Lebanon 🇱🇧 Was the Syria 🇸🇾 of the 80s
Foreword:
This was originally written on Sunday October 16, 2022. I originally wrote this in response to a video that Cody had done on his alternate history channel, AlternateHistoryHub, about the Soviet-Afghan War 🇦🇫☭. Specifically, it was in response to a comment he had made regarding the war when he said that it was the "Syria 🇸🇾 of the 80s" due to the presence of foreign fighters in the conflict, including Islamists ☪️, joining to fight the Soviets ☭. And I just couldn't help but disagree more. Afghanistan 🇦🇫 was not the "Syria 🇸🇾 of the 80s," Lebanon 🇱🇧 was.
When you look at the conflicts that took place around this time in the Middle East and Central Asia, which is where the Soviet-Afghan War 🇦🇫☭ took place, the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 is probably the most similar to the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾 of today. Like the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾, it was a multifaceted and multiparty conflict, including many militia groups and insurgent groups all vying for control of this one country, Lebanon 🇱🇧 in this case, or at least, trying to kill each other.
And it included many foreign fighters who joined the fray and foreign powers that intervened (directly or indirectly) in the war to make sure that it went their way, and didn't spiral out of control and spill over into other countries. And like Syria 🇸🇾, that goal kind of failed since the war in Lebanon 🇱🇧 did spiral beyond anyone's control and it did kind of spill over into countries, though not to same degree as the war in Syria 🇸🇾 did. And it also caused a major refugee crisis that affected the domestic politics of the countries it affected just like Syria 🇸🇾 did. Oh, and Hezbollah was involved in both conflicts.
The big difference I would say between the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 and the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾 is that the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 was started largely over ethnic hatred and religious sectarianism. Lebanon 🇱🇧 is a pretty diverse country, and has a lot of different ethnic groups who all practice their own religions or even different sects of the same religion. You got Arab Muslims ☪️, Arab Christians ✝️, you got a distinct ethnic group called the Druze, Sunni Muslims ☪️ and Shia Muslims ☪️, Maronite Christians ✝️, Greek Orthodox Christians ☦️, Melkite Christians ✝️, and Protestant Christians ✝️. You even got Palestinians 🇵🇸 who were relocated there after all the Arab-Israeli wars 🇮🇱, and after Israel 🇮🇱 gained much more full control Palestinian lands 🇵🇸.
None of these ethnic and religious groups got along with each other in the decades after the country gained full independence from France 🇫🇷, especially not the Christians ✝️ and the Muslims ☪️, and it all came to a head in 1975 when the civil war broke out with the Christians ✝️ and Muslims ☪️ fighting each for dominance. Then the Sunnis and the Shias starting fighting each other, then the Arabs started fighting the Druze and Maronites, then the Palestinians 🇵🇸 got involved and started fighting the Christians ✝️ and pretty much anyone that Israel 🇮🇱 supported. It was a mess, and it is a bit convoluted and a bit confusing.
The history YouTube channel, Casual Historian did an excellent series detailing the entire Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 that goes into way more detail and explains it better than I could. His videos talk about how the war started, why it started, and talked about the foreign powers that got involved in the war.
Most notably Israel 🇮🇱 and Syria 🇸🇾, who both invaded and occupied Lebanon 🇱🇧 during the civil war on separate occasions, supporting their own sides in the civil war, with Syria 🇸🇾 supporting the Muslim factions ☪️, specifically, the Shia Muslim ☪️ factions, and Israel 🇮🇱 supporting all of the Christian factions ✝️. Even the extreme right-wing ones that would eventually commit war crimes and atrocities throughout the war. I mean, all of the Christian militias ✝️ were right wing, but some were more extreme than others. It didn't matter to Israel 🇮🇱, they still supported all of them, regardless of how extreme and hateful they were.
Even though the Israelis 🇮🇱 were Jews ✡️ and had a different religion than them, they still felt that supporting the Christians ✝️ was preferable to supporting to any of the Muslim ☪️ or the Palestinian factions 🇵🇸, who they were staunchly against. Especially the Palestinian factions 🇵🇸, namely the PLO 🇵🇸. More on them later. I'll link the playlist right here. I mainly wrote this to respond to Cody's video, and explain the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 was more similar to the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾 than the Soviet-Afghan War 🇦🇫☭ was.
What mainly separates the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 from the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾. The Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾 started because the people of Syria 🇸🇾 were fed up with Bashar al-Assad and his reign as president due to his authoritarianism and corruption, and they wanted him out. They were inspired by the Arab Spring to try to force Assad out through peaceful protests 🪧, but Assad wasn't having it, and decided to violently crack down on the protests 🪧, using weapons of war against his own people. And it was this heavy handed response that led to the civil war, with the protest movement 🪧 morphing into an armed rebellion. Sort of like what happened in Libya 🇱🇾 around the same time, and what happened in Myanmar 🇲🇲 more recently after the coup happened and the military returned to full power.
The civil war also saw the use of chemical weapons ☣️ by the Syrian military 🇸🇾 against the opposition. Although, the two didn't get along, one thing that Assad shared with Iraqi dictator 🇮🇶, Saddam Hussein was his affinity for chemical weapons ☣️. Both governments had significant stockpiles of chemical weapons ☣️, and neither was afraid to use them against their enemies, real or perceived. I guess, it's a just a weird thing about Ba'athist governments, they just really liked having chemical weapons ☣️ at their disposal.
In fact, the perceived presence of chemical weapons ☣️ was one of the reasons that the US 🇺🇸 gave for why they invaded Iraq 🇮🇶 in 2003. They believed that Saddam had disarmed, and that there was a risk that he could use those weapons against the US 🇺🇸 and its allies, or sell them to terrorists such as al-Qaeda. This was during the War on Terror, in the aftermath of 9/11, fighting terrorism, specifically fighting al-Qaeda and diminishing its capability to attack the US 🇺🇸, was their top national security and foreign policy priority. They extended their fight to countries they perceived as state sponsors of terrorism, and that included Iraq 🇮🇶, a country they had already fought before in the Gulf War of 1990 and 1991. Whether you think it was fair or unfair to lump Iraq 🇮🇶 in with other confirmed state sponsors of terrorism like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan 🇦🇫 or not, depends largely on your own perspective on this period of history.
