Gee whiz, ma

SeVeR · August 5, 2008

I'm pretty sure that Israel is still in violation of the UN right? They need to give back the land they took in 1967, and the additional illegal settlements since then.

1 & 2: What Finland said. I couldn't have put it better myself.

3. It's not politics, it's corruption. Although i like to say: In America power doesn't corrupt, it's a pre-condition for getting into power in the first place. Let me elaborate quickly. Truman was getting slaughtered within the Jewish controlled press, he made a U-Turn on his Middle East policy, gave birth to Israel, and got re-elected for a second term as President on the back of some VERY favourable press coverage. If that's not corruption then i don't know what is.

I think we all know that if America were to have gone the other way at the UN vote, then at least 20 other countries would have followed suit (Europe and South America). Even so, that's only one point from many. South America were given as much say in the future of Palestine as the countries of the Middle East were. War-torn economies from around the world, who were now utterly dependent on the one country that decided to stay out of the war for 2-3 years whilst wracking up billions of dollars in loans, were given a vote. What were the going to do with it? The vote was a sick joke for so many reasons, and the product of American corruption. It pretty much hinged on America.

4. NBV, i never said you did, it was more of a statement on my part. Finland, I actually started a topic on this "Anti-semitism" rubbish a few months back when this article came out: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...lBrandChannel=0

..sporting statements such as: "The distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that -- whether intentionally or unintentionally -- has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel's perceived faults to its Jewish character,"

and this: "Such unremitting criticism of Israel "intentionally or not encourages anti-Semitism." This hostility can translate into physical violence, as in the surge in anti-Semitic incidents worldwide during the 2006 war between Israel and the Shi'ite Muslim group Hezbollah, the report said."

Whilst mentioning Ahmadinejad and Chavez and the leaders of any government not on America's Christmas card list.

In Iran they distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism, and we should do the same. When articles such as this one come out i feel sick to my stomach, because even if i can see straight through it, i know millions of Americans are going to think criticism of Israel is racist.

PaRa$iTe · August 6, 2008

Military action is military action, regardless of who has approved of it.

NBVegita · August 6, 2008

Agreed para, but that does not mean all military action = act of war.

As I said sever, welcome to politics. If you can find me a non-corrupt politician then he's not a very good one. You just so happen to disagree with the politics.

And 67 was yet again a result of a war. Not saying I support it one way or another, but land becomes a fluid thing when you go to war.

AstroProdigy · August 7, 2008

Veg, rofl @ you linking to National Review. Also, while you are correct in saying that Hezbollah started the aggression in 2006, they did not start the war in 2006. What most people don't realize is that the 2006 war was just a long-overdue continuation of Israel's Ben-Gurion policies, where massive (ie, 75-100 people dead) raids would be planned so that Israel could "retaliate" whenever any of the Arab states did anything.

Astro -

Syria won't fall apart. We've spent 91 years waiting for oppressive regimes to fall apart, but, with the exception of the USSR, Iraq, and various African states, very few significant "regime changes" have actually occurred, and the revolutionary regimes that replace them often pursue very similar policies. Besides, as Iraq showed us, war is a very good thing for authoritarian states, unless the population is already very pacificistic, as with Russia.

Egypt is dependent on the US, but remember that N!@#$%^&*er went to the USSR in the 50s, against his better instincts. I see no reason why the current fairly similar (though non-populist, and with few democratic pretenses) government couldn't become Venezuela 2.0 and get support from Russia, China, or any of the various arms-dealing states, such as South Korea or Singapore. And we also saw back in 1973 that Egypt has a much stronger long-war capability than Israel does.

Hamas is weak, but they can blow away hundreds of Israelis within days using suicide bombs, and they could probably break down blockades, divert military forces, and threaten the Israeli government. Remember how the government panicked when Saddam sent a few dozen SCUDs at them? Imagine having a full-blown paramilitary insurgency, and being unable to shut it down.

Hezbollah can easily infiltrate into Israel and kill, at the least, a few thousand civilians, which would, as with Hamas, put the government under incredible pressure, and severely weaken the military's position on the other fronts.

Basically, none of these factors could bring down Israel alone, but combined, there's no conceivable way they could lose, except for direct US military intervention. Syria and Egypt could just grind down Israel's military over a few weeks, while the twins (H&H.. how cute) could mop up inside its borders. And I mentioned the chemical weapons because, if Israel felt it was going too far, it is likely they'd pull out the nukes. Knowing you're gonna go too is, as they say, quite a deterrent.

edit - And keep in mind that the demographics have also steadily been moving in the Arab's favor. Israel has to make a final political settlement within 5 years, or else they're going to get run over no matter what happens. So either they have a good peace, a bad war, or a bad peace.

Syria is like Iraq, but weaker. Instead of a 20% Sunni Arab minority running the country it's a 10-15% Alawite minority supported by Iran and seen as heretics fairly universally. Syria probably won't fall apart in terms of turning into multiple states, but there would likely be great upheaval with Sunni Arabs taking over in the end of incapacitating the state in the meanwhile.

The Soviet Union is dead and there is no alternative and there won't be one of that caliber for decades !@#$%^&*uming China continues its trend and maybe even then won't be at that level for Egypt. The only real compe!@#$%^&*ion we'd have with Egypt is from Europe and they won't do what you propose. By the way South Korea and Singapore wouldn't either. Egypt is held together with western support otherwise you'd see a civil war between Islamists and the government. It's hardly capable of running a war against a very disciplined and efficient military.

What makes you think Israel can't shut down an insurgency in Gaza? Israel could end Hamas control in Gaza tomorrow, but it would be billed "genocidal", but if its back was against the wall do you think Israel would care? This is especially since the US will back it no matter what. The West Bank is more under Israeli control than it ever was with checkpoints littering the area so Gaza is the only place where any attacks other than suicide bombings can take place.

Hezbollah has already showed its capabilities in 2006. It can defend its territory and stay alive in an Israeli assault, but coming into Israel would require coming out in the open where it would promptly be annihilated by Israel's vastly superior conventional capability.

Oh come on you have no proof of Israel being defeated by a combined Egyptian, Syrian, Hezbollah, and Hamas attack. Egypt's military is basically at the same level of Israel's despite 11 times the population and it's laughable to compare them in ability to use those capabilities effectively. Syria is a joke militarily and while Hezbollah can defend itself against a limited Israeli invasion going on the offensive is completely different. Hamas can't even defend itself against a limited invasion. This all !@#$%^&*umes that Egypt would even attack Israel for the Palestinians and screw itself in the long term for people they really don't care that much about beyond as a bargaining chip anyway. If Islamists were to take over the US would promptly cut military ties to Egypt and its conventional capability would collapse the way Iran's did after the 1977 revolution. They could barely defend against a poorly led Iraqi military after that and Israel is much stronger than they are. On all sides Israel is under no threat of losing a conventional war and even IF they could they still have hundreds of nukes! Is Egypt going to let most its population be turned to a crisp for some Palestinians? !@#$%^&* NO!

As for Israel being screwed if it maintains its occupation, on what grounds is this? Israel has been doing it quite successfully for decades and the Hamas problems only came as a result of going back on some of that with the Gaza pullout and free elections in the territories. Israeli Jews also have remarkably higher birth rates than any other country in the western world with signs that they could go up even further. On top of that Arab birth rates are continually dropping and with just some development (but not at the level of the first world) they will probably drop to sub replacement fertility or close to it. If you exclude Gaza and just country Israel and the West Bank the Jews will keep a comfortable majority probably forever and may even start reversing the trend so Arab Muslims start screaming "those !@#$%^&* Jews are only good at spitting out babies!" Now I may see what Israel does as morally bankrupt, but that doesn't mean I'll take whatever is anti-Israeli or underestimates them as truth.

There are also sticking points that Israel actually can argue on the ethical side of issues. Who should get to own East Jerusalem with its religious significance to both Jews and Muslims? Palestinians don't want to negotiate giving that up as they want it as their capital so even a complete pullout to 1967 borders plus East Jerusalem wouldn't end the problem and would only give Palestinians a stronger hand to attack Israel for East Jerusalem (as they were empowered to attack Israel from Gaza when Israel pulled out).

