It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global War on Terrorism as an excuse for waging war. Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
That is true Pavil but remember that all these comes with treaties and many, many tax payer money involve on coercion with the name of incentives.

They are not just because of the willingness of the people, just the governments.

Tell which nation in the middle east has the entire population favoring US present in their lands.


Heck some in the US don't favor all the things our government does, certainly no ENTIRE country in the Middle East will. Our support of Israel will always be a sticking point. I'm sure the citizens of Kuwait wouldn't have dreamt of US troops stationed there till they got invaded by Iraq. Each country does what it thinks is in its best interest. Obviously the the countries in the Middle East have done what they think is in their best interest as well.

So all of those Oil and gas rich nations in that region are allowing bases or agreements with the US due to money?

Weak arguement. If the support of the US was such a real sore spot in all of these countries don't you think they would rise up and send their governments the "real message". Obviously it is not too major of a problem for their citizens as none is really facing any major domestic oppostition against their rule, granted the limits of democracy currently in many countries in that region. So, in fact, the US is there because of the willingness of the government and the people.




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Rockpuck, I do not appreciate you hijacking this thread and taking my words out of context.

You are the one making this thread hostile in a attempt to derail a discussion of the topic at hand.


Why are you guys attacking him like that? Savage dogs, that is what you are all acting like. This is no longer a civil conversation but an attack Juddah thread, how do you expect to debate anything if that is how your going to act.


Nobody made any personal attacks against Judah. In fact, I for one do not appreciate being called a "savage dog".

If you have an issue feel free to PM me, or have the decency to follow the code of conduct and file a complaint.


It would appear to me atleast that Mr. Iskander had no intention of actually debating his ideology, be it right or wrong and simply wanted people to go with the flow. His answers to the questions where also opinionated represented through him as fact. When a question was asked on why he did not answer, or that his answer, though much against his own thoughs was flawed, he would tell them off as being zionist, you know, the typical go around. Backed by a mod of course


I beg your pardon? None of that made any sense. Again, I would appreciate if you address me directly if you have an issue with me, or PM me.

I have not told anybody "off as being a Zionist". I posed a question and got an answer. Please do not make stuff up.

I asked because of the following;


I know of these bunkers from first hand experience.


JudahMaccabbi implied that he has first hand experience with Hezbollah bunkers, and together with his stand point on the issue, I posed a logical question.

That's what debate IS.

Backed by a mod? Are you implying that there's fowl play involved here? On what grounds? TO the best of my memory this is the first time I have ever engage in a debate with intrepid.

Again, if you feel like you have issues with the conduct on this thread, please address them properly and do not derail the course of the debate.

Moving on.


Trying to remain on topic, I think the title is a little disingenuous.

"Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria"


Reality Hurts, it sure does.

Please visit the source of the article I have referenced, the title reads;


Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria


www.timesonline.co.uk...


You pick a poll from June 2003 and find it surprising that the US is held in low esteem by Muslim countries? Myself I don't find that extremely strange given the region and the situation when the poll was taken, just after/during the invasion of Iraq.


Good point pavil, I stay in touch with the world news, and knowing the current events I just picked the first on topic result that google spat out.

Instead of attempting to convince you that in light of the recent actions the Muslim world is anti-American and anti-Israeli, I'll just focus on the Pew polls you have listed.

It is indeed a good read, especially considering that they conducted a total of 16 surveys since 2001.

Here's a list of their reports;

pewglobal.org...


Fast forward to July 2005
Support for Bin Laden and Suicide attacks have dropped and now citizens of Islamic countries are concerned about Islamic Extremism as a threat to their countries as well.


I'll follow your example, and "fast forward" to 06.13.06.


America's Image Slips, But Allies Share U.S. Concerns Over Iran, Hamas



Summary of Findings

America's global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan. The war in Iraq is a continuing drag on opinions of the United States, not only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and Asia as well. And despite growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace.


Right from the same page pavil;

pewglobal.org...

