Arming Up

Judt

Kevster wrote:

Anyway, whatever the reason for hostility towards Israel, you're right; They need to wake-up and account for their own actions.

Get back to me when you've got a country 15KM wide at its narrowest point, 114KM wide at its widest and with its back to the sea and front to a load of hostile neighbors. Israel isn't the nicest nation on earth by a long stretch, but I always say to people "If you were living in Israel, would you say the same thing?"

wes

Judt wrote:

Get back to me when you've got a country 15KM wide at its narrowest point, 114KM wide at its widest and with its back to the sea and front to a load of hostile neighbors. Israel isn't the nicest nation on earth by a long stretch, but I always say to people "If you were living in Israel, would you say the same thing?"

I wouldn't live in Israel, as I am against driving the original inhabitants of any country out of there homes. The Israeli's don't have such an issue, hence there need for all those weapons. They are continually creating colonies in the West Bank (even during the whole Oslo business), which is against international law and considered a war crime. They bulldoze Palestinian homes all the time and don't allow them to build homes for themselves.

Ask yourself this then, if someone kicked you and your family from your home and the international community decided that was perfectly reasonable thing to do, wouldn't you be arming up just in case that guy tried it again.

2 sides to every story, both sides have reasons to arm up, but lets stop trying to pretend anyone is in anyway reasonable.

Judt

The anti-Israeli types can arm up all they want, I believe what the Israeli's say is "Ohh, you want to try it again?"

Nobody is virtuous out that way, but by the same token Israel is there, it has over 7 million people living in it and at least ultimately their goal is to live a quiet and a peaceful life. Just as the Israeli Army terms it, Peace Through Superior Firepower. I'm sure if it could be done any other way the Israeli's wouldn't mind having their lives interrupted by artillery strikes every couple of months.

wes

Judt wrote:

The anti-Israeli types can arm up all they want, I believe what the Israeli's say is "Ohh, you want to try it again?"

Nobody is virtuous out that way, but by the same token Israel is there, it has over 7 million people living in it and at least ultimately their goal is to live a quiet and a peaceful life. Just as the Israeli Army terms it, Peace Through Superior Firepower. I'm sure if it could be done any other way the Israeli's wouldn't mind having their lives interrupted by artillery strikes every couple of months.

Look up the map of the greater Israel.

What about the Million of Palestinian refugees who the Israeli's deny the right to return to there home that the Israeli's drove them from in the first place? I guess they don't deserve to live quite lives in there ancestral homes.

Israel is actively colonizing the West Bank. This isn't something that people who want peace would do. They want more land, always have and sadly looks like they always live. Just look up what the colonial (settlers as they like to call themselves) movement say. I could come up with more examples, but my books are at home. So Israel arm's up as they want more land, they have shown international law only has meaning when it benefits them. The other side see's the Israeli's as an enemy who would drive there families from there homes, which is a fun historical fact so many choose to ignore, they also choose to ignore that it still happens to this very day to a lesser degree with house of Palestinian being bulldozed. People who want peace don't colonize, hence why they arm and why the other guys arm up.

Israels continued belligerence and violence, gives every regime in the middle east a convenient boogy man to use as an excuse to arm up. The sad thing is they do have a bit of a point.

As for Israel need for arms, well they expansion and protection of there current colonies in the West Bank is one of the reasons (as well as there apartheid state). Also the USA creatively subsidizes its defense industry by providing (my numbers are probably off, but its in the billions) 6 billion a year in military aid to Israel and 4 billion to Egypt (this one to keep Israel in line, if they get idea's above there station), which can only be spent on US weapons. This way the US keeps the boogyman in the ME to keep there little tyrants in line, so we can all have nice cheap oil.

The Chinese are also trying to get in on this racket by making friends in the ME themselves, but they aren't providing billions in military aid to an apartheid state or tyrannical dictator, well not yet in anyways (that I know of).