But, it was all based on faulty intelligence, the reality was that Iraq 🇮🇶 did not have anymore chemical weapons ☣️, as they were all destroyed in the intervening years following the Gulf War. Iraq 🇮🇶 had actually abided by the UN resolution 🇺🇳 to disarm, and cooperated with UN inspectors 🇺🇳, something that Syria 🇸🇾 never did. Meaning that the US 🇺🇸 and its allies like the UK 🇬🇧, Australia 🇦🇺, and Poland 🇵🇱 (yes, even Poland 🇵🇱 participated in the invasion) invaded Iraq 🇮🇶 for nothing.
The most infamous of these chemical attacks ☣️ was the Ghouta chemical attack ☣️ in 2013, when the Syrian military 🇸🇾, on orders from Assad himself, fired rockets containing the chemical weapon ☣️, sarin gas at two opposition-controlled areas in Ghouta, near the capital, Damascus. The attack killed around 281 to 1,729 people, making it the deadliest use of chemical weapons ☣️ since the Iran-Iraq War 🇮🇷🇮🇶. It received widespread condemnation across the Western world, and almost prompted a US military intervention 🇺🇸 in the conflict, until it was called off when the Syrian government 🇸🇾 agreed to a US-Russian negotiated deal 🇺🇸🇷🇺 to destroy Syria 🇸🇾's chemical weapon stockpiles ☣️.
But, Assad lied (big shocker 🙄), Syria 🇸🇾 did not disarm, they did not join the Chemical Weapons Convention ☣️, and the Syrian government and military 🇸🇾 kept using chemical weapons ☣️ throughout the conflict from that point on, blatantly violating the agreement. And Russia 🇷🇺, for its part, did nothing to punish Syria 🇸🇾, or put pressure on Syria 🇸🇾 for violating the agreement, not disarming and not joining the Chemical Weapons Convention ☣️, and continuing to use chemical weapons ☣️.
In fact, Russia 🇷🇺 defended Syria 🇸🇾, Vladimir Putin defended Assad, saying that these other chemical weapons attacks ☣️ after the Ghouta attack were faked, that they were hoaxes, and that they were false flag attacks by the US 🇺🇸 to try to justify an Iraq-style 🇮🇶 invasion of Syria 🇸🇾 to topple Assad from power. None of which was true BTW, the US 🇺🇸, at least under Barack Obama, had no interest in removing Assad from power.
In fact, they were afraid of doing so precisely because of what happened in Iraq 🇮🇶 after Saddam was removed from power by a US-led invasion 🇺🇸. Showing once again that any agreement with Russia 🇷🇺 isn't worth the paper 📄 it's printed on 😒. Even if it's not an agreement that explicitly has anything to do with Russia 🇷🇺 or Russian actions 🇷🇺, as was the case with this agreement over Syria 🇸🇾's chemical weapon stockpiles ☣️.
The Russians 🇷🇺 and the Syrians 🇸🇾 were acting in bad faith when they signed onto that agreement, and it took a few more chemical attacks ☣️ by Syria 🇸🇾 in the intervening years for the US 🇺🇸 to finally wise up to that. The Syrian military 🇸🇾 launched another chemical attack ☣️ in 2017, in the town of Khan Shaykhun, killing around 89 people and injuring over 541, and this one actually did prompt a US response 🇺🇸. They fired 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base 🇸🇾 called Shyarat Air Base, which US intelligence 🇺🇸 believed was the source of the attack.
But, the opposition was pretty united in their disdain for Assad, and wanting to remove him from power and establish a new democratic government. There wasn't a lot of sectarianism or ethnic hatred at first. It really wasn't until ISIS got involved, that things fell apart and things out of hand and spiraled out of control, with the oppositional rebels splintering off into Sunni groups, Shia groups, secular, and Islamist groups ☪️. All of whom were fighting ISIS and fighting each other just as much as they were fighting Assad.
Something that ultimately allowed Assad to cruise towards victory, with him now having the upper hand in the war, and his regime now much more firmly secure than it was back in the 2011-2015 time frame. That, and he also had the help of the Russians 🇷🇺 and the Iranians 🇮🇷, who both intervened in their own way to help him stay in power because it served their interests to do so. It was better for the Russians 🇷🇺 and the Iranians 🇮🇷 if Assad remained in power than if he were removed from power.
You also had an ethnic component added to the mix with the Kurds and the Yazidis becoming a factor. The Yazidis were targeted by ISIS in a genocide that would become to be known simply as the Yazidi Genocide, and the Kurds becoming one of the main groups fighting against ISIS, and fighting against them well. Though, it should be noted as well that many Kurds did actually join ISIS, meaning that they were likely fighting against their own people, their fellow Kurdish brothers and sisters.
In fact, the Kurds were so effectively against ISIS, that the US 🇺🇸 supported them over any of the Arab groups, even the secular ones, risking relations with Turkey 🇹🇷 since Turkey 🇹🇷 hates the Kurds and has been fighting a genocidal war against them for decades, since the 1970s. This led to its own crisis, where the US 🇺🇸 agreed to withdrawal troops from the border in northern Syria 🇸🇾 per Turkey 🇹🇷's request, and then Turkey 🇹🇷 and Turkish-backed Syrian militia groups 🇹🇷 launched an offensive against the Kurdish forces there, with them committing war crimes against the Kurdish population.
This led to outrage, not just against Turkey 🇹🇷 or the Syrian Interim Government (the alternative government formed by secular opposition groups that Turkey 🇹🇷 supported), but against the US 🇺🇸 as well, particularly, President Donald Trump, who ordered that US troops 🇺🇸 be withdrawn from that area, and allowed Turkish forces 🇹🇷 and the Syrian National Army to roll on in, killing as many Kurds as they could.
The reason why this decision by Trump was so controversial is because as I said before, the US 🇺🇸 was supporting the Kurds militarily up until the point, and when Trump made the decision, a lot of people saw it as a betrayal against the Kurds. Trump, turned his back on one of our key allies in the region, all because Erdoğan told him to, that dickhead 🖕. Trump sure admires his autocrats, and will bend over backwards to appease them and give them exactly what they want. He loves autocrats so much that he wants to be one, which is why he should never president again.
This post couldn't possibly be anymore relevant as not only is the 1 year anniversary of the October 7 attack two days from now, but Israel 🇮🇱 has also yet again invaded Lebanon 🇱🇧, after a couple of weeks of tit for tat against Hezbollah, after Hezbollah kept firing rockets and missiles at Israel 🇮🇱 during the war in Gaza. The Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 is what gave us Hezbollah in the first place. They were a Shiite Muslim group ☪️ created to oppose Sunni Muslim groups ☪️ and Christian groups ✝️ in the country, as well as oppose Israel 🇮🇱 and the United States 🇺🇸, who were both involved in the conflict.