This is another good read BTW, it's on the "The Evangelical Sanhedrin and Republicanism" and Pew Charitable Trusts.

www.vivelecanada.ca...

Some quick links on other Pew funded projects, I just googled it;

www.jcpa.org...

www.cjcs.net...

learn.jtsa.edu...


You still have not named another country or government that is neutral or allied against the West in regards to the statement at hand.


pavil, why do you keep insisting on repeating the same thing over and over? Please list back to page 1, it's all there.

Forcing people to go back to the same issues time and time again is counterproductive, even though marg6043 gave it another good go.


I'll fast forward on some comments and cut right to the chase here;


So, in fact, the US is there because of the willingness of the government and the people.


pavil, Rockpuck, have you seen a movie called "Syriana"? How about "Sadat"? I highly recommend them.

If that doesn't work, Al-Jazeera podcasts are a good place to go to see how the Muslim world really feels about US presence in ME.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

Trying to remain on topic, I think the title is a little disingenuous.

"Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria"


Reality Hurts, it sure does.

Please visit the source of the article I have referenced, the title reads;


Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria


www.timesonline.co.uk...

To clarify my position, though I was vague, if I was referring to you I would have referred to you by name, or said "the poster" or "the thread title" or some such.

I had read the article and was commenting upon the author's desire to inflame, rather than inform. Not your use of it.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

I had read the article and was commenting upon the author's desire to inflame, rather than inform. Not your use of it.


Reality Hurts, fell free to drop a line to

Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, New York


Have you read the first paragraph of the article?


THREATENED by a potentially nuclear-armed Tehran, Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources according to Israeli political and military sources.


The main part to focus on here is - "according to Israeli political and military sources".

So if in your opinion such statements are inflammatory, the originate from "Israeli political and military sources", and not the authors of the article.



[edit on 4-9-2006 by iskander]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
My "War on Terrorism" posts are keep getting moved to the politics section. What gives and how does anybody is supposed to discuss War on Terrorism when it comes to ME with out going political?

What, there is no War on Terrorism in ME? Isn't it the reason given by our leader for starting the war in the first place?

I'm not following at all.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

pavil, why do you keep insisting on repeating the same thing over and over? Please list back to page 1, it's all there.


Now you are confusing me. You do realize that you, yourself first used the Pew Poll results to prove your point.

Why show the links and the Jewish orgs that the Pew foundation sponsors? I'm not following your thought there. If it is to discredit them, you are discrediting your own source that you used to prove your own point. I agree that they are quite a good read though.

The only reason I chose the Pew Polls was that you yourself used them first, and used an old poll at that, from the height of US tensions in the region, the start of the Iraq war.

As for me keeping on "insisting and repeating" and being counterproductive, I'll stop when you directly answer the question. Sorry to let facts get in the way of a debate. I read your comments from page one again and nowhere did you provide proof for your statement. You provided statements from people not affiliated with their governments and results from a poll taken at a time of understandably high anti-US sentiment.

Show me evidence of a country (a government not protesters) that has asked for the cancelation of agreements or removal of US troops from their country by the government of said country that would put them in the "not allied with the West" camp. Saudi Arabia wouldn't allow planes taking off from Saudi bases to be used in Iraq they did allow the air campaign to be run from there. We even eventually removed our troops from Islam's holiest country. Even then, they still remain very Pro West.

I have given you evidence of US agreements and bases in the region, yet you give no evidence to your claim of:



Iran and Syria are not the only two powers in the ME that are not allied with the West


Exactly what countries are you speaking of? If you answer that I will stop asking, I promise.

I have seen Syriana and Sadat and I too, highly reccomend them. Don't make it sound like I don't like a good movie too. I do read Al-Jazeera and other e-publications from the region often as well.

I'm pretty sure that yes, if given a opportunity, the Arab countries in the Gulf region would rather not have foreign troops on their soil. The threat that Iraq posed to the Gulf kingdoms and ultimately the threat of Persian Iran, are what keeps them still wanting US protection. As I said previously, each country acts in its own best interests.