On top of that Palestinians are demanding the return of refugees. Do you think the return of millions of refugees is a good idea because it isn't. The refugee problem is only the way it is because outside countries refuse to integrate Palestinians or even let Palestinians integrate themselves. Israel had to integrate almost a million Jews from Arab lands that were forced out by anti semitic violence, but no one cares about that. The same thing cannot be said for Arab countries who have free reign to use populations as bargaining chips. Azerbaijan keeps its refugees from its war with Armenia in terrible conditions so they can perpetuate the "conflict" indefinitely, but Armenians don't do the same with their own.

In Cyprus, where I'm from, when Turkey invaded and pushed out a third of the population do you think my people would have been allowed to keep them impoverished refugee camps to strengthen our diplomatic hand? No we had to integrate them (and by that I mean us since my family were among those dispossessed) and we did, which allowed for the prosperous economy we have there today.

That stacks up real well with the consistent failure of the Muslim countries that did the opposite. Only Jordan integrated Palestinians and that was because they had no choice as Palestinians outnumbered Jordanians and not integrating them would have led to a collapse. You can bet your !@#$%^&* that doing it brought more economic prosperity than they would have had otherwise.

When Christians (and Jews too apparently) have to take in their own they have to do the right thing and provide a future for them instead of forcing them to live in misery as bargaining chips. It's a disgusting double standard that is unhealthy for the global community.

Let's not forget that the difference between Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese is the fake borders drown for them by the British and French. Before that they were all Levant Arabs with an extremely fluid iden!@#$%^&*y with only religion distinguishing them. Even today this is the strongest factor there; its much stronger than the imaginary dividing lines drawn up by the west. What this long rant means is that no Palestinians don't have a right of return to Israel. It's terrible the way they're forced to live in refugee camps, but the blame can be spread all around and Jews who fled from Arab lands won't get the conditions under which they can return in safety so its only fair. The only reason there are so many more Palestinians descended from those who were forced to flee than there are Jews is that they spit out a lot more babies and rewarding populations for having too many kids is a bad idea. Think Kosovo.

Edited August 7, 2008 by AstroProdigy

FMBI · August 7, 2008

Astro, I think you're putting too much stock in Israel for several reasons.

#1 - Israel's military is completely dependent on outside aid for a long (more than a week or so) war.

#2 - Israel's military is still extremely dependent on armoured warfare, despite the fact that everyone west of the Euphrates has an!@#$%^&*ank weapons (and, via Syria, RPG-29s).

#3 - Israel hasn't fought the Arabs in 35 years, during which time Egypt's population has doubled. Maybe its military is "only as good as Israel's" despite having a much larger population, but that larger population means they can throw away as many reserves as they need - again, giving them the advantage in a longer war.

#4 - Israel may not be a paper tiger, but it is not nearly as strong as the west tends to view it. In the potential war I refer to, it would have to fight on four fronts, with an immediately active force of 180,000, and unreliable reserves.

Also - the USSR is dead, but Russia, Ukraine, China, re-export states, and arms dealers would be ready to supply the Arabs in return for money or political influence, whichever they wanted more.

Israel couldn't control Gaza during a war, because they would be taking on a combo professional force and popular opposition with a relatively small detachment of troops. It's a lot easier to control an area when you aren't in a war (thus inspiring the opposition forces and simultaneously weakening your capacity to respond). I would be willing to bet that Hamas has some sort of plan ready to exploit a gap like this.

Hezbollah, if it came out into the open, would rely on a purely unconventional engagement style to survive. It would also spread out as much as possible, to make it impossible for Israel to actually lock it down without diverting massive portions of its military to the cause - not worth it to save a few civvies, military outposts, or square miles of prestige land.

You wrongly assume Egypt would collapse in a war. It would be under pressure, but it would also actually gain strength, because the leadership would be able to take on the anti-Israeli banner and steal the thunder of the Islamists. So long as they ensured secularism post-war, they'd enjoy one of the biggest popularity boosts in their history. Let me say this again - Israel cannot survive a long war, Israel cannot survive a combined assault. This time, Egypt will be able to push directly into southern Israel and have a shot at occupying Tel Aviv - if that happens, a victory for Israel will be impossible.

Israeli Jews might have a high birth rate, but who has that birth rate? The ultra-Orthodox nuts that contribute nothing to the military if they're inducted. As always, the secular population has the best education, is most effective militarily, but also has the lowest birthrate. Also, the Arab birthrate might be "slowing down," but it's still insanely high compared to Israel's.

I find your Jerusalem argument flawed because Israel only pulled out of Gaza when it found itself running into problems. If Israel pulls out of East Jerusalem, it won't suddenly generate problems, only continue the general trend. Besides, why can't they just internationalize it, as most people have been asking for decades?

All the Palestinians will not be able to return, no, but a large number could move back into the West Bank and take back land that the Israelis have been using for the last few decades for settlements. Obviously getting the West Bank as crowded as Gaza isn't a good idea, but nobody's saying that has to happen. As far as the "wouldn't let them integrate" argument, that's partly true, and partly pro-Israel BS. Israel had no intention of ever letting them come back, and several of the Arab countries were suffering large political problems in the past that wouldn't allow them to suddenly take on large minority populations. While that's waned in recent years, they also have greater populations of their own now. I'm sure they would find it easier to integrate the remaining populations if some Palestinians were allowed to move to Palestine.

I don't know why you keep raising the Cyprus argument, because it doesn't apply here. Greece was ruled by a US-backed military government that planned to annex Cyprus. Turkey might have manipulated the situation, but it's not like they were just invading for the !@#$%^&* of it. Besides, that event helped move Greece toward democracy and calm down the east Mediterranean.

And you had nothing to gain from refusing to take them in, whereas the other Arab countries would have had an extremely difficult time and would have gained nothing.

Aileron · August 7, 2008

Okay, so you are !@#$%^&*uming an alliance between Iran and Egypt but not an alliance between the US and Israel? Why not say that if the entire rest of the world declared war on Israel, Israel would lose? !@#$%^&*, while you are at it, lets assume the Mediterranean Sea itself declares war on Israel, and the Israeli infantry has to bilge out their country with buckets in order to prevent Israel from being swallowed by rising water. I'm sure if you can come up with a sufficiently implausible force, you could make your point handily.

Heck, Egypt doesn't even like Hamas right now. Last I heard they now need to fortify that border because too many Hamas nuts are threatening Egypt's interests. Hamas and Hezbollah hardly fight like an organized unit, Syria's contribution to the cause would be minimal, and Iran would need to support a fairly long supply chain.

FMBI · August 8, 2008

I never mentioned Iran.

The only way Iran would get involved was if the US became involved (which you seem to assume would happen), in which case Iraq would see a massive increase in violence within a day or two - and by massive, I mean 15 suicide bombings a day, suicidal base raids, very angry anti-tank missile armed populace, open Iranian intervention massive.

The US and Israel have the same problem (not surprising, since both militaries have influenced each other so heavily) - great for a quick, clear-cut fight, but in a long-term fight, or one against a spread-out (or multiple) enemies, we suck. That's the #1 reason I'm betting on the Arabs if the Levant ever gets hot again. All they have to do is hold Israel down, and they can get in all the punches they want. It's also why I'm so certain Israel needs a political solution, because they're either going to have one while they're standing up, or while they're lying on the floor getting the !@#$%^&* kicked out of them in 10 years.

Of course, if Israel's really desperate to win a war, they can just take inspiration from the old colonial powers or the USSR - they had militaries that could be adapted to a long-term occupation against diffuse enemies, and they didn't even have to kill thousands of civilians (though that was part of the job perk - you could mow down the inferior peoples of the world). However, until that adaption ability comes into play, then it's going to just be too difficult and risky to take too many offensive political steps. This is a reversal of the old situation, where no-war-no-peace benefited the Israelis more than the Arabs. Viva Ironica! (or whatever the word is)

AstroProdigy · August 8, 2008

Astro, I think you're putting too much stock in Israel for several reasons.

#1 - Israel's military is completely dependent on outside aid for a long (more than a week or so) war.

#2 - Israel's military is still extremely dependent on armoured warfare, despite the fact that everyone west of the Euphrates has an!@#$%^&*ank weapons (and, via Syria, RPG-29s).