They were the group after all that drove the US 🇺🇸 out of Lebanon 🇱🇧 when they bombed a Marines barracks in the capital, Beirut, and President Ronald Reagan was left with no other choice politically than to pull US forces 🇺🇸 out of the country. Ending US involvement 🇺🇸 in the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 for good. But, Hezbollah was also created to allow Iran 🇮🇷 to expand its influence outside of its own borders.
The Iranians 🇮🇷 blatantly took advantage of the situation in Lebanon 🇱🇧 to try to expand their influence in the Middle East and become a dominant force within the Middle East, which they have made great strides in achieving, but still face great opposition from Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦, Israel 🇮🇱, and of course, the US 🇺🇸, which is still entangled in the affairs of the Middle East despite its best efforts to disentangle itself from the Middle East.
Since its creation in the 1980s, Hezbollah has been used as a foreign policy tool by Iran 🇮🇷, to the point where Hezbollah has often to referred to as "an Iranian proxy 🇮🇷." Of all the groups that people, including many Middle East experts, label as Iranian proxies 🇮🇷, Hezbollah is the one that fits that label the most. In fact, Iran 🇮🇷's response to Israel 🇮🇱's actions towards Hezbollah in the last few weeks, including the assassination of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, which was to fire missiles at Israel 🇮🇱, shows how close Iran 🇮🇷 and Hezbollah truly are.
Though, it should be mentioned that Israel 🇮🇱's assassination of Nasrallah wasn't the only thing that pushed Iran 🇮🇷 to launch another missile attack against Israel 🇮🇱, it was also Israel 🇮🇱's assassination of an IRGC general 🇮🇷, Abbas Nilforoushan. It wasn't just the assassination of Hezbollah's leader that made Iran 🇮🇷 do it, it was also the assassination of a general from their own paramilitary organization, the IRGC 🇮🇷, or Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps 🇮🇷.
This was just speculation of mine, it hasn't been explicitly said by Israeli leaders 🇮🇱, but I think that Iran 🇮🇷's missile attack against Israel 🇮🇱 is what motivated Israel 🇮🇱 to finally just go ahead and invade Lebanon 🇱🇧, rather than just conducting airstrikes like they had been doing up until that point. It's crazy to think that they've invaded this country four times now. They invaded Lebanon 🇱🇧 twice during the civil war in support of the Christian factions ✝️, and to oppose the Syrian forces 🇸🇾 and the Palestinian forces 🇵🇸. In fact, it was largely the PLO 🇵🇸 (Palestinian Liberation Organization 🇵🇸)'s involvement in the civil war that motivated Israel 🇮🇱 to intervene.
Then, Israel 🇮🇱 invaded Lebanon 🇱🇧 again a decades later in 2006 after Hezbollah kidnapped a couple of Israeli soldiers 🇮🇱. Then they killed five more after Israel 🇮🇱 attempted to rescue the two that were being held captive by Hezbollah. With Hezbollah refusing to release the two Israeli soldiers 🇮🇱 they were holding hostage unless Israel 🇮🇱 agreed to release some of their prisoners in a prisoner exchange, which Israel 🇮🇱 refused to do, Israel 🇮🇱 was really left with no other option than to invade Lebanon 🇱🇧 and face Hezbollah head on. They started by conducting airstrikes and launching artillery into Lebanon 🇱🇧 against what they claimed were Hezbollah targets, and then launched a ground invasion in the south. This became known as the 2006 Lebanon War 🇱🇧.
And now with this recent conflict between Israel 🇮🇱 and Hezbollah caused by the October 7 attack and the war in Gaza, this makes it the fourth conventional ground force invasion of Lebanon 🇱🇧 by Israel 🇮🇱. This means that Israel 🇮🇱 is now effectively fighting a two front war, a war in Gaza and now a war in Lebanon 🇱🇧. It's crazy how fast things have moved.
I was originally just going to talk about the pager bombings 📟 that Israel 🇮🇱 had conducted against Hezbollah back in September, since that was the biggest story relating to Israel 🇮🇱 at the time, but then Israel 🇮🇱 invaded Lebanon 🇱🇧 and the tit for tad expanded into a full-on war, I knew that I could no longer just focus on the pager bombings 📟. This is now bigger than any of us could've imagined, even just a few months ago.
Indeed, the pager bombings 📟 still disturb me despite them being against Hezbollah, an organization the US 🇺🇸 recognizes as a terrorist organization, because of how terroristic they were, and how they violated international law, and how many civilians they killed and injured. Israel 🇮🇱 did commit an act of terror, an act of terror that the rest of the world seems to recognize as an act of terror, and yet, the US government 🇺🇸 seemed mostly fine with it.
In fact, some in the US intelligence and law enforcement 🇺🇸 praised the attack, saying that it was "tactically genius." And indeed, they set in motion of a chain of events in-which the war in Gaza has expanded beyond the borders of Gaza and Israel 🇮🇱 and into another country entirely, Lebanon 🇱🇧. A country that has international recognition as a sovereign state and has membership in the UN 🇺🇳.
I would say that Israel 🇮🇱 and Iran 🇮🇷 are both equally at fault for why this war has escalated so quickly. Israel 🇮🇱's at fault because of their terrorist attack in Lebanon 🇱🇧 against Hezbollah, then all of their airstrikes, and Iran 🇮🇷's at fault for their missile attack on Israel 🇮🇱, their second one this year. And yet, China 🇨🇳 will still insist that it's all America 🇺🇸's fault, even though the US 🇺🇸 has been trying to put a stop this for pretty much the whole year, for as long as the war in Gaza has been going on 🙄.
It's not known whether Israel 🇮🇱 can handle it or not, or whether their already tarnished reputation will survive or not. There were already questions over Israel 🇮🇱 could handle fighting a long war in Gaza, since it was clear back then and clear now that the war in Gaza isn't ending anytime soon despite the Biden administration's best efforts to try to broker a ceasefire. Now, there's this.
Israel 🇮🇱's intervention in the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 was actually pretty controversial and unpopular with the Israeli people 🇮🇱 back at home at the time, to the point of it being referred to as "Israel 🇮🇱's Vietnam 🇻🇳," as pretty much every war against a guerrilla force that turned into an uncontrollable quagmire was compared to Vietnam 🇻🇳 back then. Now every war like that nowadays is compared to either Iraq 🇮🇶 or Afghanistan 🇦🇫. Whether the comparisons actually makes sense or not.