Yeah, pretty much everything Middle East ends up going to PTS, it's actually fun there, muck around a bit. You know it's always going to end up like this in a discussion with such heated topics.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   



Show me evidence of a country (a government not protesters) that has asked for the cancelation of agreements or removal of US troops from their country by the government of said country that would put them in the "not allied with the West" camp. Saudi Arabia wouldn't allow planes taking off from Saudi bases to be used in Iraq they did allow the air campaign to be run from there. We even eventually removed our troops from Islam's holiest country. Even then, they still remain very Pro West.


Pro-western? A select handfull of smaller countries with the exception of the notable powers seem to be pro-western for good reason; the elite circles remain in power. The Saudis are considered to be one of the most detrimental monarchies on this planet and yet are lauded by this current administration as ebetting the war on terror, terror which was/still is funded by this very family.

I'm not sure what your point here is Pavil. I think logic dictates that U.S influence in the Middle East is abhorant and perilous enough, we don't need to galvanize public opinion polls from a group of peoples of a region which is currently being lamblasted by U.S military endevours which further destablizes the peace process in the Middle East. The U.S has a track record of encouraging powers to subordinate it's peoples and I'd like to ask of you to name me one country in the Middle East whose human rights records are in concert with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just one country which can be laud worthy and praised as a just and moraly pious government; just one.

Luxifero.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Luxifero]

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Luxifero]

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Luxifero]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Really? Well, this Canadian doesn't listen to the media, I make up my own mind on things and I can see from your OWN self admitted ZIONIST posting that the topic here is valid. Let's look at it, why don't we:


Regarding the global war on terrorism - Israel plans to wage war on Iran because Iran is a threat to Israel. THat cannot be denied.


There you have it, from the horses mouth, so to speak.


This horse spoke and so did Mr. Ahmedinajad - remember 'wipe Israel off the map'. Do I recall that Israel ever said Iran should be wiped off the map? NO

I guess that sums it up. Israel will defend itself militarily if needed and preemptively if needed. And if the Canadians don't like it - I do not care. The Canadian interest is different from the Israeli interest. The Israeli interest in this case is survival while the Canadian interest may be economic.



Its not like Iran does not wage war on Israel - they finance, supply and train Palestinian, Hezbullah and any other Islamofascist who wishes to fight the Jewish infidel. As a result it would be truer to state that Iran and Syria wages war on Israel because Syrian and Iranian aggressions against Israel preceeded the global war on terror.


By extention the same could be said of the US, with it's ties and funding for Israel. You said it, not me mate. So by extention, does that mean that the Islamofacists should target the States? Oops, seems like that's already happened. But I digress, I'm merely a Canadian with NO idea what goes on in the world.


So I guess the wise Canadians would like to see the ONLY Jewish state overthrown and replaced by yet another Muslim country all in the name of world peace. That is what Hamas, Iran and Hezbullah are talking about.
And then the world will be a much better place - right.

I know it is those evil Israeli who always attack the Lebanese and Palestinians right. Are we forgetting that the Palestinians and Hezbullah are the ones who initiate the violence? Are we neglecting that? or are we forgetting this because the mass media shows doctored photos and staged media events?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Canadians know what the media feeds them.


Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
or are we forgetting this because the mass media shows doctored photos and staged media events?

I know it's fun ragging on my country, but if you are going to do so, at least base it in reality. Some information about CanWest Global - as mass media as you can get in Canada.

Let's take a peek at the CanWest Global page on Wikipedia, shall we?



Board of directors
Current members of the board of directors of the company are: David Drybrough, Leonard Asper, David Asper, Gail Asper, Lloyd Barber, Derek Burney, Robert Daniels, Paul Godfrey, Frank King, and Lisa Pankratz

The bolded names are Jewish members. They form 40% of the Board. A little bit more from the same article:



Conflict over CanWest editorial control and policy has focused in particular on three issues:

...snipped one irrelevant part...

