Arming Up

Judt

Korea is a country of 1 million men under arms and possibly capable of causing severe damage to an attacker if not winning. And currently activly testing nuclear devices.

Now there's a wet dream. I heard similar things about the mighty, battle hardened Iraqi army in 1990. 1 million men under arms is no good if they're also under enemy controlled skies, which they're sure to be. Korea is all fizzle and no bang.

When was this?

Well, 100:1 being an over statement, but you don't think that a nation capable of taking on all of its bigger neighbors at once - one time during a religious holiday surprise attack - has nothing to do with the fact that the arab nations surrounding Israel haven't tried another go in the past few decades? The Israeli Air Force can buzz Assad's palace in Damascus and there's SFA the Syrians can do about it. In a conventional sense, Israel still has the best military in the world, bar none.

So what? Aggression is agression, it's a war crime no matter what. Soviet occupation of eastern europe was based on the same logic, would you condone that?

I'd say that if you or I were an Israeli, or a Soviet, we'd have done the same thing.

Cheers thanks for the info, I am still unfamiliar will all aspects of the conflict and I am reading up on it.

Sorry for calling you a fanatic... But as I say, read into this stuff. Victor is totally correct - the ground Israel took is mainly for defensive depth, and water and suchlike. It's not some facist reasoning, it's basically smart thinking. Israel's neighbors had a couple of go's at wiping them out, so in the process of driving them back Israel took the ground it needed to ensure that they couldn't do it again.

Manic Moran

Judt wrote:

Now there's a wet dream. I heard similar things about the mighty, battle hardened Iraqi army in 1990. 1 million men under arms is no good if they're also under enemy controlled skies, which they're sure to be. Korea is all fizzle and no bang.

Speak for yourself.

I know more than a few US troops stationed there, and I've been to the place a few times myself. This isn't the vast expanses of desert, this is an extremely close-ranged, non-tank-friendly, infantry-and-artillery knife-fight. Any fight there is going to be extremely bloody on both sides. I fear war in Korea far more than any other war I can see as a realistic possibility on the horizon, given I've got more chance of getting killed there.

NTM

Hogmeister B

Judt wrote:

I'd say that if you or I were an Israeli, or a Soviet, we'd have done the same thing.

Speak for yourself. If i was an israeli i would have done my utmost to prevent the creation of a Jewish state in an area of land where two-thirds of the population were Muslim. If I was living in Soviet Russia I would have resisted the regime to the best of my ability of emigrated. Or been indoctrinated into the system.

Judt

Manic Moran wrote:

Speak for yourself.

I know more than a few US troops stationed there, and I've been to the place a few times myself. This isn't the vast expanses of desert, this is an extremely close-ranged, non-tank-friendly, infantry-and-artillery knife-fight. Any fight there is going to be extremely bloody on both sides. I fear war in Korea far more than any other war I can see as a realistic possibility on the horizon, given I've got more chance of getting killed there.

NTM

That's a point I've pondered before, but at the end of the day the S. Korean army could take on the North all by their lonesome these days, and the US Air Farce could lend a hand and do the job.

I think it's like Iraq '91 and what the media talked about in '03, Baghdadograd. People like to talk up things like this because at the back of their minds, they want to see a real conventional war with lots of WW2 style explosions. At the end of the day N. Korea can't pay to keep the lights on, so I'd say they're worse off than the Soviet's were at the end of the cold war, and look how feared they were.... Painted over rust.

Judt

Hogmeister B wrote:

Speak for yourself. If i was an israeli i would have done my utmost to prevent the creation of a Jewish state in an area of land where two-thirds of the population were Muslim. If I was living in Soviet Russia I would have resisted the regime to the best of my ability of emigrated. Or been indoctrinated into the system.

Yeah, you would have alright. Easy to say that after living 30 years in the Republic of Ireland. Remember, it's not the you you know out there, it's the you who has just fought off the Nazi invader, or the you who just escaped a death camp, or saw your fellows dying en masse in them. Holier than thou is an easy position to take from a distance.

As I say, I may not agree with them but I'm not going to say that if I were not in their boots I'd not have done the same thing. This, at the end of the day, is why I'll sit back and say "Right, now let's find the compromise because I've put myself in all of your shoes and I can see what you mean."

Victor

Judt wrote:

Well, 100:1 being an over statement, but you don't think that a nation capable of taking on all of its bigger neighbors at once - one time during a religious holiday surprise attack - has nothing to do with the fact that the arab nations surrounding Israel haven't tried another go in the past few decades?

In 1967, Israeli forces were larger than the Egyptian (much of their army was in Yemen) and Syrian ones put together. The Jordanian Army fell apart and the other contributions were inadequate.