I mean, there are people who have unironically compared the war in Ukraine 🇺🇦 to both the Iraq War 🇮🇶 and the War in Afghanistan 🇦🇫, though most people who have are people who don’t support Ukraine 🇺🇦 and support Russia 🇷🇺 instead. Pro-Russian people 🇷🇺 here in the US 🇺🇸, and elsewhere in the West, are the ones who have compared the Russo-Ukrainian War 🇷🇺🇺🇦 to the Iraq War 🇮🇶 and the War in Afghanistan 🇦🇫, not pro-Ukrainian people 🇺🇦.
Pro-Russian people 🇷🇺 only compare the war to those wars as a ploy to try to discredit the war, to discredit the Ukrainians 🇺🇦 and their cause, and to discourage and drive down support for aid to Ukraine 🇺🇦 amongst people in the West. Particularly Americans 🇺🇸, since the US 🇺🇸 is by far Ukraine 🇺🇦's biggest benefactor and their most important military ally. Everyone at this point recognizes that Ukraine 🇺🇦 cannot win without aid from the outside power, and will have a much tougher time winning without US aid 🇺🇸 because the US 🇺🇸 by far has the best weapons and equipment of the entire Western world.
As much the Russians 🇷🇺 and their sycophants in the West try to lie to themselves, even they know that the US 🇺🇸 has the best weapons, and that they're leagues better than anything Russia 🇷🇺 has at its disposal. And they know that Ukraine 🇺🇦 can easily kick their asses if Uncle Sam 🇺🇸 just keeps giving them more weapons, and lifts any and all restrictions on what targets Ukraine 🇺🇦 can hit.
Hell, they even recognize in a 1V1 fight between Russia 🇷🇺 and the US 🇺🇸 (without nuclear weapons ☢️), the US 🇺🇸 would totally win. And they know if the US 🇺🇸 were to ever enter the conflict directly, Russia 🇷🇺's chances of winning would diminish entirely, like they'd be guaranteed to lose if that ever happened. Which is why Russia 🇷🇺 is trying everything it can to avoid provoking NATO into joining the war.
But, even just Ukrainians 🇺🇦 with American arms 🇺🇸 is dangerous for the Russians 🇷🇺, and their chances of winning decrease everything the US 🇺🇸 sends a weapon system or lifts an arbitrary restriction on what targets Ukraine 🇺🇦 can hit inside of Russia 🇷🇺 itself since the war has now expanded and spilled over into the territory of Russia 🇷🇺 proper. It's no longer just a war in Ukraine 🇺🇦, but also a war in Russia 🇷🇺 as well.
And pro-Russian people 🇷🇺 want to try to stop this by disparaging Ukraine 🇺🇦, trying to discredit their message and their cause, appealing to isolationism and convince people that war is not our problem and we shouldn't be funding it or arming it. And of course, spreading Kremlin propaganda to try convince that Russia 🇷🇺's the good guy in this conflict, and that their cause is just. Because more aid to Ukraine 🇺🇦, especially military aid to Ukraine 🇺🇦, doesn't help Russia 🇷🇺. It hurts Russia 🇷🇺, and it makes it harder for Russia 🇷🇺 to win, and these people want Russia 🇷🇺 to win.
Pro-Ukrainian people 🇺🇦, on other hand, recognize that the Russo-Ukrainian War 🇷🇺🇺🇦 is a unique war, and that it cannot be compared to either the war in Iraq 🇮🇶 or the War in Afghanistan 🇦🇫, for the most part, because it is so different. Any similarity to the Iraq War 🇮🇶 or the War in Afghanistan 🇦🇫 that war may have, pro-Ukrainian people 🇺🇦 recognize actually comes from the Russian side 🇷🇺, not the Ukrainian side 🇺🇦. The Russians 🇷🇺 are the ones who started the war, not the Ukrainians 🇺🇦, and it was the Russians 🇷🇺 who started it based on false or dubious pretenses, not the Ukrainians 🇺🇦.
And similar to George W. Bush with Iraq 🇮🇶, Putin believed that the war would be quick, and that it would be an easy victory for Russia 🇷🇺. Only for the war to morph into a quagmire that has now gone on for three years (10 years if you count the annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbas before the full-scale invasion in 2022), and has taken well over half a million Russian lives 🇷🇺 at this point from the huge losses they've taken on the battlefield. Losing thousands of men ♂︎ at a time during each new battle, during each new engagement with the Ukrainians 🇺🇦, and claiming just a few kilometers of territory at a time.
Which are all largely due to Putin and Russian commanders 🇷🇺 throwing them into the meat grinder, and showing complete incompetence and ineptitude in terms of their strategy and tactics, and a complete disregard and callousness towards their lives as human beings. They do not care about their soldiers at all, as they achieve the objective and capture the territory they want, they're completely expendable to them. The war has grown well beyond Putin's control. Despite his best efforts to appear as if he's still in control, when he's clearly not anymore.
Could we see something similar happen with this current war in Lebanon 🇱🇧 given how unpopular Prime Minister Netanyahu is with the Israeli people 🇮🇱 right now? I don't know, maybe 🤷♂️. If the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 was Israel 🇮🇱's Vietnam 🇻🇳, then I could see this current war in Lebanon 🇱🇧 becoming Israel 🇮🇱's Iraq 🇮🇶. See, I did it too. People were already saying that the war in Gaza would become Israel 🇮🇱's Iraq 🇮🇶, but I think the war in Lebanon 🇱🇧 right now is a better candidate for that. Since it's an invasion of an internationally recognized sovereign country that will likely lead to some sort of occupation by the invaders, and the main enemy is a guerrilla insurgent type force.
There's actually a movie about Israel 🇮🇱's involvement in the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 called Waltz with Bashir. It's an animated movie that focuses on a PTSD rattled Israeli veteran 🇮🇱 trying to recollect his experience fighting in the war, as he repressed all of his memories from the war because they were just too painful and traumatic for him to bear. But now, he wants to try remember them, and is going around interviewing other Israeli veterans 🇮🇱 who still remember their time in the war and are incapable of forgetting, as well as interviewing journalists and bystanders who were there to witness it and experience it first hand. And even interviewing those weren't there, but observed it closely from a far.
