Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ~Caligula~ on July 01, 2006, 02:40:40 PM
-
In quieter times, the Israelis might have held their forces back, made loud noises and negotiated in secret.
But these are not quieter times. Israel feels that it has to reduce the power and effectiveness of Hamas and that this is a good opportunity.
Analysis: Israel's wider aims in Gaza (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5132932.stm)
IMO this would be the time to bring in some UN peacekeeping. They would have to come from muslim counrties, so they can`t be looked upon as invading crusaders,and it`d be an opportunity for those "moderate arab states",to show they`re willing to chip in......OTOH, I wouldn`t want to see a joint arab army built up on the border.It`d be a huge mess.
too damn complicated....
-
It'd be a nice time for the Israeli military machine to just napalm the entire palestinian problem into ashes.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
It'd be a nice time for the Israeli military machine to just napalm the entire palestinian problem into ashes.
..may not be done
-
Scorched earth is not the solution to all problems.
-
A clever and elegant solution, Brenjen.
I suppose the irony of it coming from someone who hasn't gotten over the Civil War isn't lost on you, is it?
Why not just send them all back to the Palestine?
It'd be a nice time for the US military machine to just napalm the entire confederacy problem into ashes.
-
Scorched earth is not the solution to all problems.
Bull****, the show of extreme violence to no ends solves ALL problems.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Bull****, the show of extreme violence to no ends solves ALL problems.
And who`s to decide if You have the right to use that or You don`t?
Just because You can is it justified?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
It'd be a nice time for the US military machine to just napalm the entire confederacy problem into ashes.
Umm isn't that exactly what we did in terms of that era. Didn't sherman burn Atlanta?
-
Yes. If I am willing to bash everything into the ground and all those who stand before me, I can do anything I want.
It would be justified because I have more power.
Umm isn't that exactly what we did in terms of that era. Didn't sherman burn Atlanta?
He did more then that. The dude literally ripped a gash through the confederacy. He burned a lot more then atlanta.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes. If I am willing to bash everything into the ground and all those who stand before me, I can do anything I want.
It would be justified because I have more power.
...
AAhhh, OBL was justified to burn the WTC down? I hadn't realized this. Thanks for educating me.
Now all pls stop making such a fuss about 9/11. OBL was justified. Lasersailor said it on the intardnet.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Scorched earth is not the solution to all problems.
You're right of course, but it's the answer that problem.:)
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
It'd be a nice time for the Israeli military machine to just napalm the entire palestinian problem into ashes.
Sounds like a pretty final solution.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
AAhhh, OBL was justified to burn the WTC down? I hadn't realized this. Thanks for educating me.
Now all pls stop making such a fuss about 9/11. OBL was justified. Lasersailor said it on the intardnet.
No, he wasn't justified. He tried to show some force by kicking us in the nuts, but we turned around and butt****ed him.
How useful is Al Qaeda today? How useful is the USA today? Now, who do you think showed more force?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Sounds like a pretty final solution.
Ahhh; for the Israelis to deliver the final solution after so many have tried to do it to them...now that is irony lol
Say! I got it! Let's ask every middle eastern muslim what they would do to Israel if they had the power to do anything they wanted too.....ashes & annihilation come to mind.
We should all be glad the burden of settling those issues are not on our shoulders, none of us could fix it either. It's bad enough some from this online community risk daily life in that region.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Umm isn't that exactly what we did in terms of that era. Didn't sherman burn Atlanta?
He did. But he didn't burn all the Atlantans, did he?
If he had, then I'm sure it would have solved everything, according to the ironically lost and undergraduate, asterick-afflicted youngsters.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Bull****, the show of extreme violence to no ends solves ALL problems.
You advocate extreme violence and justify it as a means to no end???
"No end justifies the means" - LS??
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Ahhh; for the Israelis to deliver the final solution after so many have tried to do it to them...now that is irony lol
Say! I got it! Let's ask every middle eastern muslim what they would do to Israel if they had the power to do anything they wanted too.....ashes & annihilation come to mind.