The government of Israel and conflict in the Middle East. Veteran Montreal Gazette reporter Bill Marsden has said that the Aspers "do not want any criticism of Israel. We do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that express criticism of Israel and what it is doing." [2] In 2004, the Reuters news agency protested after CanWest altered newswire stories about the Iraq war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such that Reuters felt it had inserted CanWest's own bias under Reuters bylines. The changes were apparently made in accordance with a CanWest policy to label certain groups as terrorists. [3]

CanWest editorial control and management itself. In December 2001, 77 staff at The Montreal Gazette signed a letter and launched a web page [4] opposing the national editorial policy, and the reporters among them participated in a byline strike, refusing to sign their names to their stories in the newspaper in protest. Management responded with a gag order. The next year, several journalists left The Halifax Daily News over similar conflicts, and ten journalists at The Regina Leader-Post were reprimanded or suspended after a byline strike to protest censorship of coverage of a speech in Regina by Toronto Star columnist and CanWest critic Haroon Siddiqui.

The company was founded by Israel Asper, who was a huge supporter of Israel until his death as you might have guessed by his name. Not to worry though, his children still form 30% of the Board of Directors for one of Canada's largest media conglomerates.

More about Izzy (as we called him):



He was a prominent member of Canada's Jewish community, and was well-known for his strong faith and support for Israel. While a Liberal in domestic Canadian politics his views in regard to Zionism coincided with the right wing Likud - he was an admirer of Vladimir Jabotinsky.[citation needed]

Asper would occasionally pen editorials defending the nation in his various papers and was accused by a number of media observers of censoring opinions critical of Zionism or which he deemed sympathetic to the Palestinians.[citation needed] He was also a critic of public broadcasting media, especially the CBC both for competing with the private sector as well as alleging that CBC News had a pro-Palestinian bias. Critics have accused Asper of simply attempting to eliminate competition to his business and political opinions.


If you care to complain about what you perceive to be the pro-Israel bias in our news, talk to the Jewish family that owns the majority of it.


Edited to add an extra bit of info regarding one of the quoted bits:


ten journalists at The Regina Leader-Post were reprimanded or suspended after a byline strike to protest censorship of coverage of a speech in Regina by Toronto Star columnist and CanWest critic Haroon Siddiqui.

Why was Haroon censored by CanWest? I think it has something to do with the fact that Honest Reporting calls him anti-Israeli and biased.



The organization was founded by Aish HaTorah on the initiative of "4 or 5 of us British university students, kicking ideas around, frustrated and wondering what we could do to help Israel."[2] It originated as a website although it now exists as an independent organization. It is claimed to be the largest organization in the world fighting anti-Israel media bias. "Honest Reporting" scrutinizes news agencies worldwide, and then alerts its 150,000 subscribers to respond to the media directly. "Honest Reporting" has been cited in The New York Times as playing a key role in influencing media coverage of the Mideast conflict.


[edit on 5-9-2006 by Duzey]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Duzey,

I am sorry I have offended you. I have nothing against Canada except that the east coast is too cold for my tastes. On the other hand the west coast is beautiful (Vancouver, victoria Island).

With that said I do not have a problem with the Canadian Media secifically but I was voicing my complaints regarding the media is general. Local media depends on international media such as reuters, AP, CNN and many of them tend to rush NEWS scoops ASAP and in doing so they fall to fraud and NEWS staging strategied imployed quite effectively by the Palestinians and Lebanese. These have been noted in many blogs and news agencies in Israel.

Example is here



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   
I'm not offended, but thank you for the apology all the same. If I got offended every time someone said something negative about my country, I would be a very cranky person.

I just felt that if you were going to blame the Canadian media for being biased against Israel, you might want to know who actually owns it. I am sure every Canadian you are discussing this topic with does and that may be why they don't agree with you that the media makes them anti-Israel.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Weak argument Pavil?

Then tell me why these so call friendly states in the middle east most of them can not control their populations joining terrorist groups to fight the west, but they seem to allow US to fight the terrorism for them?

