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.

 

Israel's chance of survival

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
To all the Israeli nay sayers...y'all have some pretty short memories... or maybe skipped school the day they did ME history???
Israel has taken on all comers (apologies for the bar fight analogy)...Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon...did I forget anyone?..in at least 4 major wars and countless skirmishes...and whats been the outcome...oh yeah, they WON!
Collectively and seperately the Arab nations have not, cannot, and will not defeat Israel, end of story...
Why?...the Israeli's know full well that defeat = loss of nation. When they fight, they fight to the last man (or woman)...Arab countries on the other hand have a terrible track record (in modern times) when it comes to full on military battle...in countless confrontations...when the chips are down...they don't suck it up and turn up the heat...they bail, on themselves and each other!@

I for one would not want my retreat covered by an Arab army...talk about leaving the back door open.




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Hello Dead, No I have not forgotton Israels military track record but we are in different time now where there are those who will risk everything, a different mind set.

With regard to Arab nations not having the will to fight did not Iran/Iraq slug it out for 7 years and fought themselves to a standstill.

Comparing the might of a superpower to a weak third world nation and saying they did not do much welll what do you expect. I'm sure if it was a US/Russia confrontation you would see quite a different result.

But then that highlights another problem Un like Israel the US's foreign wars have been quite the opposite havent they, America has never won a war on its own account and its recent track record leaves alot to be desired.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Izraelis will be kept occupied with possibly hezbollah and Syria if they engage in hostile activities against Iran.I think hezbollah have bigger guns they still haven´t showed.I expect many civilian casulties on both sides here.As for the direct threat from Iran they Izraelis would not have to worry,cause I belive Iran in their turn will be occupied with the American assult.

I wonder how many casulties American people can take when # starts hitting the fan down there?Cause I have a hard time to see American forces having a walk in the park down there.Nato designation Sunburn for example,will surley make their impact on the American navy.Destroying a couple of US carriers and wola you have thousands of dead Americans sent home in body bags.

This is where there could be a critical point as the Americans taking huge casulties, without achiving much more than many civilian casulties through the destruction of infrastructure (like the Izraelis in Lebanon) hoping for a insurgence.Will there not by any insurgence, I see a risk for the neocons to use nukes on Iran to achive their hidden masters goals.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom

With regard to Arab nations not having the will to fight did not Iran/Iraq slug it out for 7 years and fought themselves to a standstill.


Using old men and children as waves of walking dead is hardly a military tatic...at least in the conventional sense, and it does nothing to garner respect for your military prowess.


I'm sure if it was a US/Russia confrontation you would see quite a different result.


Agreed, it would have been raining nukes on both sides.


But then that highlights another problem Un like Israel the US's foreign wars have been quite the opposite havent they, America has never won a war on its own account and its recent track record leaves alot to be desired.


Not so sure about that...Barbary Wars, War of 1812, War for Texas Independence, Mexican War, Spanish-American War, were all fought by our lonesome...but to give credit where it's due, you are correct in that most of the US's major engagements have included at a minimum Britian (excepting the whole independence thing)...and yes we have had a couple spectacular failures...I know it's trite, but IMO those losses were because of lack of political will not military tatics or stregnth.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom

But then that highlights another problem Un like Israel the US's foreign wars have been quite the opposite havent they, America has never won a war on its own account and its recent track record leaves alot to be desired.


Wrong, America is good when it comes to regular war, storming a country and killing soldiers. What America is lacking when it comes to war, is being able to police and occupy a country. And Technicly Iraq and Veitnam are not wars along with others that America has faught in.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhOo0
Wrong, America is good when it comes to regular war, storming a country and killing soldiers. What America is lacking when it comes to war, is being able to police and occupy a country. And Technicly Iraq and Veitnam are not wars along with others that America has faught in.


True…but I have always been curious about exactly what the general consensus is concerning a country (any country) that has been good/proficient in military occupation and as to why.

Perhaps it is as simple as not understanding the real alternative(s)…yet still incessantly complain.

mg



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
WhooO

Definition of war, a state of armed confict between different nations, states or groups.

The US lost the Vietnam war because it assumed its technology would give it an edge over its more primitive adversery, but their ideaology won the day.

Korea was the same as above.

Iraq is just the same, and your statement of American forces are good at fighting is again flawed, this is highlighted by the current state of affairs inside of Iraq.
America was told that a land war with no endgame would be a long bloody slog, but you took no notice, now you now the truth.