The most notable thing about the movie besides the unique art and animation style is the fact that it ends with real footage from the war, depicting a massacre that took there, called the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which was a massacre committed by Lebanese Christians 🇱🇧✝️ against Palestinians 🇵🇸 and Lebanese Shias 🇱🇧☪️. I've never seen the movie for myself, but I have watched the trailer and seen a few clips from it, and you go check it out for yourself if you're interested. It's a different kind of war movie than you're probably used to seeing, especially since it's animated in such a unique way. Here's the trailer. Also, apologies in advances for the picture quality, the trailer provided by Sony Pictures Classics is only in 240p for some reason. They've never posted an HD version of that trailer.
To shift to something a bit more lighthearted, I learned yesterday that there's apparently going to be a live action Rugrats movie. It's being developed by Jason Moore, the guy who directed Pitch Perfect, Sisters, and Shotgun Wedding. The script is being written by a duo consisting of Mikey Day and Streeter Seidell. Never heard of them, but I guess they've done stuff. Stuff that I probably never heard of or seen, but still stuff. They're mostly known for being writers on Saturday Night Live (SNL), which means that we're going to be getting a very SNL take on Rugrats. Whether you like that or not is up to you, whether you like SNL or not and think a Rugrats movie written by a couple of SNL writers would be good or not. They've apparently been trying to make a live action Rugrats movie for years now, and this is just their most recent attempt.
Something that I missed that caught on my second viewing of The Hollywood Reporter's video on this news is that this is going to be a live action and CGI hybrid, which I can only assume means that the baby and toddler characters will be CG and the adult characters, the parents and the grandfather, will be in live action, played by real live action actors on set. My first reaction to this was, why? Why make a live action Rugrats movie? It makes no sense. It's not needed and no body asked for it. What benefit does it have to the greater Rugrats franchise, and what exactly does it bring to the table? These were all questions running through my head when I first heard this news that they were making this. And now I have even more questions now that I know that it's going to be a live action and CG hybrid.
Why do the babies and toddlers have to be CG? Why not just do them all in live action? Is this just their way of continuing to make use out of the CG models they created for that 3D animated reboot that kind of fizzled out after its second season? Everything about this project kind of baffles me, and makes me question the decision making at Paramount and Nickelodeon. Another thing I'm wondering is if this will be a full theatrical release or just a straight-to-streaming kind of deal because I really could see it going either way.
I would prefer it to be a theatrically released film could that would mean it would have a larger budget, but then it would have much more scrutiny on it than a made-for-TV or made-for-streaming release, including by people who are not fans of Rugrats and have never watched any of the shows in their lives. Yes, I said I shows and not show, I'm counting All Grown-Up!, Pre-School Daze, and the 2021 reboot in there as well. So, maybe a streaming or TV release would be preferable, even if that would a lower budget and cheaper looking effects.
Word of advice to the people making this movie, since you are probably going to make the babies CGI, at least make them look cartoony. Don't try to make them look like realistic babies because it's not going to look right, and it'll just dip into that Uncanny Valley feeling like Renesmee did in the Twilight movies. One of the comments on The Hollywood Reporter video said that it'll be like the Sonic the Hedgehog incident of 2019 when the filmmakers behind the first Sonic the Hedgehog movie had to revise the design of Sonic after the immense backlash towards the original design when the first initial trailer was put out. This is what that comment said,
This is gonna be a nightmarish abomination. Hollywood just wants everything creepy to that they haven’t learned from the Sonic movie incident back in 2019.
—Moonlight-qo5hw, 'Rugrats' Set for a Live-Action Movie From Director Jason Moore and 'SNL' Team | THR News, 2024
I don't agree with that exact wording, and that comment does have some grammatical errors, but I understand the sentiment behind it. So, I hope Paramount and Nickelodeon learned a thing or two from the lessons of Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) and just make their CG characters look cartoony rather than trying to make them look realistic. It's especially imperative with this movie since we're dealing with human characters. We aren't dealing talking alien hedgehogs, or foxes, or echidnas. But, we'll see if this project goes anywhere, if it actually gets made, and if it does, then I hope to god that it's good. I hope it's not too SNL-y, and doesn't like an overly long sketch.
Speaking of projects that may or may not get made, since I've been delving more into Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, I've kind of gone down a bit of a Lovecraft rabbit hole 🕳️, and it led to reconnecting with Guillermo del Toro's yet to be made film adaptation of At the Mountains of Madness, a novella and a seminal work by sci-fi horror author, HP Lovecraft. This is a project that del Toro has been trying to get off the ground for many years, even back to his early days, working in Mexico 🇲🇽. He wrote a version of the movie that changed the setting from 1930s era Antarctica 🇦🇶 to a colonial era Mexico 🇲🇽 and would focus on Spanish conquistadors finding the Elder Things and the Shoggoths, and that ancient lost city there, in Mesoamerica.
But, the version of the project that people are the most familiar with is the version that had James Cameron's involvement and was set to star Tom Cruise and be shot in 3D. That is the 2012 version of the project that was going to have a big budget, and be in, del Toro's words, a "David Lean-scale production." David Lean BTW is the guy who directed Lawrence of Arabia and The Bridge on the River Kwai, though he made Bridge on the River Kwai first, before he made Lawrence of Arabia. Guillermo del Toro essentially wanted to make a big budget tentpole blockbuster horror film, believing that such films were a rarity in Hollywood. No body was really making horror films on that scale at the time and even now, and he wanted to be the one guys who dared tried to do it.
But, that project fell through due to budget concerns, the studio he went to make the movie, Universal was concerned about the budget being too high, especially when there was likely a low box office return due to the limited appeal of Lovecraft's work and the limited appeal of Lovecraftian horror overall. I mean, Eternal Darkness failed for a reason, it was in a subgenre of horror that just isn't that popular with the general public.
It also fell apart due to del Toro insisting on the R rating for the film and refusing to budge on that, and the Universal refusing to greenlight an R rated movie with that big of budget. It was likely to going to cost anywhere from $150 million 💵 to $170 million 💵, or maybe even as high as $200 million 💵 or more. I'm just guessing here, those aren't exact projections of what movie's budget would be. I think the most likely budget for the movie would somewhere around $130 million 💵 or $140 million 💵 at most. Hell, it might've cost a little bit less than that at around $120 million 💵 or $125 million 💵. I'm just spitballing here. So, you can see why Universal balked at that 😨, especially when R rated movies were thought to be much riskier financially than PG-13 movies back then.