Why most of these countries are nothing more than autocratic regimes but US has not problem calling them friends.

Why our soldiers are dying in Iraq fighting while the so call friendly nations in the middle east just sit and do nothing to control their countries from breeding willing martyrs.

Now is not longer Al-qaida, Iraq and Afghanistan to blame, but now we most link Hezbollah to Syria and Iran for the problems in Iraq.

Meanwhile the breeding of terrorist comes from all the countries in the middle east with the exception of a few.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

You provided statements from people not affiliated with their governments and results from a poll taken at a time of understandably high anti-US sentiment.


pavil, that's fine with me. You'll keep asking for official government statements, and I'll keep quoting my original post.


Putting aside geo-political and economical leverage, and focusing on actual public opinion polls instead of official government positions, Muslim communities of the entire world are taking a stand against American colonial agenda.


Cut and paste, cut and paste then it is.


Why show the links and the Jewish orgs that the Pew foundation sponsors? I'm not following your thought there. If it is to discredit them, you are discrediting your own source that you used to prove your own point. I agree that they are quite a good read though.


Why not show them? And how does that discredit the source? I'm not following you here either. I have not stated nor implyed anything. Just posted a quick google search result on the Pew funds which funds the polls. What's the crime in that?


Show me evidence of a country (a government not protesters) that has asked for the cancelation of agreements or removal of US troops from their country by the government of said country that would put them in the "not allied with the West" camp. Saudi Arabia wouldn't allow planes taking off from Saudi bases to be used in Iraq they did allow the air campaign to be run from there. We even eventually removed our troops from Islam's holiest country. Even then, they still remain very Pro West.


pavil, what is it with you? This is what your saying;

-- "Show me the proof that slaves want to be free, and don't give me their own words, give me the official statement of the slave owner, and if they are not making such statements, that means that slaves ave very pro slavery.

Hob about this pavil, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Japan actually, Philippines, this is a good one Crimea, Serbia, and all this is just of the top of my head, no need for google here.

Get of it pavil, what you are trying to do is justify East India Company, colonization of China, extermination of Native Americans, and dare I say, no, better not.

By the way, I'm not listening to JudahMaccabbi anymore, it's no use. Questions were asked, repeatedly, ignored, repeatedly, and the same old rhetoric keeps spewing out.

First he's an Israeli/American, then he's an Israeli Zionist, so who know, and considering his complete and utter lack of any tangible contribution to this debate, who cares.

I implore the participants of this discussion not to give in to his subversive tactics, as the only thing he is attempting to do is to ignite hatred and hijack this thread.

JudahMaccabbi, STOP HIJACKING THIS THREAD!

The topic of this discussion concerns Israels plan for a full scale war against Syria/Iran. Considering that the ME policy in US is controlled by Israeli lobby, the implication is that US will undoubtedly be dragged in to the war.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Then tell me why these so call friendly states in the middle east most of them can not control their populations joining terrorist groups to fight the west, but they seem to allow US to fight the terrorism for them?

Why most of these countries are nothing more than autocratic regimes but US has not problem calling them friends.

Meanwhile the breeding of terrorist comes from all the countries in the middle east with the exception of a few.


You make it sound as if the whole middle east is one big spawing ground and all it produces are terrorists and nothing else. I don't see it that way. Hopefully you don't think that way. Infact the vast majority of people in the region form a "silent majority" who just want to get by like everyone else in the world. Otherwise we would have about 190 Million "terrorists" running amok.

The only way reform can occur in those Autocratic Regimes, which I would include Syria in, Iran is a theocratic regime, is by the combined internal desire for real democratic reform of government tied in with pressure/help from the outside to help change happen. There seems to be a upswelling in real self determination by countries in this region, the world is obliged to help as it has in other regions of the globe to make it happen as peacefully as possible. Islam and democracy are not ideas that have to be in opposition to each other.

To cut and run from all of current allies in the region will only result in bloodshed and the probable implmentation of yet another autocratic leader to take the place of the former autocratic leader. Change will take time and we must be prepared to help with reforms as they develop.