#3 - Israel hasn't fought the Arabs in 35 years, during which time Egypt's population has doubled. Maybe its military is "only as good as Israel's" despite having a much larger population, but that larger population means they can throw away as many reserves as they need - again, giving them the advantage in a longer war.

#4 - Israel may not be a paper tiger, but it is not nearly as strong as the west tends to view it. In the potential war I refer to, it would have to fight on four fronts, with an immediately active force of 180,000, and unreliable reserves.

Also - the USSR is dead, but Russia, Ukraine, China, re-export states, and arms dealers would be ready to supply the Arabs in return for money or political influence, whichever they wanted more.

Israel couldn't control Gaza during a war, because they would be taking on a combo professional force and popular opposition with a relatively small detachment of troops. It's a lot easier to control an area when you aren't in a war (thus inspiring the opposition forces and simultaneously weakening your capacity to respond). I would be willing to bet that Hamas has some sort of plan ready to exploit a gap like this.

Hezbollah, if it came out into the open, would rely on a purely unconventional engagement style to survive. It would also spread out as much as possible, to make it impossible for Israel to actually lock it down without diverting massive portions of its military to the cause - not worth it to save a few civvies, military outposts, or square miles of prestige land.

You wrongly assume Egypt would collapse in a war. It would be under pressure, but it would also actually gain strength, because the leadership would be able to take on the anti-Israeli banner and steal the thunder of the Islamists. So long as they ensured secularism post-war, they'd enjoy one of the biggest popularity boosts in their history. Let me say this again - Israel cannot survive a long war, Israel cannot survive a combined assault. This time, Egypt will be able to push directly into southern Israel and have a shot at occupying Tel Aviv - if that happens, a victory for Israel will be impossible.

Israeli Jews might have a high birth rate, but who has that birth rate? The ultra-Orthodox nuts that contribute nothing to the military if they're inducted. As always, the secular population has the best education, is most effective militarily, but also has the lowest birthrate. Also, the Arab birthrate might be "slowing down," but it's still insanely high compared to Israel's.

I find your Jerusalem argument flawed because Israel only pulled out of Gaza when it found itself running into problems. If Israel pulls out of East Jerusalem, it won't suddenly generate problems, only continue the general trend. Besides, why can't they just internationalize it, as most people have been asking for decades?

All the Palestinians will not be able to return, no, but a large number could move back into the West Bank and take back land that the Israelis have been using for the last few decades for settlements. Obviously getting the West Bank as crowded as Gaza isn't a good idea, but nobody's saying that has to happen. As far as the "wouldn't let them integrate" argument, that's partly true, and partly pro-Israel BS. Israel had no intention of ever letting them come back, and several of the Arab countries were suffering large political problems in the past that wouldn't allow them to suddenly take on large minority populations. While that's waned in recent years, they also have greater populations of their own now. I'm sure they would find it easier to integrate the remaining populations if some Palestinians were allowed to move to Palestine.

I don't know why you keep raising the Cyprus argument, because it doesn't apply here. Greece was ruled by a US-backed military government that planned to annex Cyprus. Turkey might have manipulated the situation, but it's not like they were just invading for the !@#$%^&* of it. Besides, that event helped move Greece toward democracy and calm down the east Mediterranean.
And you had nothing to gain from refusing to take them in, whereas the other Arab countries would have had an extremely difficult time and would have gained nothing.

#1 That aid won't run dry because Americans and both parties universally support Israel.

#2 Israel has an air force too and won't hesitate to use it to the fullest in a major war.

#3 Israel may not have fought a major war for 35 years, but neither have any of the other countries around it! Egypt would throw away population and would then have Islamists fighting it from within for power. There's a reason no one respects Egypt's military despite its large size. It's US dependent

#4 In your four front war 2 of the fronts are minimal. Asymmetrical warfare is great for defense against a reluctant enemy, but they're complete !@#$%^&* on offense. Syria would easily collapse in a long term war. An !!% minority runs a Sunni majority. Sunni Arabs in that area are conceited and think they're destined to rule (look at Sunni Arabs in Iraq) and here they actually have the numbers. They won't put up with Alawite run incompetence in a long war. When did Syria prove itself to run effectively? It's like Iraq was, but a lot weaker. It has no long term capability.

Russia, China, and Ukraine can't take over US dominance in sales. Egypt would have to reorient its entire military to do so. That's very expensive and would take a long time. By that point sanctions would take care of everything. Ukraine isn't even going to do it since they want to suck the United State's !@#$%^&*.

HAMAS IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL FORCE! IT'S AN ASYMMETRICAL TYPE FORCE! It's weaker than Hezbollah by far too. Israel could incapacitate Hamas easily, but it would probably kill tens of thousands of Gaza Palestinians in the process. Guess what; in a large scale war Israel won't care and neither will anyone else, especially not the US.

If you come out in the open you can't run an unconventional style. They can't spread out anywhere because they'd be in enemy territory. As soon as they came out in the open they'd be blasted. Israel could also retaliate by carpet bombing the !@#$%^&* out of southern Lebanon. When they ran out of bombs they could easily be restocked by the US. You think Israeli "civvies" won't fight back against Hezbollah invading their territory?

Egypt can't run a long war either because there would be discontent at a continuing war. A quick victory maybe, but that would never happen. Islamists want to come into power and they'd dam well do their best to blame Egypt for not having a quick victory. In the long run the US would cut off ties with Egypt and the Egyptian military would weaken.

Even IF they can defeat Israel like you seem to dream they can the United States would come in and beat the living !@#$%^&* out of anyone who attacked Israel. It would do it with American support too as they'd see "evil Arabs" trying to commit a Holocaust. The US may be vulnerable in an occupation, but in a conventional military confrontation the US kicks some major !@#$%^&*. I should hope so too because we spend more than any other country by far. Egypt isn't even hard to push into. It's just a line along the Nile.

Even IF the US doesn't intervene Israel has nukes! You think they won't use them if their country is being invaded? Israel will kill tens of millions of Arabs to save its !@#$%^&* and won't bat an eye about it. Sure the international community would condemn Israel, but there would be no Arabs left to attack anymore.

You seem to be one of those people who gets excited at thinking about Israel's military finally being defeated, but it's not based on reality. Just because Israel does messed up things and you hope it could be ended doesn't mean it will happen.

It's not just the ultra orthodox Jews with the birth rates. Secular Israelis have higher than replacement fertility and the rise in those birth rates is what's been accounting for a rising average. Palestinians have lower birth rates than you think The Palestinian government massively overestimates the Palestinian population and also the birth rates. Those birth rates could converge in 10 or 20 years and in the West Bank settler Jews already have a much higher birth rate than Palestinians. Israel also has a net immigration of Jews while the territories have a net emigration of Palestinians.

Do you think Israel trusts the weak international community that condemns them to protect East Jerusalem's holy sites? The wailing wall is an easy target by suicide bombers if you have a weak force defending it.

The problem isn't Palestinians moving back to the West Bank; it's Palestinians moving back to Israel which is one of their demands.

Turkey was invading for strategic reasons. They also wanted to "protect" the Turkish minority and have sent settlers to colonize it from Turkey to create a de facto permanent annexation. Sounds a lot like Israel! Israel didn't invade for the !@#$%^&* of it either.

How would we have had nothing to gain from keeping the group a poor refugee population and Arab countries did? This is what would have been done if we were like Arabs in that area. The population would be put into underfunded refugee camps. People looking for citizenship wouldn't be allowed to get it and the Cypriot government would cry about the suffering that those refugees continue to face decades later even though it would be the Cypriot government's fault, too for using them as bargaining chips. Cyprus was a very poor country at that time and taking in and integrating the refugees was very difficult. My people worked hard to do it and get where they are today as a modern, first world people because instead of just trying to look like the victims by becoming the villains we actually cared about our own.

Arab governments don't care or else they would have at least allowed Palestinians to integrate themselves. Instead they kept them in camps. Now they !@#$%^&* about something of their own doing. They couldn't care less about those Palestinians they only use them as bargaining chips. There wouldn't be such a crisis if Arab governments just accepted their military defeat and took in their own. In fact you'd have a Palestine of the pre 1967 borders within Egypt and Jordan since Palestinian iden!@#$%^&*y, let's face it, is something that was concocted to create a victim whereas before the conflict they were just Arabs like the Arabs around them. Arab governments now realize that all these games they've been playing have only hurt them in the long run and have only recently started to cut the bull!@#$%^&*.