The Israeli Air Force can buzz Assad's palace in Damascus and there's SFA the Syrians can do about it.

Sure, but does that bring peace to Israel?

In a conventional sense, Israel still has the best military in the world, bar none.

Congratualtions, but when was the last time it fought a conventional war? 1982?

Thats like the American boasting their air-to-air superiority in Vietnam, while loosing 2,000+ aircraft to ground fire.

Hogmeister B

Victor wrote:

In 1967, Israeli forces were larger than the Egyptian (much of their army was in Yemen) and Syrian ones put together.

The same was true in 1948, 1956 and 1973. They always have more troops, and more resources than their enemies.

Judt

In 1967, Israeli forces were larger than the Egyptian (much of their army was in Yemen) and Syrian ones put together. The Jordanian Army fell apart and the other contributions were inadequate.

Among military circles find me a man who'll not tell you that Israel plays at the top of the premier league. Lebanon highlighted some faults in recent years, picked up doing all that security duty, but they're retraining like the clappers at the moment. Half the battle is knowing when you're losing and changing tactics.

Sure, but does that bring peace to Israel?

As the saying goes, "Peace through superior firepower." Another interesting military one for you is "Peace is our profession." Israel would prefer if it didn't have to send its sons to die in Lebanon and the West Bank. As I've said before, do people here think that the Israeli's are wired differently to the rest of us in that they're some sort of war mongering savages? The average Israeli has more in common with you or I in terms of aspirations, education, lifestyle etc etc....

HIEROPHANT

Ibid wrote:

Yep, because George Bush does not think Jesus will enter Washington this year. George Bush (I presume) has read the Bible, the book he believes in, which fairly clearly states that nobody knows when there will be a return.

As far as I know, Bush is an evangelist, and they believe (and wait for) in the second coming after the armageddon...

wes

HIEROPHANT wrote:

As far as I know, Bush is an evangelist, and they believe (and wait for) in the second coming after the armageddon...

Some of the more nuttier sorts are actually actively encouraging intervention in the Middle East so that Jesus will return sooner.

Sand

Bush is a political envangelist. Since about the 70s [When envangelical movements became politically mobilised] every mainstream US Presidential candidate has had to establish their credentials as god fearing bible thumpers to win over the god fearing bible thumpers to support them both in votes and activism. Anyone who basically highlights his/her secularism and disbelief in crazy religious views alienates a section of the electorate. The Republicans have been better at this than the Democrats but the Democrats still try. Bush is seen to be envangelical because he has to be seen to be.

Mick86

Manic Moran wrote:

I fear war in Korea far more than any other war I can see as a realistic possibility on the horizon, given I've got more chance of getting killed there.

NTM

Cheer up MM. All the US and S Korea has to do is stop sending the rice. Aftera few months the NKA will be too weak from hunger to fight back.:D

Kevster

People should realise that war doesn't stop terrorism. It will always be with us and, if anything, war makes it worse.

wes

Kevster wrote:

People should realise that war doesn't stop terrorism. It will always be with us and, if anything, war makes it worse.

Sadly too many decision makers believe otherwise. The mess in Iraq has made terrorism a hell of a lot worse in the world.

Hogmeister B

Judt wrote:

Israel would prefer if it didn't have to send its sons to die in Lebanon and the West Bank.

It doesn't.

Judt

Hogmeister B wrote:

It doesn't.

Snore.

Tirabaralla

http://www.nkusa.org/index.cfm

Hogmeister B

Judt wrote:

Snore.

I'm so sorry. This is clearly the wrong place to talk politics.

Sand

People should realise that war doesn't stop terrorism. It will always be with us and, if anything, war makes it worse.

Sometimes, but not always true. War in Afghanistan disrupted the AQ training programs from which AQ launched their attacks on western targets, and indoctrinated their followers. That miltary means is not the complete solution to terrorism does not mean it can be discounted as being part of the solution. The most fanatical and dangerous cannot be reasoned with.

wes

Sand wrote:

Sometimes, but not always true. War in Afghanistan disrupted the AQ training programs from which AQ launched their attacks on western targets, and indoctrinated their followers. That miltary means is not the complete solution to terrorism does not mean it can be discounted as being part of the solution. The most fanatical and dangerous cannot be reasoned with.

Very good point, but if you over do it, it will back fire. We have seen this with Iraq. The most fanatical will have to be killed or imprisoned permanently regardless.

Judt

Hogmeister B wrote:

I'm so sorry. This is clearly the wrong place to talk politics.

More make silly statements like "Israeli mothers are happy to see their children die, so long as they take two arabs with them." Ever met an Israeli mother?

Hogmeister B

I didn't say that, or anything like it. And no, I have not met an Israeli mother.