Getting back to the topic at hand....

Does Israel have the right to plan for contingencies involving hostilities with Iran and Syria? It's pretty obvious to most that those two countries have supported Hezbollah, which alone should put them on the Israeli's "radar". Add on top of that Iran's statements in regard to Israel lately, and I don't think Israel could not plan for hostilities with Iran in the future. It's not like both parties are having a lovefest with each other.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

The only way reform can occur in those Autocratic Regimes, which I would include Syria in, Iran is a theocratic regime, is by the combined internal desire for real democratic reform of government tied in with pressure/help from the outside to help change happen.


That is called bringing democracy on the tip a bayonet.

Here's a post of mine from a different thread on this subject:



Armed economic colonialism history of USA. (meaning armed US invasions of sovereign countries for their EXPLOITATION.)

1953 - Guatemala
1955 - Iran
1957 - Lebanon
1958 - Haiti
1959 - Cuba
1961 - Laos
1962 - Thailand
1964 - Vietnam
1966 - Congo
1969 - Dominican Republic
1970 - Indonesia
1972 - Colombia
1974 - Chile
1975 - Angola
1977 - Afghanistan
1978 - Libia
1979 - Nicaragua
1980 - El Salvador
1981 - Lebanon
1982 - Lebanon
1982 - Granada
1984 - Chad
1986 - Bolivia
1987 - Panama
1988 - Iraq
1990 - Somalia
1991 - Yugoslavia
1992 - Macedonia
1994 - Iraq
1995 - Bosnia
1996 - Iraq
1997 - Sudan
1997 - Yugoslavia
1998 - Afghanistan
1999 - Yemen
2000 - Philippines
2001 - Colombia
2002 - Iraq
2003 - Liberia
2004 - Haiti

And still counting

Wow, what friendly, democratic and freedom loving "peaceful" nation we are.

The greatest exporter of war in the ENTIRE WORLD is America.

After WWII EVERY SINGLE American president WAGED WAR, bringing "democracy on the tip of a bayonet."

No wonder that the rest of the world rightfully considers America as a violent, militant war mongering nation.

After the collapse of Soviet Union, a clear image of America as a modern Rome was developed by various think tanks on the White House payroll.

Slave labor, (SLABOR - illegal immigrants), standing armies, and waging of GLOBAL WAR to FORCE geo-political and economic policies.

We are the totalitarian oppressors of the world, all under the hypocrisy of preaching freedom and liberty, and what goes around comes around.


Good point pavil;


Does Israel have the right to plan for contingencies involving hostilities with Iran and Syria? It's pretty obvious to most that those two countries have supported Hezbollah, which alone should put them on the Israeli's "radar". Add on top of that Iran's statements in regard to Israel lately, and I don't think Israel could not plan for hostilities with Iran in the future. It's not like both parties are having a lovefest with each other.


Here's a better question. First of all, Israel just like any other nation has the right to defend it self, but does it have the right to wage preemptive war? No it does not. Up until Bushes administration, neither could we, as per our very constitution.

Another question, considering the leverage of Israeli lobby, does Israel have the right to drag US into the war? Considering how were the best friends and all, if Israel does wage a total war in the Middle East, US commitment will be unquestionable, and it will be the straw that broke the camels back.

I for one don't want my taxes spent on more of our soldiers to be yet again sent around the world to kill more people, and especially when it's on Israels behalf.

What are your thoughts on that?


[edit on 5-9-2006 by iskander]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   
The only way I will accept our nation going into another war because of Israel is . . . if Israel finds itself into a situation that it has been attacked without provocation and an invasion of their nation is imminent.

Beside that Israel has the capabilities and financial means to keep itself safe and protected in their nation.

Remember 40 percent of the aid US give to the middle eastern nations goes to Israel.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Lol...Israel...preparing for war against Syria and Iran.

Hmm...well Lebanon didn't go to well, did it? I have no doubt it was Iran's testing playground. Why? Hezbollah can't get the sort of equipment it needed to accomplish what it did, without Iran.