FMBI · August 8, 2008

On the !@#$%^&*ymetrical warfare:

Hamas and Hezbollah don't have to have the ability to beat IDF commandos one-on-one. All they have to do is spread out, hold territory, and make Israel bomb its own civilians if it wants to eject them. There's plenty of cover in Israel, even !@#$%^&*uming you don't head into the most urbanized areas. I don't think Israel wants to turn its own territory into 1945 Berlin, and, as I said, it cannot afford to divert the aircraft and tanks necessary to pacify those areas while in a war. Think of it as a snake biting you in the ankle while you're fighting a bear with your bare hands.

The nuclear holocaust is an empty threat, because, while Israel might be nutty enough to load up a few strike aircraft with B61 bombs or their equivalent, if it attempts to just blow the !@#$%^&* out of the Arabs, then it'll get hit with hundreds (or thousands) of chemical-weapon loaded Scuds, Frogs, or perhaps even something we don't know about, along the lines of the SS-23.

Egypt won't collapse in a long war, because long here doesn't mean long in most contexts. Two weeks would hardly topple the Egyptian regime, but simply surviving that long in a war against Israel would lead to a political victory, even !@#$%^&*uming a near-complete military defeat.

Sure, I'm excited about the prospect of Israel's military being defeated, just like I'm excited about any country's military getting defeated. I'd like to see their arrogant, overrated !@#$%^&*es get kicked by the underdogs. However, this isn't nearly as unlikely as it seems. Let me run through the reasons once again:

Undependable reserves

Need to spread out forces too far, especially !@#$%^&*uming H&H's entry into the war - there are only so many fighters to go around

3 1/2 decades of relative peace, in which the Israeli military has been virtually asleep - while Egypt has been professionalizing its military

Over-reliance on armour, when, just as in '73, the Arabs have the weapons required to counter it

Belief that if anything goes wrong, the US will be there to help - a US intervention would lead to the loss of Iraq. Worth it?

Loss of strategic position - Egypt is close enough to Israel's centers of population that it could definitely hit them with commandos and armour, and possibly hold them

Now, you might be able to counter that with "Best army in the middle east, H&H are useless, Egypt's unstable, Tanks are still great, the US will intervene no matter what, The IDF can hold off Egypt" - but I don't buy it. To be honest, I still haven't figured out yet what exactly would provoke this war, other than a super-long Israeli faux-truce, but if it ever happened, it'd suck for Israel.

Lastly - I didn't mean the Cyprus thing personally, but I think that under the cir!@#$%^&*stances, Turkey did have at least some legitimate reason for the invasion, even if it led to a huge mess. I am, by the way, happy to hear that Cyprus made some progress recently, what with the temporary re-opening of the border streets and all. However, I do not think that you can simply make a direct comparison between the Arabs and the Cypriots in this situation.

And anyway, this topic is getting boring. Chatting on SS is much more efficient, if you want to own my !@#$%^&* there feel free to.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

AstroProdigy · August 8, 2008

On the !@#$%^&*ymetrical warfare:

Hamas and Hezbollah don't have to have the ability to beat IDF commandos one-on-one. All they have to do is spread out, hold territory, and make Israel bomb its own civilians if it wants to eject them. There's plenty of cover in Israel, even !@#$%^&*uming you don't head into the most urbanized areas. I don't think Israel wants to turn its own territory into 1945 Berlin, and, as I said, it cannot afford to divert the aircraft and tanks necessary to pacify those areas while in a war. Think of it as a snake biting you in the ankle while you're fighting a bear with your bare hands.

The nuclear holocaust is an empty threat, because, while Israel might be nutty enough to load up a few strike aircraft with B61 bombs or their equivalent, if it attempts to just blow the !@#$%^&* out of the Arabs, then it'll get hit with hundreds (or thousands) of chemical-weapon loaded Scuds, Frogs, or perhaps even something we don't know about, along the lines of the SS-23.

Egypt won't collapse in a long war, because long here doesn't mean long in most contexts. Two weeks would hardly topple the Egyptian regime, but simply surviving that long in a war against Israel would lead to a political victory, even !@#$%^&*uming a near-complete military defeat.

Sure, I'm excited about the prospect of Israel's military being defeated, just like I'm excited about any country's military getting defeated. I'd like to see their arrogant, overrated !@#$%^&*es get kicked by the underdogs. However, this isn't nearly as unlikely as it seems. Let me run through the reasons once again:

Undependable reserves
Need to spread out forces too far, especially !@#$%^&*uming H&H's entry into the war - there are only so many fighters to go around
3 1/2 decades of relative peace, in which the Israeli military has been virtually asleep - while Egypt has been professionalizing its military
Over-reliance on armour, when, just as in '73, the Arabs have the weapons required to counter it
Belief that if anything goes wrong, the US will be there to help - a US intervention would lead to the loss of Iraq. Worth it?
Loss of strategic position - Egypt is close enough to Israel's centers of population that it could definitely hit them with commandos and armour, and possibly hold them

Now, you might be able to counter that with "Best army in the middle east, H&H are useless, Egypt's unstable, Tanks are still great, the US will intervene no matter what, The IDF can hold off Egypt" - but I don't buy it. To be honest, I still haven't figured out yet what exactly would provoke this war, other than a super-long Israeli faux-truce, but if it ever happened, it'd suck for Israel.

Lastly - I didn't mean the Cyprus thing personally, but I think that under the cir!@#$%^&*stances, Turkey did have at least some legitimate reason for the invasion, even if it led to a huge mess. I am, by the way, happy to hear that Cyprus made some progress recently, what with the temporary re-opening of the border streets and all. However, I do not think that you can simply make a direct comparison between the Arabs and the Cypriots in this situation.

And anyway, this topic is getting boring. Chatting on SS is much more efficient, if you want to own my !@#$%^&* there feel free to.

Oh my god do you know what asymmetrical warfare is? Do you think Israelis are going to sit there and protect Hezbollah militants so Israel needs to bomb them to get them? In asymmetrical warfare the insurgent force holds onto its own territory precisely as you said and NOT to the civilian territory of its enemy. Those civilians are hostiles. The Israeli military would have zero trouble taking them out with the entire population as eyes and ears (and guns because the civilians would fight back). Hezbollah would get very very easily annihilated if they did this and Hamas more so as they're weaker.

If Israel were being invaded they would not hesitate to use whatever means necessary. Thousands of chemical weapons are where? *laugh* Syria's superior military capabilities?

You think Israel's military would collapse in two weeks? Are you serious?

You gave me a link that said a maximum of 1/5 of Israeli reserves aren't well trained. Most of Syria and Egypt's military is poorly trained. They certainly are far from the caliber of a western force and one of the most efficient ones at that.

Israel's military hasn't been asleep for 35 years its run numerous occupations and even fought a semi war with Hezbollah. Syria and Egypt have fought zero in this time ABSOLUTELY ZERO. On top of that their military capabilities were !@#$%^&* to begin with and proved themselves to be weak. Egypt didn't even win that one surprise attack all it got was a stalemate and that was with N!@#$%^&*er not the weak despot they have now.

You really think the US wouldn't intervene if it saw Israel being invaded? Over Iraq? Are you really that blinded to your own hopes of Israel being wiped out? You think the US would even lose Iraq?

Egypt was always close to Israel's centers of population. It never could have done something that outlandish as you hope for. It'd be running in extremely hostile territory.

The only "faux-truce" capable of making Israel vulnerable would be one where Israel gives up its control of the West Bank and Gaza and Jordan comes on board with your imaginary alliance. That unfortunately is all the more reason Israel won't give up its control of the occupied territories. Besides this US support for Israel won't go away. Conservatives support them because they have to based on their religion and Americans universally like Israel and support Israel, A Democrat would intervene and so will a Republican. In fact our politicians fight for who will support Israel more if anything.

Turkey had a reason to invade sure, but that disappeared when it transferred 100 thousand or more settlers from the mainland to colonize the part of the island they controlled. Israel has been doing the same thing with the West Bank, but unlike the Arabs we actually care about our own more than geopolitical games. That's the comparison. I again remind you of Azerbaijan. These are despotic regimes that play with their own populations without any regard for their well being. It's not excusable in any case.