Maybe, if they got the budget down to $113 million 💵 or $115 million 💵, same budget as the Star Wars prequels, then maybe Universal would’ve been more fine with it. But, $113 million 💵 and $115 million 💵 was still a lot to ask for an R rated horror movie in the 2010s. Studios were still pretty reluctant to spend even those amounts on a movie that may not be profitable. Especially a movie like this that's based on a property that's pretty niche and not very well known outside of its core fanbase. Hell, it's still not very known even to this day outside of the core Lovecraft fanbase.
Oh, and Ridley Scott's Prometheus was set to come out that same year, and Universal didn't want to release a similar movie around the same time and risk competition, especially the Alien franchise is a much bigger brand than any of Lovecraft's stories, including At the Mountains of Madness. It is a bit insulting that Prometheus helped kill the project because Prometheus had a budget of between $120 million 💵 and $130 million 💵, not a cheap movie at all. So, you're telling me that an Alien prequel that wasn't really an Alien prequel directed by Ridley Scott, the guy who directed the very first Alien movie, could get a budget like that with an R rating? But a Mountains of Madness adaptation directed by Guillermo del Toro with James Cameron and Tom Cruise's involvement couldn't? Between this and the Neill Blomkamp helmed Alien 5, Ridley Scott just ruins everything, doesn't he 🙄?
After that version of the project fell through, del Toro toyed around the idea of doing that big budget version again, but this time at Legendary Pictures (the same place he made Pacific Rim) and with a PG-13 rating. He wanted to get this project made so badly that he was willing to compromise on the rating, and settle for a PG-13 rating, rationalizing that the rating system had become a lot more lenient and you could get away with a lot more with a PG-13 rating than you could five years before. But, that didn't work out either.
Now, after the success and critical acclaim of his stop motion animated Pinocchio movie, simply called Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio, he has tossed around the idea of returning to At the Mountains of Madness now that he has a multi-picture deal with Netflix. Only this time, he wants to do it as a stop motion project, smaller and more esoteric than the version he was working on in the early 2010s with James Cameron and Tom Cruise. And he's apparently in talks with stop motion animator, Phil Tippett to do it. Phil Tippett is the guy who worked on the original Jurassic Park as a "dinosaur supervisor" (that was what he was actually credited as on that movie, I'm not joking), founded the VFX company, Tippett Studio that worked on such films as Evolution (2001) and Cloverfield to name but a couple, and most recently, directed the stop motion horror film, Mad God, a movie that he had been working on for decades.
We'll see if this project actually happens or not. Just because Guillermo del Toro announces something does necessarily mean that it will see the light of day. He's announced so many projects throughout his career, only for 99.9% of them to never get made. Does Hellboy III ring any bells 🔔? I am bit bummed that del Toro isn't going to be making his At the Mountains of Madness movie as a big budget tentpole blockbuster, and is instead making of a lower budgeted stop motion film. If it even gets made at all. When I heard that from watching DisRegarding Henry's video on it, I was like "Damn, that's a shame." I want to see that version of the movie, not some bullshit stop motion animated movie. If it has to be animated, I'd rather be 2D animated rather than stop motion animated. We need more 2D animated movies for adults that aren't anime.
Also, to go off on a slight tangent here, from watching DisRegarding Henry's video on the project, I learned that del Toro refers to visual effects shots (particularly CGI ones) as a "eye protein" instead of the usual eye candy. I guess because del Toro thinks his visual effects shots are more meaningful and actually add something to the viewer, gives something more valuable rather than just be pure spectacle. In other words, he wants his VFX movies (which is all of them really) to have nutritional value rather than just be junk food for the eyes like say, a Michael Bay movie or a Roland Emmerich movie, if we were to take this food analogy to its logical conclusion.
Though, del Toro didn't name any names or name any examples of what he considers "eye candy" or "cinematic junk food," but I'm sure guys like Bay and Emmerich come to his mind. But, I like Michael Bay's movies and Roland Emmerich's movies, most of them anyway, and I don't entirely think it's fair to just label their movies as "cinematic junk food" or as pure "eye candy." Even if Bay and Emmerich aren't particularly concerned about their movies being meaningful or profound like del Toro does.
The least meaningful or profound piece of work del Toro has ever done is probably Pacific Rim, that movie is pure spectacle and popcorn entertainment 🍿. It's not really trying to say anything at all, just be a fun movie where giant robots fight giant monsters. So, in that sense, you could say that del Toro is perhaps a bit of a hypocrite when it comes his stance on "eye candy movies," and making that distinction between his visual effect movies and others.
I'm also sure del Toro feels the same way about superhero movies, particularly Marvel movies, though he isn't one to talk since he directed two superhero movies himself, Hellboy (2004) and Hellboy II: The Golden Army. He even wanted to make a third Hellboy movie as I mentioned before, but that project fell through like the majority of projects del Toro announces that he's working on. Yes, Hellboy does count as a superhero, and the Hellboy comics count as superhero comics, and the Hellboy movies (all of them, including the non-del Toro ones) count as superhero movies. I don't want to hear any arguments to the contrary.
Apparently a lot of hardcore Lovecraft fans hated that script, or at least had issues with it, because it was too action packed and had "too many monsters," but I don't care. I like monsters and I like action, and I would love see a Lovecraft adaptation that has more action elements, showing that Lovecraftian horror doesn't just have to be limited to well, just horror, but also action. You can blend action with Lovecraftian horror without detracting from the horror.
And I feel like del Toro could make that big budget version now if he wanted to since movies like Deadpool, Logan, Deadpool 2, Joker, Deadpool & Wolverine, and now Joker: Folie à Deux, showed that making a big budget R rated film is possible now. Especially now that we've past the point where an R rated movie grossed over $1 billion 💵 at the worldwide box office. Yeah, sure those are superhero movies apart of big franchises with name recognition and three of them are sequels, but still. Maybe Blade Runner 2049 would be a better comparison to make, even if that movie didn't make that much money 💵.
I mean, it's not like the original At the Mountains of Madness novella by HP Lovecraft had any sequels that also needed to be adapted. It's just one fairly self-contained story ☝️. I say "fairly" because it was also sort of tied to the Cthulhu Mythos, and even featured Cthulhu himself as an antagonist. But, the story itself was never followed up on and never had a true sequel. So, it's not a Mountains of Madness adaptation would have to kick off a franchise or anything. It would be just a one and done thing. So, it wouldn't be that big of a deal if it ended up not making any money 💵 at the box office.