We should all be glad the burden of settling those issues are not on our shoulders, none of us could fix it either. It's bad enough some from this online community risk daily life in that region.
apples and oranges. THe Jews were not lobbing chemically laced warheads into Germany in the 40s.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
apples and oranges. THe Jews were not lobbing chemically laced warheads into Germany in the 40s.
LOL, I don't get it; at least not as a direct response to my obvious sarcasm. The Germans weren't lobbing chemically laced warheads into Israel in the 40's either...wanna know why?:rofl But that's cool, "according to the ironically lost and undergraduate, asterick-afflicted youngsters." sometimes I just laugh & laugh when I read & post in here, sometimes not; sometimes it's just downright sad. *sniffle*:lol
Oh yeah, screw the palestinians & their plight, it's one of their own making, the Israelis were backing off & they chose to elect a terrorist gang as leadership at a critical point in their negotiations, they don't want peace...they want to win.
-
Eeee gosh Brenjen, I'm really sorry. I mistook you as someone that could participate in reasonable discourse, please just ignore my posts from now on.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Eeee gosh Brenjen, I'm really sorry. I mistook you as someone that could participate in reasonable discourse, please just ignore my posts from now on.
okay.:huh
What're you pissed about? Did I get lost or did you? Darn this alzheimer's
This is all I saw you post "Sounds like a pretty final solution." You were reffering to the "final solution" the Nazis attempted against the Jews(Israelis pretty much) weren't you, or did the irony ironically miss the mark?
Just let me know when a serious discussion with some modicum of civility appears in the AHII forums...the O'Club in particular.
Seriously, I do think the palestinians brought all this recent trouble on themselves, as far as the past; who gave the U.N or anyone else the right to set-up a state for Israel in the first place? That's about as serious as I can get right now.
-
This conflict won't end until both sides glow in the dark. Both sides are to blame and neither side is more at fault than the other.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
LOL, I don't get it; at least not as a direct response to my obvious sarcasm. The Germans weren't lobbing chemically laced warheads into Israel in the 40's either...wanna know why?:rofl But that's cool, "according to the ironically lost and undergraduate, asterick-afflicted youngsters." sometimes I just laugh & laugh when I read & post in here, sometimes not; sometimes it's just downright sad. *sniffle*:lol
Oh yeah, screw the palestinians & their plight, it's one of their own making, the Israelis were backing off & they chose to elect a terrorist gang as leadership at a critical point in their negotiations, they don't want peace...they want to win.
How were they backing off?
-
They withdrew the military from the Gaza and some from behind the barrier they were building to seperate the WB from Israel. They dismantled several settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Oh yeah, screw the palestinians & their plight, it's one of their own making, the Israelis were backing off & they chose to elect a terrorist gang as leadership at a critical point in their negotiations, they don't want peace...they want to win.
Well at least you get it
Originally posted by parker00
How were they backing off?
perhaps you were hybernating when this was going on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
They withdrew the military from the Gaza and some from behind the barrier they were building to seperate the WB from Israel. They dismantled several settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
Closed some and built up the others. Oh yeah don't forget the wall that cuts into the palestinians land. Oh yeah they were trying wern't they. Can't forget about the targeted killings either, those always help bring peace don't the. I know I would love it if Mexico or Canada said "sorry we claim this land now and you know what it's your fault if we can't find some type of peace agreement." I just don't get how you all don't see how Israel is just as much at fault but hey keep those blinders on, it makes life a lot easier!!!
-
so..could a UN peace keeping army stop the pals from shooting out of gaza?
-
Originally posted by parker00
Closed some and built up the others. Oh yeah don't forget...
So you don't consider the withdrawl from Gaza a 'backing off'. OK... Had the Palestinains followed the tactics of Ghandi, they would have been celebrating 25 years of independance. Targeted killings vs blowing up laundramats and pizza parlors.... I'll take the former.