Judt

Israel doesn't have a problem with the Palestinians, cept for the fact that they'd run them into the sea if they let them all back. Reason why Israel wants so much of the west bank is, funnily enough, about water. A vision of a future for the earth? Perhaps. But the west bank sits on fresh water supplies, and the Israeli Army has had to be sent into Lebanon at times simply to blow up water facilities which were drying up rivers downstream in Israel. If people actually got that this was about things as simple as fresh water supplies, rather than some great racial conflict, well, they might be able to find a solution.

As it is, Israel has as much of a right to exist as its neighbors, if only because they've been there long enough to have squatters rights. The arabs can't accept that, so they try and arm up every now and again. Well, last time I checked they can take on Israel with 100:1 odds and still get their arses kicked, so maybe it's time to sit down and have a chat instead.

wes

Judt wrote:

Israel doesn't have a problem with the Palestinians, cept for the fact that they'd run them into the sea if they let them all back. Reason why Israel wants so much of the west bank is, funnily enough, about water. A vision of a future for the earth? Perhaps. But the west bank sits on fresh water supplies, and the Israeli Army has had to be sent into Lebanon at times simply to blow up water facilities which were drying up rivers downstream in Israel. If people actually got that this was about things as simple as fresh water supplies, rather than some great racial conflict, well, they might be able to find a solution.

As it is, Israel has as much of a right to exist as its neighbors, if only because they've been there long enough to have squatters rights. The arabs can't accept that, so they try and arm up every now and again. Well, last time I checked they can take on Israel with 100:1 odds and still get their arses kicked, so maybe it's time to sit down and have a chat instead.

No, Israels problem with Palestinians is that they are not Jewish, hence why they kicked them out of there homes in 1948. Hence why they are colonizing the West Bank. The conflict has to do with the Israeli's believing God gave them the land. Back in 1948 the Palestinians were just trying to defend themselves from an invader who chucked them out of there countries. The difference between what I am saying and you saying, is that the Palestinian Naqba (disaster) happened. No one had issues with them being driven out and its seems a lot of people would rather pretend it never happened. This way its nice and easy to justify Israel having nukes and other WMD's and for no one to say a word.

As I said before Colonialism is a war crime and illegal under international law, as is forcing people from there home based on there race, which Israel has done since it creation. The Israeli's don't recognize Palestine's right to exist and never have. Hence why they need have so many weapons.

You talk of there rights while ignoring the rights of the millions of refugee's to return to there homes under international law. Why should these people not fight to return to there homes? The reason Israel will not allow them to return as it will destroy there artificial majority and lay bare there apartheid state for all to see.

Israel is a violent belligerent apartheid state, they want land, they are actively colonizing the West Bank (they recently started this up again, until there masters in Washington told them to stop), which is against international law. Without all there weapons and the help of the worlds only super power, who hope that by helping Israel, it will bring about the return of Jesus Christ (as per evangelical Christian beliefs, of which there President is one). Of course that isn't the only one, but its a reason that should not be ignored as it makes you wonder who the religious extremist is.

As for the Arabs, they need weapons to keep there tyrannical regimes together. Very often Western nations provide this for them as its a very lucrative business (oh and they sell them to Israel too, as arming both sides to keep a conflict going is where the money really is). Human rights abuses, genocide, and apartheid be damned! Its always comes back to money, money and more money.

Judt

Do you have stock answers ready to go every time the issue of Israel comes up? Long post in a short period of time. I think Churchill had a quote about fanatics and discussions...

Well, if you don't like it then go to Israel and make them change it. Just don't use your mobile phone, that's how they guide the rockets in on everyone who doesn't agree with them. Just look at what a police state Israel is, compared to its neighbors... You'd be much better off going for a drive with your wife in Syria. Just don't let her behind the wheel. Enjoy!

pwd

Frederico wrote:

I think Israel will be the country that starts WW3. Hopefully the Iranians can nuke those dirty jews off the face of the earth before they attack.