Yeah, sure, James Cameron was involved in that version of the project, and if you've read any of my previous work, you'll know how much I despise James Cameron, and it was going to be in 3D and I really don't like 3D. In fact, I don't know anyone who does, unless it's an Avatar movie, which are coincidentally, James Cameron movies. But this project had a lot more other stuff going for it that would've made up for him being involved and would've made up for it being in 3D, and that includes del Toro himself. I have tremendous respect for del Toro, even if I don't agree with all of his decision making, even I don't agree with all his statements or opinions about movies, even if I don't like that he just announces projects without anything to show for them, and without any indication that they are actually going to get made.
To me, it seems he really was just using Cameron to try to get the funding he needed for the movie, like "Hey, I got the involvement of one of the biggest and most profitable filmmakers in Hollywood on my movie, give me all the money 💵 that I want." It's a lot like having Steven Spielberg in your corner, or it how it used to be having George Lucas or Peter Jackson in your corner. These are or were powerful men ♂︎ who could gather enough clout for your project, and make studios sign onto your projects, and basically give you a blank check to do whatever you want.
Plus, James Cameron had the most experience using 3D cameras and shooting films in 3D. And Cameron was arguably the one going around, convincing filmmakers to shoot their movies in 3D, trying to convert them to 3D filmmakers because Martin Scorsese did the same thing, bringing Cameron on board to act as a consultant to help him with shooting his movie, Hugo, in 3D. Cameron also convinced Michael Bay shoot Transformers: Dark of the Moon in 3D.
Curiously though, Ridley Scott did not ask for James Cameron's help when he decided to shoot Prometheus (the film that killed del Toro's 2010s live action version of At the Mountains of Madness) in 3D, though he did use the same 3D camera technology that Cameron had developed for Avatar. So, even if he didn't direct consult on the project, his influence can still be felt on that film and the decision to shoot it in 3D. So, if del Toro was going to shoot this movie in 3D, as was the trend back then, he would need Cameron around to show him the ropes, and show him how to properly use 3D cameras and shoot live action photography in 3D.
Besides, even if the movie was in 3D in theaters, it would still be available 2D since 3D movies have had a 2D version that you could watch if you didn't like 3D. And it would end up being in 2D anyway when it was released on home media. Yeah sure, it might've had 3D Blu-Ray 💿 too, but those were niche, and only certain people had 3D Blu-Ray players 💿 and had 3D TVs and 3D glasses to watch them with. It was not something that would've been available the majority of consumers.
Most people would probably end up owning the 2D version on Blu-Ray 💿 rather than the 3D version, as usually the case back then. That's why 3D died out so quickly after it became big with James Cameron's Avatar. It was not the "future of cinema" as some were erroneously saying back then, it was a fad, just as it had been in the 50s and the 80s. And just like in those other decades where 3D was a fad, it quickly died out in the mid-to-late 2010s because people got sick of it, they got sick of having to wear those dumb glasses, and now no body cares about 3D anymore.
Most movies now are released in 2D, and don't even bother with 3D. Again, the only time people actually care about 3D is when James Cameron does it with one of his Avatar movies. When Avatar: The Way of Water 💦 came out, all of a sudden, you had all these people making the case for 3D, saying that you had to watch the movie in 3D, and that there was no other way to watch it if you wanted to really watch it the way it was intended. Just like they said for the first movie, and like they'll probably say for the third movie as well, Avatar: Fire and Ash 🔥.
It was also released in HFR (high frame rate) in theaters with 48 FPS (frames per second). Though like with The Hobbit films, this didn't really catch on, and hardly anyone saw the movie in 48 FPS. No one was telling you had to watch it 48 FPS, just that you had to watch it in 3D. Because let's face it, no body wanted to see a movie in frame rate that made it look like soap opera, which is what 48 FPS does. It makes movies look like soap operas, just completely unnatural. The preferred frame rate for movies is 24 FPS, 30 FPS is kind of pushing it, but anything above that makes movies look really strange and unnatural, like 48 FPS or 60 FPS, which is the preferred frame rate for video games. So, 60 FPS for games and 24 FPS for movies and TV shows (that are not soap operas).
I really just want to see that mutated penguin 🐧 that they drew concept art and built a maquette for, it looked so cool, and that pre-vis animation test that they did for one of the Shoggoths and Guillermo del Toro put out recently looked really cool, I want to see what it would've looked like finished, in movie. If del Toro don't do a big budget blockbuster version of At the Mountains of Madness, then maybe I will someday. I will do it myself!
Or at least I might do a big budget movie with Lovecraftian horror elements, to make up for del Toro abandoned his original vision for his version of At the Mountains of Madness in favor of a smaller-scale stop motion version on Netflix, the worst streaming service out there right now. Maybe, I might make a movie out of Eternal Darkness, who knows? Though, given the way the story of that game is told, it would probably more suited for a TV series with multiple episodes. I will make this happen, mark my words 😤! Not really…don't mark my words, I'm just trying to be dramatic for this bit.
—
In his video on the Soviet-Afghan War 🇦🇫☭, Cody from AlternateHistoryHub said that Afghanistan 🇦🇫 was the "Syria of the 80s 🇸🇾" because of all the foreign fighters that were pouring into the country to fight the Soviets ☭. But, after watching more videos about the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧, I completely disagree with that statement. Afghanistan 🇦🇫 wasn't the Syria of the 80s 🇸🇾, Lebanon 🇱🇧 was the Syria of the 80s 🇸🇾; and also the 70s since the war technically started in the 70s. Think about it, just like the still ongoing Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾, the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 was an overly complicated war that involved numerous factions that went in and out of the conflict.
The conflict involved a lot of sectarian and ethnic violence, a lot of bloody massacres 🩸, atrocities, war crimes, and widespread terrorism, just like the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾. The only difference is that the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 was driven primarily by sectarianism and ethnic hatreds, whereas the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾 was mainly driven by the need to topple a brutal dictator who's more than willing to kill his own people in order to stay in power. It's just the war went on for so long that it evolved into a more sectarian and ethnic conflict with the involvement of all the Islamist groups and the involvement of the Kurds, an ethnic minority that has been historically persecuted by the Muslim majority states ☪️ in the Middle East, including Turkey 🇹🇷.