So right back atcha, "hey keep those blinders on, it makes life a lot easier!!!"
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
so..could a UN peace keeping army stop the pals from shooting out of gaza?
Nope, the U.N. has had it's hand in those affairs since the begining, it's as much their fault all this is taking place as it is the Israelis & the palestinians & the British & the U.S. ad nauseum, allthough once the U.N. "peacekeepers" started getting killed it would boil to a head & we would see a war that would substantially crush one side or the others offensive capabilities for decades.
Hey, why doesn't the U.N. move the haitians to the west bank & gaza & move the palestinians to haiti, that'd solve it.:lol
-
Originally posted by parker00
Closed some and built up the others. Oh yeah don't forget the wall that cuts into the palestinians land. Oh yeah they were trying wern't they. Can't forget about the targeted killings either, those always help bring peace don't the. I know I would love it if Mexico or Canada said "sorry we claim this land now and you know what it's your fault if we can't find some type of peace agreement." I just don't get how you all don't see how Israel is just as much at fault but hey keep those blinders on, it makes life a lot easier!!!
You conveniently left out the suicide bombers & the mortars & the rockets & the armed assaults against Israelis perpetrated by the palestinians during that same time period, the palestinians are always the first to break the peace.
-
so..could a UN peace keeping army stop the pals from shooting out of gaza?
No. As events have shown, no outside force can do that. The Palestinians are only going to stop shooting out of Gaza when it's in their own best interests (think final peace deal).
After all, the UN and the IDF never managed to stop Hezbollah shooting out of Lebanon. An almost final deal with Israel did (barring Sheba Farms).
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Nope, the U.N. has had it's hand in those affairs since the begining, it's as much their fault all this is taking place as it is the Israelis & the palestinians & the British & the U.S. ad nauseum, allthough once the U.N. "peacekeepers" started getting killed it would boil to a head & we would see a war that would substantially crush one side or the others offensive capabilities for decades.
Hey, why doesn't the U.N. move the haitians to the west bank & gaza & move the palestinians to haiti, that'd solve it.:lol
Are you serious? Israel would ****ing rock the UN with all of it's "Might" without breaking a sweat.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Are you serious? Israel would ****ing rock the UN with all of it's "Might" without breaking a sweat.
I guess that would depend entirely on how you saw this imaginary occupation unfolding.
If it were strictly the arab nations under the U.N flag fighting for the palestinians from gaza & the west bank, I agree with you 100%, if you saw a multinational force that involved any of the industrial nations I think the Israelis would be in a bad way quickly without help from the U.S. which would likely be part of that U.N. force in any event.
There's no doubt in my mind at all Israel is a regional powerhouse & the absolute top dog of their neighborhood, but they are hardly a global power, their nukes give them a huge boost, but not enough to make them a global player. It's my firm belief they could stomp the crap out of all the arab nations that can reach them militarily, & all at the same time.
But seeing as how the U.N. chit-chat is all presumption & what-ifs it's irrelevant.
-
quote:In quieter times, the Israelis might have held their forces back, made loud noises and negotiated in secret.
And just when in hell were those "quieter times"???
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Scorched earth is not the solution to all problems.
the hell it isnt.
No more people. No more problem
-
I think the idea of the IDF fighting UN peacekeepers is kinda silly.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
I think the idea of the IDF fighting UN peacekeepers is kinda silly.
That depends on what the UN "peacekeepers" are there to do. When you have UN rights council votes to review Israel rights record at every session (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/07/un-rights-council-votes-to-review.php)
Considering Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Pakistan and China are all on the UN "human" rights council I find the UN lacks major credibility as a "peacekeeping body" and more or less serves itself.