NBVegita · August 8, 2008

I have to say I agree with astro here.

FMBI · August 8, 2008

LOL at your belief that the population would be the "Eyes and ears" of the military. That only works when you're in long-term counterinsurgency warfare. When you have thousands of heavily armed insurgents in your yard, you can't take the time to casually stroll down the street, alert the military, and wait for the Israeli SF to come take them out. It's still !@#$%^&*ymetrical warfare, because you aren't directly fighting the enemy, but you are doing damage to their civilian populace and forcing them to waste time trying to dig you out.

Uhh, the chemical weapons are well-confirmed. If I recall, Syria might even have VX? And I also believe Egypt has plenty of chemical weapons, though that one's a little harder to confirm.

Yes, I do, and yes, I am. We're both mentioning the 1973 war off and on, so let's take a look at the conclusion of that war. At first glance, it looks like a big Israeli comeback - but in actuality, the Arabs still had the advantage. Syria fell back a lot, but they were holding - and Egypt was split, but the Third Army was nowhere breaking. Also, Israel was almost out of fuel - another few days and it would've been unable to move tanks, let alone finish the war successfully. As an example of Israel's military surviving for a long period, that one fails, especially because Israel no longer has the Sinai for oil supplies.

Gee, we heard this one before over and over - Syria and Egypt are worthless. They don't know what they're doing. But in 67 they fought fairly well individually, and in 73, once they had purged some of the political officers and replaced them with competent ones, they fought extremely well - some of their groups (such as the Egyptian rangers) were actually as good as, or better than, their Israeli counterparts. And in this case, you statement also fails because Egypt and Syria have their "reserves" effectively stuck into the regular army. Unlike Israel, which has a very small population base and needs every single one of their reserve soldiers to be top-notch, the Arabs have more than enough high-quality troops to soak up most of the damage, and also have the capability to replace them with tons of so-so reserves.

Oh, are you kidding me? 2006 counts as experience? The only thing it did was lead to a minor, low-level purge, just like in 73. That's the way the Israelis work - they need to keep up morale (aka, keep all the morons that failed in the war in power), so they just take out a few little guys and leave the serious problems alone. Also, N!@#$%^&*er wasn't in power in 73. Sadat was.

You missed my point, apparently. If Israel were losing in a fight and the US intervened, Iran would go from anger to instant intervention in Iraq. It wouldn't matter if we diverted a single soldier from Iraq, we would still lose control, because Iran could cut supply lines, massively step up attacks in general, and isolate bases of soldiers. (And did I mention that they could also cut off aircraft movement using their reverse-engineered Stingers, which we were kind enough to give them in the 80s via Afghanistan?) I'm sure McCain's the kind of guy dumb enough to blindly go to Israel's aid, but even his advisers would view saving Iraq as more important than saving our little military parasite of an ally.

Not true. Egypt showed (in 73!!! YAY!) that it could take and hold a fairly large area, which, although relatively close to the starting point, was maintained without the aid of an effective air force (which they have now) or a move forward to take the mountain passes. If they can do that in the Sinai without an air force, they can probably do it in Israel proper today.

As I said before, Israel isn't "made vulnerable" by giving up territories, it just recognizes a trend and pulls out to avoid casualties. Israel has been continually trading land for prestige, because if its glorious military were ever seen to be overextended, then "weak, easily taken out Hamas" would find a way to exploit it.

Meh, fine. But at this point, regardless of who did what, it's too late to take in the Palestinians, because they were always somewhat different than the other Arabs, and they've had 60 years to contribute to their individual (or rather, isolated multiple) culture(s).

Edited August 8, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

AstroProdigy · August 8, 2008

Again you ignore what I said about asymmetrical warfare. You can only do it if you have a friendly civilian population or very difficult terrain. Hezbollah would have neither in northern Israel. It would have a hostile civilian population not only pointing them out, but also attacking them. When an unconventional force comes out of its stronghold its extremely vulnerable. How can you not understand this and decide to concoct a crazy "spread out scenario" which clearly would never work with a hostile population.

How many chemical weapons does Syria have and how many missiles that wouldn't just be fired at random? Thousands? I don't think so. Even having chemical weapons still requires you to be able to get them to your target.

Israel easily takes out 2,3,4,5 times the enemy force in your proposed alliance just for a stalemate. These countries need to maintain massive military forces just to stalemate. As for 2006 if Israel wasn't massively constrained by international public opinion crying foul and actually used its capabilities there would be a defeated Hezbollah and hundreds of thousands of dead civilians along with it. You really think Egyptian military personnel are better than Israeli ones per capita? Are you serious? Egypt has proven itself in a total of zero military victories and has enough trouble keeping itself from being infiltrated from Islamists to ever build an effective military.

Sorry Sadat was in power, but you've got the same corrupt despot in power now.

Now you don't just talk about Hamas, Hezbollah, Egypt, and Syria all attacking at once you add Iran, making this an even more impossible alliance. The thing about Iran's military is its all about throwing large populations of martyrs to be at the enemy. This takes time and effort. It only got a stalemate out of Iraq which was much weaker. Sure we'd take heavy casualties, but lose in a fight that isn't even on Iranian soil we won't.

You think America won't rush to Israel's defense over Iraq? What country do you live in? Americans are hardcore Israel supporters and that support cuts across party lines. We'd see an invasion of Israel as neo Nazis coming to finish the Holocaust. Where the %!%^ did you ever get that idea into your head? Do you hope Israel will fall THAT much that you ignore blatant facts like this? Any American leader who abandoned Israel would give up his career in the process.

What happened to Egypt's air force before? Oh right Israel preempted it and took it out before there were planes in the air. In 1973 Egypt had the best possible timing you can possibly imagine. They sneak attacked on a Jewish holiday. Today they'd have to go much further from their center of population to attack whereas Israel is much closer to its own to defend it. Sinai is much easier for Egypt to attack than Israel proper. Egypt's air force won't even do much good if its poorly trained with no experience.

Israel gave up Sinai because it didn't want to have to occupy such a large area and just wanted peace with Egypt. Israel hasn't been trading land for prestige. It's been trading worthless land for peace. The only time Israel was forced out of occupied land was in southern Lebanon and that was with intense international pressure and an unconventional force that is patently defenseless when engaging in any offensive maneuver.

Hamas can't exploit !@#$%^&*. It's nothing more than a glorified militia and a bad one at that. An Israeli militia would defeat it not even counting Israel's military. Heck a group of old Israeli men with guns would defeat it. I respect Hezbollah for doing very well with what its got, but Hamas is incredibly weak. Palestinians were always incredibly weak at warfare and Hamas is no exception. All they can do is bring attention to themselves. Even the suicide bombings they were famous for were just ripped off Lebanese Shiites.

Palestinians were always somewhat different than the other Arabs? Says who? 60 years isn't very long to create a completely new iden!@#$%^&*y when your neighbors speak basically the same language. Other groups coming from a virtually identical base with much more time to differentiate themselves still don't. Walloons and French, Austrians and Germans, Dutch and Flanders, American and Canadian, Greek and Greek Cypriot are all just as different, but would have a fairly easy time living in each other's countries. 60 years means little on an ethnic time scale even though people in America and Canada can't understand this. Palestinian iden!@#$%^&*y is largely just a victim's iden!@#$%^&*y perpetrated by the Israelis who victimized them and the Arab "friends" in other countries who kept them victimized in impoverished refugee camps. I don't blame this on the people as this was the decision of dictators who ran these countries.

Edited August 8, 2008 by AstroProdigy

FMBI · August 8, 2008

Again you ignore what I said about asymmetrical warfare. You can only do it if you have a friendly civilian population or very difficult terrain. Hezbollah would have neither in northern Israel. It would have a hostile civilian population not only pointing them out, but also attacking them. When an unconventional force comes out of its stronghold its extremely vulnerable. How can you not understand this and decide to concoct a crazy "spread out scenario" which clearly would never work with a hostile population.