But getting back on topic have you any comments re Israels chances in all out war.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Definition of war, a state of armed confict between different nations, states or groups.


True, however a declaration of war is made by the US Congress for America. Congress allowed millitary intervention, but not a declaration of war.


The US lost the Vietnam war because it assumed its technology would give it an edge over its more primitive adversery, but their ideaology won the day.

Korea was the same as above.

Iraq is just the same, and your statement of American forces are good at fighting is again flawed, this is highlighted by the current state of affairs inside of Iraq.
America was told that a land war with no endgame would be a long bloody slog, but you took no notice, now you now the truth.


In all three of those, the US troops were dealing with occupation of a country to help what ever country, be it the French in Veitnam, South Korea, or America for Oil in Iraq. As i said before America can storm through a country and kill who ever they need to, then just leave because it's not Americas problem. In Veitnam they couldn't just go and kill anyone because you couldn't tell who was who most of the time, they were guerillas. In Iraq Bush won't leave so they have to deal with car bombs and guerilla attacks. It's guerilla warfare that is hindering the American troops.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
China and Russia would not get involved, if they did so would we. Which means ww3 and we would still win.

AS for Israel VS the rest of the middle east.... I'll take Israel.

Hell the arabs/muslims already tried more then once and got whooped. If Israel feels its back is to the wall and uses unrestricted warfare like the arabs/muslims already do then Israel has nothing to worry about.

Lebanon was a restricted limited war. Israel could plow through those people if it wanted to and felt its existence was threatened.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
Nygdan, I think you missed the entire point...

No offense, but Israel stands no chance in hell against the Muslim countries as they are being supplied by China and Russia (They're ALLIES).

We are being lied to from the highest forms of government due to their thirst for blood. When will we realize that war does not hold any solution except for causing more wars?

Wake up please.

bs

[edit on 4-3-2007 by biggie smalls]


No, its you that needs to wake up. The combined arab/muslim world supplied by russia already tried more then once to eliminate Israel, what happened you say? Israel expanded and the arabs/muslims were embarrassed more then once.

Last time I checked war was responsible for eliminating slavery in america nazis and facists in europe and a cold war which is responsible for a free eastern europe from those pesky russians.

Me thinks you need to brush up on your history and leave the land of sunshine rainbows and lollipops....

No offense...

I just read you mentioned africa... AFRICA???!??!? LMAO what are they going to do. Save all the UNICEF money the american kids send them and buy an aircraft carrier?

Africa is the biggest joke of the solar system. I mean really africa. Africa is a barren wasteland filled with TRIBES just like the middle east. A significant amount of which has aids more of which is malnourished and even more so uneducated. YEah very much a threat. Africa you guys.... Stop kidding around.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by American Madman]

[edit on 25-4-2007 by American Madman]



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Hello Dead, No I have not forgotton Israels military track record but we are in different time now where there are those who will risk everything, a different mind set.

With regard to Arab nations not having the will to fight did not Iran/Iraq slug it out for 7 years and fought themselves to a standstill.



Hmm fought to a standstill. This is same Iraq which we wiped up twice with ease mind you. Whats happening now isn't war its policing. Iraq as a military threat was eliminated. So to think Iran who they fought to a stand still has any better chance is funny. Oh yeah those russian wonder weapons... I forgot lmao...

I won't even deal with he rest of your post which is also funny.

Different mindset. the middle east at large is stuck in the dark ages so lets be real they still kill each other wholesale for reasons which are laughable and can not really unite as one. I mean really who are you trying to fool.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
You want to know who would win a war between Israel and Arab States. A quote most of you should know by now. "He who fails the war at sea, loses the war." Historical examples, Nazi Germany, The Spanish Armada, and Napoleon. Israel has the best navy in the ME, at least one of the best. They can close other countries ports, but I doubt the Arab countries could close Israels, at least not for long.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Very few of you seem to understand the notion that Israel doesn't really, when it comes down to it, give a damn what the rest of the world thinks about them. They'll do what neccessary to survive as a people and a national entity. If they can do it peacefully, always preferable, they will. If they have to break heads, they will. If they have to kick Arab League butt again, and again, they will.