-
I haven't defended any method the palestinians are using but you all seem to think that Israel has the right to do what it wants and I'm saying they are both the problem. I don't believe either side wants peace and neither side has made an honest attempt at it.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
I think the idea of the IDF fighting UN peacekeepers is kinda silly.
they fought the brits when they were doing simlar duty there.
pwnd 'en
-
If it were strictly the arab nations under the U.N flag fighting for the palestinians from gaza & the west bank, I agree with you 100%, if you saw a multinational force that involved any of the industrial nations I think the Israelis would be in a bad way quickly without help from the U.S. which would likely be part of that U.N. force in any event.
Either. Israel would take either in a fight, even both, though they would have to roll up their sleeves if they were taking on arabs and europe. They might just have to take a short nap after the fighting.
-
Originally posted by parker00
I haven't defended any method the palestinians are using but you all seem to think that Israel has the right to do what it wants and I'm saying they are both the problem. I don't believe either side wants peace and neither side has made an honest attempt at it.
Agreed
-
*waves at VOR* ;)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Either. Israel would take either in a fight, even both, though they would have to roll up their sleeves if they were taking on arabs and europe. They might just have to take a short nap after the fighting.
I disagree that the Israelis could take out even a weak global power like France one on one. I believe they can smoke regional states like egypt or syria or lebanon or saudi arabia or jordan or even all of them at the same time, but not a global power. They simply do not have the capabilities.
~Caligula~ said: I think the idea of the IDF fighting UN peacekeepers is kinda silly.
Tell that to the crew of the U.S.S. Liberty
-
Originally posted by parker00
I haven't defended any method the palestinians are using but you all seem to think that Israel has the right to do what it wants and I'm saying they are both the problem. I don't believe either side wants peace and neither side has made an honest attempt at it.
And when you quoted me, I was just showing an instance where Israel did step back, ie the withdrawl from the Gaza and at least some of the WB. Not saying their entire policy is correct, just showing a single instance.
Had the Palestinians countered with a step back of their own perhaps peace could be more possible. Hamas declaring that they changed their policy about destroying Israel and the use of terror, that would be an easy step.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
I disagree that the Israelis could take out even a weak global power like France one on one. I believe they can smoke regional states like egypt or syria or lebanon or saudi arabia or jordan or even all of them at the same time, but not a global power. They simply do not have the capabilities.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And when you quoted me, I was just showing an instance where Israel did step back, ie the withdrawl from the Gaza and at least some of the WB. Not saying their entire policy is correct, just showing a single instance.
Had the Palestinians countered with a step back of their own perhaps peace could be more possible. Hamas declaring that they changed their policy about destroying Israel and the use of terror, that would be an easy step.
True and I agree that the demands of renouncing violence, recognizing Israel and holding to prior agreements is not a lot to ask and should be met before aid is sent in but if we are looking for baby steps from either side then Hamas did hold to a cease fire for months before the election and even after. Do you really believe that Hamas could control all the other factions with the condition the country is in? These two have been going at it for how long and all of sudden one group from a demolished country is supposed to control all the rest? I just don't see how, look at Afghanistan and Iraq, neither side has one group that can control the rest yet the Palestinians are supposed to when they are just as destroyed as the other two. But like I said, I am not defending what they do as I don’t agree with suicide bombers, I just don't see how some in this thread put all the blame on the Palestinians.
-
All Hamas needs to do is make a statement saying they renounce terrorism and recognise Israel and it would be a huge step toward peace. Like Sadat going to Jerusalem, it would be largely symbolic and not substantive.
A good faith effort by Hamas to control the fringe groups would be accepted with worldwide acclaim, and I think most would agree that some violence would continue... but at least it would not be government sanctioned.
-
Originally posted by parker00
I haven't defended any method the palestinians are using but you all seem to think that Israel has the right to do what it wants and I'm saying they are both the problem. I don't believe either side wants peace and neither side has made an honest attempt at it.
again maybe you were hybernating during this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan but it seems as honest attempt as any. The decision was extremly unpopular with the populace as well.
The palistinains saw this as a victory and continued to lobb rockets at civilian targets and then proceded to trash the evacuated settlements.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
again maybe you were hybernating during this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan but it seems as honest attempt as any. The decision was extremly unpopular with the populace as well.