You do not, I repeat not need your own populace covering your !@#$%^&* to do this. You can do it just as well using enemy civilians, as long as you have weaponry good enough to enable you to take the ground and hold it long enough to dig in. At that point, their military can't take you out without doing excessive friendly fire casualties - especially true when relying on an air force, as Israel always does. And.. look. Lebanon and Israel have a long border. It's no stretch of the imagination to say that Hezbollah could infiltrate small groups to take civilian areas, while launching rocket attacks and larger raids with the rest of their forces. That would leave Israel with the need to take back civilian areas, but without the ability to. What part of this don't you get? I've said it like 5 times now. All the Arabs have to do is play for time and make it too hard for Israel to decide which targets it goes after. Either save your civilians, or save the Golan.

How many chemical weapons does Syria have and how many missiles that wouldn't just be fired at random? Thousands? I don't think so. Even having chemical weapons still requires you to be able to get them to your target.

Actually, Syria has some fairly good missiles that it got from the USSR and now Russia. It wouldn't just be firing them off randomly. Where you got that idea, I don't know.

Israel easily takes out 2,3,4,5 times the enemy force in your proposed alliance just for a stalemate. These countries need to maintain massive military forces just to stalemate. As for 2006 if Israel wasn't massively constrained by international public opinion crying foul and actually used its capabilities there would be a defeated Hezbollah and hundreds of thousands of dead civilians along with it. You really think Egyptian military personnel are better than Israeli ones per capita? Are you serious? Egypt has proven itself in a total of zero military victories and has enough trouble keeping itself from being infiltrated from Islamists to ever build an effective military.

Yeah, that's why the casualties were nowhere near that level in 73 or even 67. Oh, are you kidding me about 06? Israel went in to "totally destroy Hezbollah," claimed it took out 3/4 of Hezbollah's forces, and, wait, it turns out it didn't after all! Besides, by the end of the war, Israel was running out of munitions - the US had to ship it cluster bombs and JDAMs just to allow it to recover. And that's in a second-rate war against an (in your opinion) useless enemy? And FYI, virtually any seriously neutral book about 73 will inform you that the Egyptian soldiers were very good compared to the Israelis. I didn't say they were all better, but where it counted - commandos, night warfare, etc - Egypt more than held its own.

Sorry Sadat was in power, but you've got the same corrupt despot in power now.

Sadat died in 81.

Now you don't just talk about Hamas, Hezbollah, Egypt, and Syria all attacking at once you add Iran, making this an even more impossible alliance. The thing about Iran's military is its all about throwing large populations of martyrs to be at the enemy. This takes time and effort. It only got a stalemate out of Iraq which was much weaker. Sure we'd take heavy casualties, but lose in a fight that isn't even on Iranian soil we won't.

I DID NOT SAY IRAN WOULD ATTACK ISRAEL! Jesus.. Iran would take an opportunity to intervene in Iraq if we intervened in Israel. And guess what.. Iran's military is still weak and bad at power projection, but using the Revolutionary Guard and plenty of those martyrs, they could kick us right out of Iraq. We have a hard time sending convoys of supplies through, when there's no significant opposing force. If we suddenly found thousands of EFPs and IRAMs in the way, then how the !@#$%^&* do you think we'd hold on? Maybe we'd find a way to suddenly start Berlin Airlift 2.0, except this time flying thousands of miles with a limited air force?

You think America won't rush to Israel's defense over Iraq? What country do you live in? Americans are hardcore Israel supporters and that support cuts across party lines. We'd see an invasion of Israel as neo Nazis coming to finish the Holocaust. Where the %!%^ did you ever get that idea into your head? Do you hope Israel will fall THAT much that you ignore blatant facts like this? Any American leader who abandoned Israel would give up his career in the process.

Fine, let's say we do intervene. What happens then? Iraq goes to !@#$%^&*, Iran claims a major political victory, and we wouldn't be able to respond to it for at least a few years. Meanwhile, our support among the Gulf Arabs, which has been getting better for a few decades, would suddenly vanish. It would be the closest thing we could do to create a new Caliphate.

What happened to Egypt's air force before? Oh right Israel preempted it and took it out before there were planes in the air. In 1973 Egypt had the best possible timing you can possibly imagine. They sneak attacked on a Jewish holiday. Today they'd have to go much further from their center of population to attack whereas Israel is much closer to its own to defend it. Sinai is much easier for Egypt to attack than Israel proper. Egypt's air force won't even do much good if its poorly trained with no experience.

Oh yeah, Egypt had the best timing.. Uh-huh? That's why they didn't attack during the Ten Days of Repentance, when Israel would've been even more vulnerable. No, Egypt quickly attacked against an Israeli military that thought it could respond to any Arab assault, wherever, or whenever, it happened. The Israelis thought it would take several more hours than it actually did for the Egyptians to cross the canal, and it continued from there. That's what I would expect to see again - jolly Israeli officers sitting around, saying "It'll take them 10 hours to stir up enough trouble for us to be in a serious security position.. right? Right?!"

Jesus, you still think the Arabs are worthless, don't you? Egypt's air force is larger than Israel's, and it's of a relatively high quality. Add in Egypt's good air defence system, and it would be close to an even matchup. But you might not care, because, after all, the Arabs are completely worthless no matter what.

Israel gave up Sinai because it didn't want to have to occupy such a large area and just wanted peace with Egypt. Israel hasn't been trading land for prestige. It's been trading worthless land for peace. The only time Israel was forced out of occupied land was in southern Lebanon and that was with intense international pressure and an unconventional force that is patently defenseless when engaging in any offensive maneuver.

Rofl, yeah. Israel pulled out because it wanted peace. Even though keeping troops in the occupied areas would, according to your theories stated elsewhere, enhance Israeli security quite a bit. Why didn't they keep them there? Because they would have been ground down in Gaza and demoralized in the West Bank. Not the greatest thing to let the Arabs see. Israel's military has to stay invincible - and untested.

Hamas can't exploit !@#$%^&*. It's nothing more than a glorified militia and a bad one at that. An Israeli militia would defeat it not even counting Israel's military. Heck a group of old Israeli men with guns would defeat it. I respect Hezbollah for doing very well with what its got, but Hamas is incredibly weak. Palestinians were always incredibly weak at warfare and Hamas is no exception. All they can do is bring attention to themselves. Even the suicide bombings they were famous for were just ripped off Lebanese Shiites.

An Israeli militia would defeat Hamas? That's a really good one. A few months back, Israel launched strike after strike, and only managed to take out less than 200 of them - using aircraft, tanks, and commandos. Now, if Israel's vaunted peacetime military can't finish off this glorified militia, then how do you expect the Israeli settlers to do it when they're all being remobilized or they're trying to hold onto land that hasn't been fully occupied yet? You give the home-court advantage to the Israelis, when it's Hamas that has it here.

Palestinians were always somewhat different than the other Arabs? Says who? 60 years isn't very long to create a completely new iden!@#$%^&*y when your neighbors speak basically the same language. Other groups coming from a virtually identical base with much more time to differentiate themselves still don't. Walloons and French, Austrians and Germans, Dutch and Flanders, American and Canadian, Greek and Greek Cypriot are all just as different, but would have a fairly easy time living in each other's countries. 60 years means little on an ethnic time scale even though people in America and Canada can't understand this. Palestinian iden!@#$%^&*y is largely just a victim's iden!@#$%^&*y perpetrated by the Israelis who victimized them and the Arab "friends" in other countries who kept them victimized in impoverished refugee camps. I don't blame this on the people as this was the decision of dictators who ran these countries.

They haven't developed an entirely different iden!@#$%^&*y, but they have developed a distinctly unique one. You can't just stick a Palestinian and a Syrian in the same room and say "Hi guys, let's hug. Come on.." and expect them to be best buddies within a week.

You dislike Israel's policies as much as I do, so why are you embracing the myth that Israel's undefeatable? There are half a dozen small countries that have better militaries by resources available, and yet everywhere you go, you hear people saying Israel has "the best military in the world." Taking !@#$%^&* like this for granted is what leads to losses. It's the same kind of belief that would make a theoretically impossible DPRK invasion of the ROK more realistic. To mix some metaphors, you can't just pretend that your chosen pawn can do anything, because that pawn is still just a pawn. If the other pawns find a way to turn into Rooks, then that pawn is gonna get its !@#$%^&* kicked.

AstroProdigy · August 9, 2008

You can't "dig in" to hostile territory because the entire population won't let you. By small groups specify extremely small and ineffectual because otherwise they'd be wiped out.

Syria has a whole armada of effective guided missiles? News to me.