And the Arabs know this. That's why they haven't tried since '73, except for the Lebonese escapades, and we saw how well that worked out. If Israel hadn't, for a change, bowed to outside pressure, Hezzbolah/Hamas would in all likelihood have been wiped out.

Syria isn't going to take them on, nor is Egypt, or Jordan, or any combination thereof. China's not ready to face the US, not yet anyway, and their getting involved in the ME would insure just that, confrontation with the worlds sole superpower. They're not ready for that just yet. Russia? Has been, with little influence outside of selling second rate weaponry.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
there are a few 'wild cards' which could/may affect the tactics of the different parties.

what about the Israeli population in a mad-rush to build personal underground shelters? much like the '50s & '60s in USA with the fallout shelter craze!

what about the massive construction underway in the GulfStates,
for instance Bahrain, Dubai, etc...creating an Arab financial 'Hub'
and business enterprise 'Hub' to rival London & NY...
the tremendous push by GulfStates to engage their citizens in
Arab stock markets...
instant elevation to the cultural & financial & developed society club.
while the Basij, Hezbollah, and confrontational States like Syria
quickly descend into the globally recognized status of being a 'Pariah' State
or NGO


perhaps its wishful thinking on my part, but a ?catostrophic? all consuming M.E. war of annihilation can only occur by 'accident'...the low grade,
insurgency and guerrilla ambushes like the last 30 day Lebanon 'war'
played out- is the degree of action we're likely to see played out many times in the M.E.
as far a Israel keeping its statehood & identity...it'll probably be around for the next 50 years...but may be waging a more financial & technology
'war' than a land/cultural 'war'....



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
The US lost the Vietnam war because it assumed its technology would give it an edge over its more primitive adversery, but their ideaology won the day.



ehhhhhhhh.....sorry that was incorrect. The US lost the political war in Vietnam, not the one on the ground. But you are right, in that sense it is the same as Vietnam, there are those who would rather take defeat and turn tail and run, rather than fix the situation. Common sense tells me that if we leave, the Iraqis will be worse off, no longer will there be US or Coalition troops to act as some sort of a buffer between civilians and the insurgent groups all fighting for power in Iraq.

George Patton is rolling in his grave.


I dont know how you got that assesment of the Korean War? The Korean War was UN sanctioned, the North invaded the South and we went to help along with many, many other countries. Heres a list of countries involved on the Allied side.

Coutries who participated in hostilities agains China, North Korea, and Russia(yes, they were physically involved too)

Republic of Korea,
Australia,
Belgium,
Canada,
Colombia,
Ethiopia,
France,
Greece,
Luxembourg,
Netherlands,
New Zealand,
Philippines,
South Africa,
Thailand,
Turkey,
United Kingdom,
United States



[edit on 4/25/2007 by ludaChris]



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Will the US reinstate the draft as its forces are already stretched.


This is a common misconception. The US, as of now, has 38 active combat brigades, and 39 Reserve/Guard combat brigades. Guess how many are in Iraq? Out of over 70 combat brigades, only 12 are deployed overseas.

US Deployments



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Israel is more than capable of defending itself. If any combination of Arab nations is stupid enough to attack, they will just have their a**es handed to them again. Israel sits right in the middle of a bunch of nations that would like nothing more than to wipe them out. Dont be foolish enough to think that they havent prepared for any kind of aggression possible, up to and including nulcear threats.



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Thank you for the replies thus far, Israel cannot survive without the help of the US its as simple as that. Irrespective of its nuke capabilities Israel is incapable of a sustained lenghty war. It simply dose not have the Human resources for such a conflict, a country's abiltiy to sustain losses and to be able to replace them is what counts in any continued conflict.

Israel could only survive if there were US troops on the ground in Israel and as for its past conquests, history is replete with country's that have long histories of winning followed by long histories of losing.

Again many of the US members here quote the prowess of their armed forces but again military might and technology has not brought success in a country with no military to fight back, 4 years and counting with no end still in sight.

And I'm sure most Iraqi's were doing quite well without the generous help of the US Goverment and its armed forces.



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Thats funny magicmushroom, you try to make comparison to U.S. military might involvement against insurgents that is bogging them down. But the question is then what would happen if Israel resorted to doing exactly like insurgents do and not depend on conventional means?



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
However...if the Muslim nations decided to commit genocide and don't distinguish between civilians and military, well they won't have a hard time destroying Israel and the people.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join