The palistinains saw this as a victory and continued to lobb rockets at civilian targets and then proceded to trash the evacuated settlements.
Do you like to repeat yourself for no reason what so ever? I didn't agree with you above so why would I care if you repost the same thing? IF Israel wanted peace they would agree to give back all the land they stole, go back to 1967 borders and then I will agree that they made an effort. Gunslinger no need to post the same message, I understand you only see what you want to. Add something new and I will be more than happy to reply.
-
Originally posted by parker00
IF Israel wanted peace they would agree to give back all the land they stole, go back to 1967 borders and then I will agree that they made an effort.
If they went back to the 1967 borders, Jordan, Egypt and Syria would get back their land, and the Palestinians would still be homeless.
Isreal cannot unilaterally give all the occupied since 1967 land to the Palestinians without the Palestinians supporting the existance of Israel.
If they do they lose their bargaining chip, and get nothing in return.
If Hamas makes an effort to stop the terror and accepts Israel as a neighbor, then a bargain can be struck and the win - win situation is set up.
-
Originally posted by parker00
Do you like to repeat yourself for no reason what so ever? I didn't agree with you above so why would I care if you repost the same thing? IF Israel wanted peace they would agree to give back all the land they stole, go back to 1967 borders and then I will agree that they made an effort. Gunslinger no need to post the same message, I understand you only see what you want to. Add something new and I will be more than happy to reply.
You keep saying that no honest attempt has been made and I'm pointing out where it has only to blow up in their faces. Israel has supported the right for a free palistinian state for years now yet the pals. seem only hell bent on destroying israel. If they actually cared they'd elect a govt that cared for it's people more than it's cause.
I'm not forgiving israel for any wrong doings of the past but tell me when in the last five or so years have they intentionally targeted civilians?
Can you say the same for the pals?
-
Originally posted by parker00
IF Israel wanted peace they would agree to give back all the land they stole, go back to 1967 borders and then I will agree that they made an effort.
Do You really belive that is what the Hamas wants, and they would stop killing israelis and disrupt our lives?
(http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/7307/soldiercampaign170106reuter9rh.jpg)
just look at the map drawn on that poster...does that look like the 1967 borders? It`s a pic taken before the palestinian elections.
-
IF Israel wanted peace they would agree to give back all the land they stole
It wasn't "stolen" it was WON after ISRAEL was invaded & fired on first, sneak attacked even. The palestinians are the ones who break the cease fires they are the ones who murder children laying in cribs with automatic rifles & grenades. It's the palestinian people who elected a terrorist gang as their leadership!
It's 90% the palestinians fault they are in the Israeli weapon sights & 10% the U.N. for setting up an Israeli state to begin with. The Israelis are in a no win situation, no matter what they do they are viewed as bullying a weak ghetto people, they are justified in wiping the palestinians out imo, but they are kinder people than me. I would push every last palestinian man woman & child into the sea, especially if one of my children or even one of my countrymen were killed by those animalistic thugs.
Oh, lasersailor, I don't hold much respect for the french govt. but they could kick the stuffing out of Israel & that's without using their I.C.B.M.'s The French soldier is as tough, hard nosed, proud & well equipped as any other in the world. They are one of; if not the weakest global power, but they are a global power & Israel is not.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
It wasn't "stolen" it was WON after ISRAEL was invaded & fired on first, sneak attacked even.
It was won in 1967 after Israel attacked first, although terror attacks led up to the preemptive military attack (by Israel) of the six day war.
Source (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf6.html)
-
What you are calling terror attacks; I call being fired on first. If the palestinians wanted peace, they could have voted in a more moderate governing body at that crucial step in the peace process & they could police their people, arresting the ones creating the problems. If the Israelis saw that sort of effort on the palestinian side along with recognition & a live & let live policy instead of chanting death to Israel & killing every Israeli they can get away with, there would be peace.