In the 6 Day War Israel took 800 casualties compared to 21,000 on the other side.

In the Yom Kippur War where Egypt played the sneaky surprise attack, but Israel still only took 2656 deaths for 8528-15000 dead Arabs.

All I said was the same corrupt despot who i mentioned before as being in power is still the same guy who's in power whether N!@#$%^&*er or Sadat was in charge in 73. Thanks for looking for "scoring points" anyway though.

You said Iran would take part in a war if we did. Meaningless speculation by you about Iran being able to establish a caliphate aside American support for Israel is not rational. You can take it or leave it because it doesn't matter. 1/3 of the population would defend Israel no matter what happens and the rest don't want to see another Holocaust.

This isn't even Israel holding onto enemy territory. This would be Israel under attack in its home base. An air force doesn't mean much if you can't use it effectively. Egypt has never shown that it can whereas Israel has. Your speculation that Egypt's air force can hold its own against Israel's air force is not based in fact and, therefore, for issues as technical as this that require facts is worthless. Discipline and training mean a lot here.

Why would Israel want to hold on a big flat desert the size of their whole state when they can just make peace with what is by far the largest Arab country and break any large scale resistance to its existence in the future? You fail to acknowledge the fact that although Israel's military hasn't been seriously tested in a long time Egypt and Syria are even less so.

First of all there are no settlers in Gaza and the settlers in the West Bank are heavily armed with the benefit of incredibly fractured Palestinian chunks cut off with checkpoint after checkpoint. The reason Hamas and Hezbollah are had to root out by conventional means is because they're supported by their respective populations and thus can hide among them. Therefore, when another country goes to attack they'd basically have to not care at all about civilian casualties and just bomb the living crap out of them. Israel cares now because it doesn't want to be condemned for it, but in case of an invasion they won't care at all.

I've seen two groups with bigger differences than Palestinians and Syrians where immigrants from one country have no problem !@#$%^&*imilating into the other. It's just a matter of political will that Arab countries tend to not have being run undemocratically in a universal manner.

You dislike Israel's policies as much as I do' date=' so why are you embracing the myth that Israel's undefeatable? There are half a dozen small countries that have better militaries by resources available, and yet everywhere you go, you hear people saying Israel has "the best military in the world." Taking !@#$%^&* like this for granted is what leads to losses. It's the same kind of belief that would make a theoretically impossible DPRK invasion of the ROK more realistic. To mix some metaphors, you can't just pretend that your chosen pawn can do anything, because that pawn is still just a pawn. If the other pawns find a way to turn into Rooks, then that pawn is gonna get its !@#$%^&* kicked.[/quote']
There's a difference between disliking what a group does and then translating that into thinking they're overrated and weak and we need to attack them now. That's wishful thinking and I don't fall into those traps. Israel isn't a pawn. They easily have more control over our own policies than we do of theirs. As for half a dozen small countries that have better militaries where is that? There are few countries even at that level of military technology even in the west.

By the way, the DPRK military is massIVELY overrated. It has a really !@#$%^&*ty navy beyond submarines and its air force is a joke. When you have that combination their army is just cannon fodder for a South Korean military that would immediately take over the air and sea. Even their tunnels have a limit and would only allow them to do more damage before they were wiped out. Nukes are their best bet actually.

SeVeR · August 9, 2008

Israel is not a pawn. It's more likely that the U.S. is 90% of the whole chessboard and Israel is the chess player. I dislike Israel but i'm going to be realistic and say the U.S. will come to their aid quick enough. Even if Israel has completely lost all their land, and their government is holed up in a secret bunker, then the U.S. will come along and bomb the muslims until the land is empty of them. Only in the most serious of cir!@#$%^&*stances will be see how much the U.S. is in the pocket of Israel.

-EDIT- I think we've all seen the !@#$%^&*urances that Obama has been forced to give the American-Zionists about being pro-Israel. This is a given for McCain of the Ziopublicans, but with Obama it shows how much influence, or even control, the Zionists hold.

Edited August 9, 2008 by SeVeR

AstroProdigy · August 9, 2008

See even from someone who wants Israel wiped from the map a willingness to see the reality of the military situation. Sever can hope that Israel can be easily beaten because he'd like it to be, but just because someone wants something to happen doesn't mean they should drop objectivity and move into the realm of !@#$%^&*uming something is true and then trying to prove it so. Edited August 9, 2008 by AstroProdigy

FMBI · August 9, 2008

Astro, you're still willfully misreading my posts, so this will be my last attempt to get you to actually read what I'm saying. -_-

You can't "dig in" to hostile territory because the entire population won't let you. By small groups specify extremely small and ineffectual because otherwise they'd be wiped out.

Actually, you can "dig in," as long as you have just enough firepower to overwhelm the local defenses. This is not a long-term occupation scenario, this is a short-term thing where the local population would know that men with machine guns and grenade launchers were sitting outside their doors, waiting for them to try to make a move. Also, by small group, I mean perhaps 10-20 - by coincidence, the same military group size that has proven extremely effective in the past for violent raids against an armed populace, whether done by Israel or the Arabs.

Syria has a whole armada of effective guided missiles? News to me.

Then I suggest you go read Wikipedia, or, if you're in the mood for more realistic info, any one of a number of reputable military research sites. Or, if you're really desperate, there are lots of books out there with this kind of info.

In the 6 Day War Israel took 800 casualties compared to 21,000 on the other side.
In the Yom Kippur War where Egypt played the sneaky surprise attack, but Israel still only took 2656 deaths for 8528-15000 dead Arabs.

#1 - I've never believed the June War casualty rates. #2 - The October War casualties are a joke. Israel had almost as casualties as the Arabs, not 1/4 as many. I have no idea where you got your numbers.

All I said was the same corrupt despot who i mentioned before as being in power is still the same guy who's in power whether N!@#$%^&*er or Sadat was in charge in 73. Thanks for looking for "scoring points" anyway though.

Lol? You apparently used that sentence completely out of context, in reference to something from several posts back, and yet you think it made sense?

You said Iran would take part in a war if we did. Meaningless speculation by you about Iran being able to establish a caliphate aside American support for Israel is not rational. You can take it or leave it because it doesn't matter. 1/3 of the population would defend Israel no matter what happens and the rest don't want to see another Holocaust.

Uh, no. I did not say Iran would establish the Caliphate. For god's sake, stop extrapolating. I said it was "the closest thing we could do," meaning it would inspire pan-Arabism, pan-Islamism, and a detente between the Arabs and Iran. We've seen similar things, on a smaller scale, occur in the past. Direct military intervention would be highly likely to trigger an all-out alliance, at least temporarily. Also, did I say anything more about the populace's opinion? No. I simply said that any leader who supported Israel would be sacrificing dozens of long-term political objectives in return for saving a state that has never done anything for us. !@#$%^&*, Israel didn't even share what they used to know about Syria's air defenses, to quote the most common example.

This isn't even Israel holding onto enemy territory. This would be Israel under attack in its home base. An air force doesn't mean much if you can't use it effectively. Egypt has never shown that it can whereas Israel has. Your speculation that Egypt's air force can hold its own against Israel's air force is not based in fact and, therefore, for issues as technical as this that require facts is worthless. Discipline and training mean a lot here.

Egypt has never shown that it can. -snore- Egypt had a fairly decent air force in 73, the last time it fought Israel, even though it was universally recognized as unready at that time because it had just begun seriously rearming after the 67 war. Now, if their horrible, no-good, very bad air force was decent back then, then what happens when you give them western aircraft, western training, and give them 30 years to soak it in? I'm sure they'd be just as horrible as they were in 67, right? Yeah.. sounds logical to me.

Why would Israel want to hold on a big flat desert the size of their whole state when they can just make peace with what is by far the largest Arab country and break any large scale resistance to its existence in the future? You fail to acknowledge the fact that although Israel's military hasn't been seriously tested in a long time Egypt and Syria are even less so.

Because that big flat desert had oil reserves, controlled the Gulf of Aqaba, gave them a strategic front, and had lots of space to fall back and defend strategic passes? But I bet it was worth giving it up to achieve peace, even though it didn't need peace, because it was by far the strongest military. See, your reasoning fails. Why would Israel bother achieving peace if it could just beat Egypt in another fight? Answer : It couldn't, and it knew it couldn't, so it bought itself time and prestige by giving up land. Just like I said it did. Could I be right??!?