Speaking of which, there were of course lots of foreign fighters that poured into Lebanon 🇱🇧 to fight for the numerous militia groups that were in the conflict, mostly from Iran 🇮🇷 and Syria 🇸🇾. The most notable faction was the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO 🇵🇸, which called for Palestinian independence 🇵🇸 and the complete and utter destruction of Israel 🇮🇱. They committed all sorts of terrorist attacks in Lebanon 🇱🇧 and throughout the Middle East and North Africa, all in the name of the Palestinian cause 🇵🇸✊. In fact, they were one of the main factors that contributed to Israel 🇮🇱's involvement in the war in Lebanon 🇱🇧.
Hezbollah is another faction that was heavily involved in the conflict. For those who don't know, Hezbollah is a Shiite Islamist militia group and political organization that was created in Lebanon 🇱🇧 and is based in Lebanon 🇱🇧 and was heavily inspired by the Islamic Revolution ☪️ in Iran 🇮🇷 in 1979. In fact, it was created in part by the Iranians 🇮🇷, and is widely seen as a proxy group for the Iranians 🇮🇷 that carries out Iranian foreign policy interests 🇮🇷 without having the Iranian military 🇮🇷 get directly involved; despite how much the Iranian government 🇮🇷 and Hezbollah themselves deny all that.
It is definitely hard to ignore or deny the connections that Hezbollah has to Iran 🇮🇷, especially because their symbol is pretty much the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) symbol, and it has received a lot of military training and financial support from Iran 🇮🇷 over the years since its creation. It has even pledged loyalty to the Supreme Leader of Iran 🇮🇷, both Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei.
It has also been branded as a terrorist organization by the United States 🇺🇸 and many other countries around the world, mostly in the West. It's not hard to see why they're considered a terrorist organization because one of the worst terrorist attacks of the entire Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 was committed by Hezbollah against US Marines 🇺🇸 stationed in the country as a peacekeeping force of sorts. Hezbollah is also heavily involved in the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾, and many of the American airstrikes 🇺🇸 in that conflict were against Hezbollah.
.svg.png)
The Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾 is very much the same where foreign fighters went into the country from all different parts of the Middle East to fight for one of or all of the various factions involved. The most dangerous faction was of course the Islamic State, better known as ISIS, an Islamist Salafist terrorist organization ☪️ that is arguably worse than al-Qaeda. It's pretty much an apocalyptic death cult that is bent on bringing about the end of days by creating as much chaos and causing as much violence as possible.
ISIS is the main reason why the United States 🇺🇸, the United Kingdom 🇬🇧, and France 🇫🇷 were involved in the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾 because they were becoming a threat to the region. They had taken over huge parts of Iraq 🇮🇶, major cities and towns like Mosul, Fallujah, and Tikrit. They of course took over huge parts of Syria 🇸🇾, cities, towns, and provinces like Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor, Homs, Halab, Idlib, Hamah, Damascus, and Latakia.
It got to the point that ISIS was able to form a unrecognized quasi-state (a caliphate) out of the Syrian and Iraqi territories 🇸🇾🇮🇶 they captured, and people were saying at the time that the border between Syria 🇸🇾 and Iraq 🇮🇶 could disappear as result of ISIS and their self-declared caliphate. And they were coming a threat abroad, as they committed all sorts of terrorist attacks around the world, most notably France 🇫🇷, in Paris. The attacks in Paris in 2015 were really the straw that broke the camel's back 🐪 for the United States 🇺🇸 and the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 and made them decide to intervene in Syria 🇸🇾 and Iraq 🇮🇶.
The United States 🇺🇸 was supporting various militia groups in the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾, funding them 💵 and giving them weapons and equipment to fight ISIS. But, the United States 🇺🇸 did do plenty of the fighting against ISIS themselves in both Syria 🇸🇾 and Iraq 🇮🇶, as they deployed a thousand troops to Syria 🇸🇾, and carried numerous airstrikes against them. In fact, ISIS is the second most air struck group by the United States 🇺🇸 in the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾 next to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed proxy militia group 🇮🇷.
The only difference is that with the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾, you had a lot more foreign fighters from outside the Middle East join the conflict, including from parts of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Also, just like the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾, in its more active and destructive years, there were a lot of foreign powers involved in the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧, and some even used it as a proxy war for each other.
In the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧, you had Israel 🇮🇱 and Syria 🇸🇾, which were the main ones, but you also had the United States 🇺🇸, France 🇫🇷, Italy 🇮🇹, Iran 🇮🇷, and even the Soviet Union to a limited degree. Keep in mind too that Iran 🇮🇷 and Iraq 🇮🇶 were fighting own their war with each other at the same time that the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 was going on. When it comes to Israel 🇮🇱's involvement in the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧, it actually occupies the same position in Israeli history and culture 🇮🇱 as the Vietnam War 🇻🇳 does in American history and culture 🇺🇸. Like, it's perceived the same way, and it's often labeled as Israel 🇮🇱's Vietnam 🇻🇳.
In the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾, you of course had Iran 🇮🇷 and Russia 🇷🇺 as the main ones, but also the United States 🇺🇸, the United Kingdom 🇬🇧, France 🇫🇷, Turkey 🇹🇷, Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦, Jordan 🇯🇴, and even Israel 🇮🇱, though to a very limited degree. And just like the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾, the Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 was a seemingly endless conflict that lasted decades and didn't come to actual end until the early 1990s, even though it started in 1975, causing all sorts of death and destruction for the Lebanese people 🇱🇧, and causing a refugee crisis.
The difference between Lebanon 🇱🇧 and Syria 🇸🇾 is that Lebanese Civil War 🇱🇧 ended, while the Syrian Civil War 🇸🇾 is still ongoing, and no one knows for sure when it's going to end. But, it is noticeably winding down, compared to what it was in the early-to-mid 2010s.
.svg.png)
.svg.png)
.svg.png)
The wars that are actually comparable to the Soviet-Afghan War 🇦🇫☭, or rather the Soviet-Afghan War 🇦🇫☭ is comparable to are the Vietnam War 🇻🇳 first and foremost (it is often referred to as the Soviet Union ☭'s Vietnam 🇻🇳), the American War in Afghanistan 🇺🇸🇦🇫 (or NATO War since it involved the entire NATO alliance, not just the US 🇺🇸), and the current ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War 🇷🇺🇺🇦, which started out as small, limited conflict in the Donbas between the Ukrainian military 🇺🇦 and pro-Russian separatists. And then it became a full-scale war between Russia 🇷🇺 and Ukraine 🇺🇦 when Russia 🇷🇺 invaded the country on February 24, 2022.
Comments
Post a Comment