Test 1.- Saar 5 ship, result: success (second missile would have sunk it, wonder why didn't they shoot it)

Test 2.-Merkava, result success (managed to cripple and blow up a few, only a test, no need to kill em all)

Test 3.- Infantry, result: success (managed to nullify Israels technological superiority, and sometimes made them retreat)

Test 4.- Helos, result: success (shot down a few, and some misterious accidents never explained.

Overall Result: success

Enemy Navy non-effective
Enemy MBT non-effective
Enemy Infantry non-effective
Enemy Helicopters non-effective

Noow...if Hezbollah only had a few of these new weapon systems that proved effective in Israel...and Iran provided them, it would mean Iran has lots of them, not to forget possible way to avoid air superiority. So unless there is a complete doctrine change in Israel, if they face off Iran, I don't see them winning at all...only if the US commited help, without, unlikely to impossible...



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Lol...Israel...preparing for war against Syria and Iran.

Hmm...well Lebanon didn't go to well, did it?



If you say so. Israel got Hezbollah cleared out of Katushya rocket range and had it's military infrastructure destroyed in Southern Lebanon with a rather modest show of force. Israel didn't do a full scale invasion like they are capable of. I'll grant you the Navy was rather sloppy it's actions, they did learn a hard lesson.

I just saw a news report on CNN showing a tour of one of the bunker systems Hezbollah erected in southern Lebanon. It was pretty impressive, they had years to dig in, well not really dig in, rather excavate and build concrete bunkers. Any foe attacking those bunkers would have had a hard time compared to if they were out in the open. Even then Israel overran those bunkers to the Litani river. A direct frontal assault on a really entrenched enemy is never going to go very fast or bloodless for that matter, you just slug it out.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Without the U.S helping, and without using nukes, Israel would get their buts handed to them by a Syria/Iran Alliance. If there was war you can also count on Hizbollah and the Palistinians to ramp up gorilla warfare. Even certain Arab countries like Egypt would be hard pressed holding back public support for Iran/Syria in a confrontation with Israel.

A common enemy would unite Shia and Sunni factions if this were to be the case. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
If you say so


If I say so? So maybe you think otherwise...well let's see, if you kill many more civilians than the enemy in the bunkers, better yet, you know they are in the bunkers, yet you bomb the cities anyway...sorry but that can't be called succes.



Israel got Hezbollah cleared out of Katushya rocket range
Really...thought both parties had agreed a ceasefire...

and had it's military infrastructure destroyed in Southern Lebanon
if you call civilian infraestructure military, then I'll agree, they wiped out the infraestructure...

with a rather modest show of force.
Yes I'm sure that was modest...not on the Air at least...and I believe they did called the reserve...but I'm sure there is lots more Israel can employ...

Israel didn't do a full scale invasion like they are capable of.
Yes, they are capable of occupying all Middle East, what next?

I'll grant you the Navy was rather sloppy it's actions, they did learn a hard lesson.
Yup, agree, getting the new shiny boat hit is rather sloppy.


I just saw a news report on CNN showing a tour of one of the bunker systems Hezbollah erected in southern Lebanon. It was pretty impressive, they had years to dig in, well not really dig in, rather excavate and build concrete bunkers.

Well...it was kinda obvious they'd do that knowing how Israel likes to overreact...

Any foe attacking those bunkers would have had a hard time compared to if they were out in the open.
Well...no, Israel kinda had air superiority, they just had to bomb those positions...was Airforce sloppy as well?

Even then Israel overran those bunkers to the Litani river.
A great success, considering they were fighting a very small force,who didn't have air or armor...

A direct frontal assault on a really entrenched enemy is never going to go very fast or bloodless for that matter, you just slug it out.
Well...I'm not a five star general...but a really entrenched enemy is flushed out with air and artillery...maybe they failed to even identify this positions? After air and artillery, you kinda flank them...so you don't have to face them from the front...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join