The palestinians are & have always been "terrorists" they have never had a uniformed legitimate military, when yassir arafat withdrew from lebanon, the U.N. with U.S. support (or vice versa) allowed them to leave with their weapons! It is a tangled mess; I think the U.S. should choose a distinct path & follow it. We are as much to blame as the U.N. & Israel & the palestinians for the problem they live with there.
I just don't like the palestinians, every news clip I see no matter what the source, shows them being tribal gangs like a pack of wild dogs. I'll never forget the video of the daycare with the bloody cribs & little dead bodies covered here & there, or the two Israeli soldiers who were taking refuge at a police station; seeing their dead bodies being dumped out of a second floor window at a PALESTINIAN POLICE STATION while the palestinians were running around outside showing their bloodstained hands to the cameras, screw those filthy animals, they deserve to die if they will not work toward a peaceful resolution.
-
yes indeed "give back stolen land"
Israel’s operation in Gaza comes less than a year after its unilateral retreat last summer, when more than 8,000 Jews were expelled from the homes and communities some of them had lived in for decades. This, Israelis were told, would mean “disengagement“ from their enemies — the Palestinians would have all of Gaza to themselves and violence would be thwarted by the security fence separating them from Israel. “If this will be done, then everything will be changed,” Ehud Olmert, a key architect of the plan, promised in a speech last June. Israel would be better off without Gaza than it ever was with it. But the surrender of Gaza didn’t appease Hamas and Fatah. Instead, it convinced them that Israelis were weak, that terrorism worked — and that more terrorism would work even better.
So more terrorism followed. “In just the past two weeks,“ I wrote last September, “a Palestinian knifed a Jewish student to death in Jerusalem’s Old City, an Israeli policemen was stabbed in the throat by an Arab in Hebron, Kassam rockets were fired from Gaza into the southern Israeli town of Sderot, a suicide bomber blew himself up in Beersheba’s crowded bus station, a Katyusha missile launched from Lebanon exploded in the Israeli village of Margaliot, a firebomb was thrown at an Israeli vehicle on a highway outside Jerusalem, and a 14-year-old boy from Nablus was caught with three bombs.”
In the months since then, the Palestinian war against Israel has continued without letup. All that changed was the frontline — with the Jewish settlements and soldiers gone, it moved right up to the border, making it easier than ever for attacks to penetrate Israeli territory. The Gaza security fence has been no panacea. Sderot and other towns in southern Israel have been bombarded by hundreds of rockets fired over the fence. The gunmen who abducted Shalit and killed two of his comrades entered Israel by tunneling under the fence.
“We are tired of fighting,” said Olmert last year, making the case for retreating from Gaza. “We are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies.”
But Israel will either defeat its enemies or be defeated by them; “disengaging" from them is not an option. In 1976, Israelis understood that in their bones. Thirty years later, do they still?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/02/has_israel_lost_the_spirit_of_76/
-
I didn't call them terror attacks, the Jewish Virtual Library did. (check out the link I posted) According to that source, Israel attacked first. (Although the claim they were provoked and had little choice if they wished to survive.)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I didn't call them terror attacks, the Jewish Virtual Library did. (check out the link I posted) According to that source, Israel attacked first. (Although the claim they were provoked and had little choice if they wished to survive.)
I did check out the link you posted, I was refering to your printed words.
although terror attacks led up to the preemptive military attack
I should have made my printed words more accurate maybe. I'm sure we (people around the world) agree on how people should treat each other more than it seems we do. I just get sick of seeing the apologists making excuses for the wild animals of the world attacking innocent people intentionally, and then they hold up a casualty or two that inadvertantly got in the way when the ones who were attacked first retaliate as proof the killing of innocent people goes both ways. Know what I mean?
-
Absolutely. No way could a civilized human embrace those who think restaurants, schools, and city buses are legitimate military targets, and then talk a 12 year old into sacrifice in order to make the attack.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
10% the U.N. for setting up an Israeli state to begin with.