First of all there are no settlers in Gaza and the settlers in the West Bank are heavily armed with the benefit of incredibly fractured Palestinian chunks cut off with checkpoint after checkpoint. The reason Hamas and Hezbollah are had to root out by conventional means is because they're supported by their respective populations and thus can hide among them. Therefore, when another country goes to attack they'd basically have to not care at all about civilian casualties and just bomb the living crap out of them. Israel cares now because it doesn't want to be condemned for it, but in case of an invasion they won't care at all.

There are no settlers in Gaza. Duh. I wish I had actually said that somewhere so I could be wrong. No, the reason Hamas and Hezbollah are hard to root out is because Israel doesn't have the capability. Example - Israel can track mobile phones, track cars, track the safe houses, use informants, use listening devices, get satellite info from the US, use its UAVs.. and it still can't take them out. That would seem to suggest that while it knows where they are, it simply can't hit them. And that isn't because they're hiding with civilians, because Israel has shown very little restraint in that respect in the past. Israel just doesn't have the ability to do this.

I've seen two groups with bigger differences than Palestinians and Syrians where immigrants from one country have no problem !@#$%^&*imilating into the other. It's just a matter of political will that Arab countries tend to not have being run undemocratically in a universal manner.

Not true. Jordan is a semi-democratic, heavily populist country, and they had just as many difficulties as the most dictatorial Arab country you can find. Sometimes it just can't be done.

You dislike Israel's policies as much as I do' date=' so why are you embracing the myth that Israel's undefeatable? There are half a dozen small countries that have better militaries by resources available, and yet everywhere you go, you hear people saying Israel has "the best military in the world." Taking !@#$%^&* like this for granted is what leads to losses. It's the same kind of belief that would make a theoretically impossible DPRK invasion of the ROK more realistic. To mix some metaphors, you can't just pretend that your chosen pawn can do anything, because that pawn is still just a pawn. If the other pawns find a way to turn into Rooks, then that pawn is gonna get its !@#$%^&* kicked.[/quote']

There's a difference between disliking what a group does and then translating that into thinking they're overrated and weak and we need to attack them now. That's wishful thinking and I don't fall into those traps. Israel isn't a pawn. They easily have more control over our own policies than we do of theirs. As for half a dozen small countries that have better militaries where is that? There are few countries even at that level of military technology even in the west.

Lol! No. I dislike what they do, but also, unlike you, I'm willing to see the fact that Israel isn't invincible. Their entire strategy is to look as tough as possible without being tested, they've even (albeit accidentally) said that in the past. If you buy what they're selling, then how can you pretend to look at it neutrally?

As for the militaries, god, what a case of selective reading. Yet again, you totally ignored what I actually said. "better militaries by resources available." As you once mentioned on SS, Rwanda would be one, Armenia's quite good, and Eritrea, Chad, or Vietnam might make the list. I did not say that they had a better military capability than Israel, just that, in comparison, you have to wonder how Israel maintains its wonderful reputation.

Also, Israel is both our master and our pawn. There isn't an American politician out there who doesn't want to use Israel at some point. The difficulty is that it's so hard to get them to move their !@#$%^&*es and support us. However, that doesn't mean we aren't trying to get them to move that way.

By the way, the DPRK military is massIVELY overrated. It has a really !@#$%^&*ty navy beyond submarines and its air force is a joke. When you have that combination their army is just cannon fodder for a South Korean military that would immediately take over the air and sea. Even their tunnels have a limit and would only allow them to do more damage before they were wiped out. Nukes are their best bet actually.

Erm.. Let's look at this again, shall we?

Taking !@#$%^&* like this for granted is what leads to losses. It's the same kind of belief that would make a theoretically impossible DPRK invasion of the ROK more realistic.

I thought I said the DPRK was overrated, maybe you interpreted it as saying the ROK was overrated? Dunno. Although I disagree with your statement about the air force. It isn't a joke, it's a 30-40 year old, permanently grounded as a result of high fuel costs, understaffed, underequipped joke.

edit - It occurred to me where you might have gotten the skewed casualty rates for 73 - the Israelis were notorious (or at least were back when people cared about the war) for completely fabricating reports during the first half of the war. In many cases, they claimed to destroy Egyptian units that didn't exist, or else claimed to take out more troops than were actually engaged in the fighting. I can only wonder at the honesty and relevancy of the rest of your source, if that's the case.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

AstroProdigy · August 11, 2008

I doubt groups of 10-20 would have much effect in a full scale war, especially if civilian Israelis were fighting back as they would be.

I just looked up wikipedia like you suggested

Long Range Battle Field Rockets

* FROG-7 (18)

* SS-21 (18)

* SCUD-B/C/D (26)

Hardly the armada you tried to portray. Even this !@#$%^&*umes they can m!@#$%^&* produce chemical weapons and put them on the missiles.

Well if you don't want to believe the casualty rates that's your choice. I got my numbers from wikipedia by the way.

Leaders don't want to risk their careers on opposing saving Israel in the US. The uproar on it would automatically end that politician's career.

Egypt's air force had an effect on a surprise attack where Israel didn't have the opportunity to immediately bomb their air bases as they would otherwise. If Egypt could create a complete surprise attack on an inconvenient time for Israel then it would hold its own on its own territory, but otherwise I doubt it would defeat Israel.

Israel doesn't want to be in a state of war with Egypt for decades. Some day the military capabilities of the countries outside Israel will be much better than that of Israel based on sheer size of population difference. Rather than wait for that time refusing to negotiate Israel got peace with the country that's by far the largest Arab country in the world and broke the conventional resistance against Israel for decades. This is still a benefit in the present day. Sounds like a very smart move by intelligent leadership and not a desperation move to me.

An Israeli militia would defeat Hamas? That's a really good one. A few months back' date=' Israel launched strike after strike, and only managed to take out less than 200 of them - using aircraft, tanks, and commandos. Now, if Israel's vaunted peacetime military can't finish off this glorified militia, then how do you expect the Israeli settlers to do it when they're all being remobilized or they're trying to hold onto land that hasn't been fully occupied yet? You give the home-court advantage to the Israelis, when it's Hamas that has it here[/quote']
That suggested you were saying something else. You seem to be mixing up military capability with political will. Western armies have the military capability to do a lot, but lack the political will. You can defeat an insurgent force like Hamas or Hezbollah, but you'd have to kill a !@#$%^&* of a lot of civilians to do it. No one wants to be held responsible for that in Israel, but in case of a threat to its existence this changes.

Jordan is a monarchy and any democrat reforms have been coming slowly. The Palestinians came a long time ago and they came in huge numbers. They probably are the majority. In no other country in the Middle East is there this many Palestinians as a percentage of the population. Here you take the most extreme example and treat it as if it can be used as a norm. Besides that Jordanian Palestinians are moving up to a large degree.

I don't see Israel as invincible. Israel can be defeated, but not by the countries you list. Maybe if Iran was closer to Israel or if Turkey turned against Israel they could be defeated as Turkey and Iran have serious militaries; Turkey by modernization and the ability to use it and Iran by shear zeal.

Counting by resources available is misleading as the resources available to a first world country like Israel are vastly superior to the resources available to an extremely poor country like Rwanda. The reason countries like Israel, Rwanda, Armenia, and Eritrea of the past are so good militarily based on resources available are because they have to deal with massive enemies surrounding them and they have no choice by to be efficient. Countries like Egypt get to be lazy because of their size and lack of serious threat to their borders and that shows in their military performance. Nothing has changed for Egypt. Hezbollah is powerful for its resource availability for the same reason, but Syria and Egypt are in the opposite situation.

Again you massively underestimate the influence of Israel on the US. It's ingrained into the population from a young age and reinforced religiously.

The world has had 35 years to check up on the actual death rates.

Sign In

Gee whiz, ma

Recommended Posts

SeVeR

PaRa$iTe

NBVegita

AstroProdigy

FMBI

Aileron

FMBI

AstroProdigy

FMBI

AstroProdigy

NBVegita

FMBI

AstroProdigy

FMBI

AstroProdigy

SeVeR

AstroProdigy

FMBI

AstroProdigy

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity