be no difference in Hezbollah's policy and the policy of the government because they will be one in the same.

The West will never arm Lebanon with anything substantial because it will then become a threat to Israel. At the most, the US will arm the Lebanese Army to fight other people within Lebanon and that is it.

It's a great campaign strategy to equate a militarily strong Lebanon with the Opposition. After all, Hezbollah is the strongest Arab military in the region and likely one of the most skilled and advanced infantries on the planet. If the Lebanese Army was made in the same image, I doubt there would ever be a regional strategic threat to Lebanon ever again.

[tigertony54]

Originally Posted by Zayn

al-Sayed is conditioning the building of the Lebanese Army on a strategic alignment with Syria. Basically, what he's saying is that if the Opposition wins the elections, they will align the country with Iran and obtain the same weapons that Hezbollah has been receiving all these years.

So, in essence, he is integrating Hezbollah into the state itself. If the Opposition wins elections then there will be no difference in Hezbollah's policy and the policy of the government because they will be one in the same.

The West will never arm Lebanon with anything substantial because it will then become a threat to Israel. At the most, the US will arm the Lebanese Army to fight other people within Lebanon and that is it.

It's a great campaign strategy to equate a militarily strong Lebanon with the Opposition. After all, Hezbollah is the strongest Arab military in the region and likely one of the most skilled and advanced infantries on the planet. If the Lebanese Army was made in the same image, I doubt there would ever be a regional strategic threat to Lebanon ever again.

right on target.
the iranians has many air defence systems from the us like the hawk and from russia they obtained many sustems including 29 tor m1 units and many new and used s300 pmu.and if sayyed said they will that means they will provide lebanon with all the army needs.so my point is few tor m1 and few hawks and some shoulder fired stingers would be just what the doctor ordered for the lebanese army.my advice is take the offer now not tomorow.

[Maro]

Originally Posted by Abou Sandal

Is this the assessment of a specialist or just your opinion?

Because it's weak as a military tactical argument. And the worst part of it, is that you seem like advocating to keep the Army as it is, until HA is no more.

Which is something that is unacceptable and that we refuse and reject.

My point was clear.. we cannot go on having two armies operating separately.. I know that dismenteling hizbullah would be a big favor for israel... but at the same it seems illogical to have a party running those military activities on its own.
The hizbullah will be often criticized untill they give up their weapons.

that's why it's essential to reach an agreement by which the hizbullah gradually tries to integrate itself into the lebanese army, along with their militants and sophisticated weapons.

[Youchka]

Originally Posted by Ashrafieh_LF

1) Aid from the US, France and Russia.
2) They would NEVER send anything useful. On the other hand they may send their fully equipped armies
3) Yes. Yes. I would stop liking him. :)

Voila, mbasat halla2?

I hope this doesn't come as a shock for you, but 40 year old hammers and bullet proof jackets are not called neither aid nor weapons.