Oh, lasersailor, I don't hold much respect for the french govt. but they could kick the stuffing out of Israel & that's without using their I.C.B.M.'s The French soldier is as tough, hard nosed, proud & well equipped as any other in the world. They are one of; if not the weakest global power, but they are a global power & Israel is not. [/B]
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
France could turn Isreal into a sea of glass...without breaking a sweat.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
So yeah, France would get their bellybutton kicked without Israel breaking a sweat. But, like I said, Israel might have to take a quick 15 minute nap afterwards.
Man: READY ZE MISSLES!!!!!!!!!!!
Woman: But I am le tired
Man: Ok take a nap ZEN READY ZE MISSLES!!!!!!!!
lol just kinda reminded me.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
France could turn Isreal into a sea of glass...without breaking a sweat.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I didn't call them terror attacks, the Jewish Virtual Library did. (check out the link I posted) According to that source, Israel attacked first. (Although the claim they were provoked and had little choice if they wished to survive.)
They blockaded Elat, israel`s only trade rout to the east, and they were massing armies on the border getting ready for an all out attack. So in fact Israel started the war by raiding and destroying the arab airbases..
-
The french got their collective ass` handed to them in their north african colonies...by the arabs. Israel did the same to the arabs,when they were backed by the soviets and supplied the most modern weapons of the era....
go figure...
I heard that the IAF were training the coalition airforces on how to take down arab, soviet made air defences in the first gulf war. Tactics that were developed over Lebanon`s .Bekaa Valley (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/hurley.html)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Israel could just as easily launch nukes back, without breaking a sweat. Paris would be one large flaming confectioner's delight.
No.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
Nope, hard to "rape" anyone when you have been atomized.
-
I can see right now, Thrawn, that you're going to need a lot more asterisks for this "discussion" with the omniscient laserSavant.
Be careful, I understand that he's read a book. ;)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
In fights real men bellybutton rape? :huh
-
FYI the soldier kidnapped by the pals (the reason for the IDF`s re-entry to gaza)is also a french citizen.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
The french got their collective ass` handed to them in their north african colonies...by the arabs. Israel did the same to the arabs,when they were backed by the soviets and supplied the most modern weapons of the era....
go figure...
I heard that the IAF were training the coalition airforces on how to take down arab, soviet made air defences in the first gulf war. Tactics that were developed over Lebanon`s .Bekaa Valley (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/hurley.html)
They did indeed assist in that training as they had already fought them & won. The U.S. & her allies are far from stupid or too proud to learn from anyone, that's why we're the top dogs on the planet.
Lasersailor; The French may have lost battles all over the world, but they could at least reach those places with military force, Israel can't reach france except with a few little boats & planes that wouldn't be able to return to Israel because of a lack of fuel, Israel does not have I.C.B.M.'s so how would they nuke Paris without losing their entire air force?
France on the other hand has a very healthy supply of thermonuclear I.C.B.M.'s & a very capable air defense.
It's a rather dumb...nay infantile thing to start calling me names because you are argueing a point that neither of us could prove without it actually happening & I say the chances of war between Israel & France are slim to none, so have a beer & chill.
-
Israel does not have I.C.B.M.'s so how would they nuke Paris without losing their entire air force?
subs
-
& that's why I said "a few little boats", I don't think the Israelis have the capability to sea launch thermonuclear devices, but I could be wrong, we(the U.S.) have helped them a lot & may have even helped them in that area. (that's why they kicked the s**t out of the arabs with the latest soviet jun...I mean hardware)
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
& that's why I said "a few little boats", I don't think the Israelis have the capability to sea launch thermonuclear devices, but I could be wrong, we(the U.S.) have helped them a lot & may have even helped them in that area. (that's why they kicked the s**t out of the arabs with the latest soviet jun...I mean hardware)
Google it...there are israeli subs with nukes on them. But I`m sure they`re far from France at this point...more likely to be somewhere in the Persian Gulf...
dunno man...when I see footage of the 6 day war, the only US hardware I see is the jeep and the M16 (the truck,not the weapon). I don`t think those were enough to win that war.
-
My point wasn't if they could carry them, it's can they launch them without surfacing? And a nuclear tipped cruise missle that you have to surface to launch (which is all I think they can carry) is no where close to an I.C.B.M.
Is that really all you think the U.S. was providing Israel? A jeep or two & halftracks? :lol You're killing me over here.
I gotta go for the night, but I look forward to reading more of this tomorrow. Be safe over there Caligula.
-
yawn it's to early , I don't understand what I read ..
-
from the IAF official website (http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/Aircraft/Aircraft.aspx?lang=EN&lobbyID=69&folderID=78)
The IAF expressed interest in buying Phantoms in 1965, when they were the most advanced airplane in service, anywhere. The Americans refused this, but agreed to sell Israel Skyhawks. Only in January of 1968, after massive pressure was applied at the highest diplomatic levels, did the Americans relent. The IAF, which at that time preferred single-seat aircraft, considered having a single seat version of the Phantom designed exclusively for it. The idea was abandoned when it was realized that giving up the second crewman would prevent full utilization of the Phantom's excellent potential. It was decided to purchase the tandem seat E model, which was in development at the time. At the IAF's initiative, an internal cannon was included - the first time a Phantom model included a cannon.
The Israeli Air Force acquired the Skyhawk in 1967 as an indirect result of the French embargo on Israel, which kept Israel from receiving 50 Mirage J5’s that had been purchased from France and paid for in full. The Skyhawk was the first attack plane that the US agreed to sell Israel.
Dassault Mirage IIIC
The Mirage inaugurated a new era in Israeli military aviation - the era that led to the IAF's becoming one of the best and most advanced air forces in the world. The Mirage's arrival was the first time that the IAF received a cutting edge fighting machine that was superior in quality to that of the Arab air forces.
The Mirage was considered to be the best fighter of its generation, and proved itself in every battle it participated in. The Mirage was to have a glorious term of service in the IAF: there are two Mirages with 13 kills to their credit, and many others with over 10 kills scored.
planes listed as entered sevice during the 50s:
Gloster (Hawker-Siddeley) Meteor
Dassault Ouragan
Dassault Mystere
Dassault Super-Mystere B2, Hebrew nickname: `Sambad`
Sud Ouest SO.4050 Vautour
I think the main battle tank of the IDF was the Centurion at that time and the infantry was equipped with UZIs. None of these US made..
-
They also had M-48 Patton U.S. made tanks, they were the 105MM gunned versions, when the Jordanians began their attack the IDF ended up with the Jordanian M-48's as well which were equipped with smaller guns (the IDF up-gunned them quickly & began using them) they did have some U.S. hardware; tanks,mortars,artillery,AA guns, maybe even some WWII surplus boats (not positive about that) & most importantly an enormous ammount of intel we were providing. There is even some speculation that's what the U.S.S. Liberty was actually doing there in the first place, providing the Israelis with intel.
Quote from me:
"we(the U.S.) have helped them a lot & may have even helped them in that area. (that's why they kicked the s**t out of the arabs with the latest soviet jun...I mean hardware)"
I should have said the IDF was able to fight off the arabs because they had a hodge-podge of modern (& some obsolete) western weapons & they had those weapons because of U.S. sympathies towards Israel, I never meant to imply that I thought the IDF was equiped soley by the U.S.
It was during the 6 day war that the french put an arms embargo in place against Israel & that's what caused the U.S. to begin to be the main supplier of A/C & other high priced weapons systems. I do not know if Britain & West Germany continued to supply Israel after the french embargo or not.
Edit: sorry that was so long but you seem stuck on A/C as being the only weapon involved in the six day war, that and small arms. But there was a lot more to that war than just planes or Uzis that helped the IDF score a victory. Hell even the fact that the cream of the Egyptian military was in Yemen fighting in their civil war had a lot to do with the Israeli success.