Soo, back to topic, I think the current bout of militarisation is mainly due to the current crop of various world leaders... Bush Blair Putin Chavez and so on.

This is obviously an ironic statement and an effective counter-argument. He should not have been banned for it.

oscarBravo

Judt, calling people fanatics - even in a roundabout way - isn't acceptable.

pwd, neither is commenting on moderation in-thread. Please read the charter before posting again.

Zambia

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.

Iraq was a country under sanctions and with the bulk of its military blown to cr*p early 1991. And was suspected of making something nasty.

One of these countrys was invaded overthrown and lives under foreign rule? Despite the UN declaring it should not be.

Which one do you think it was.

As long as one country invests in arms we all have to.

Dontico

Kevster wrote:

[Hugo] Chavez just announced that he is going to make Venezuela safe with weapons.

I'm not a lefty and I wouldnt want a leader like that in Ireland, but Chavez isnt really a war waging type. I would assume he justs wants to defend his against an all most certain US invasion. The propaganda is starting to build up.
Chavez a dictator? Please. USA has attacked countries before over oil. Whos to say they wont again.

Sand

I'm not a lefty and I wouldnt want a leader like that in Ireland, but Chavez isnt really a war waging type. I would assume he justs wants to defend his against an all most certain US invasion. The propaganda is starting to build up.

The reason hes buying small arms and equipping party militias with them is the same reason why previous regimes have had brownshirts. Its insurance in case populism fails him and the electorate deliver a result he cant fix, hell simply go on TV and summon "the people" to save the revolution from the CIA american foreign invaders. Armed paramilitaries on the streets a short while later, political enemies rounded up and shot or imprisoned, possibly some show trials where selected individuals confess they were taking their orders from Dick Cheney all along. Revolution saved, 3rd level arts departments across Ireland send their congratulations

The "US invasion" has been almost certain for years and years now. Any day now though, yes any day. And given the terrible threat, El Presidente regrets that certain steps must be taken to stave of the threat...

Victor

wes wrote:

Israel .... They want more land, always have and sadly looks like they always live.

That dynamic has changed.

Israeli aggression 1945-1995 was always about "defensive depth" - if someone wanted to attack domestic Israel, they would have to first cross the occupied territories.

With the advent of ballistic missiles and WMD, defensive depth is about keeping the missile launchers away from Israel.

Judt wrote:

Well, last time I checked they can take on Israel with 100:1 odds and still get their arses kicked, so maybe it's time to sit down and have a chat instead.

When was this?

wes

Victor wrote:

That dynamic has changed.

Israeli aggression 1945-1995 was always about "defensive depth" - if someone wanted to attack domestic Israel, they would have to first cross the occupied territories.

I don't understand what your saying here exactly. Could you provide a little more detail please?

DublinWriter

"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly." Harry Lime, The Third Man, 1949.

Hogmeister B

Victor wrote:

Israeli aggression 1945-1995 was always about "defensive depth" - if someone wanted to attack domestic Israel, they would have to first cross the occupied territories.

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?

Kevster

Dontico wrote:

I'm not a lefty and I wouldnt want a leader like that in Ireland, but Chavez isnt really a war waging type. I would assume he justs wants to defend his against an all most certain US invasion. The propaganda is starting to build up.
Chavez a dictator? Please. USA has attacked countries before over oil. Whos to say they wont again.

I know; Chavez isn't that bad. He is actually currently trying to unite Central and South America which is a good thing considering none of these nations really communicated with each other before. He is doing some bad things in his own country but he is also doing a tremendous good nationally, and internationally.

Victor

wes wrote:

I don't understand what your saying here exactly. Could you provide a little more detail please?

In 1967, Israel took the Golan Heights from Syria, in part to stop Syria shelling northern Israel (also about water, an other reasons). Nominally, this made northern Israel safer on a day-to-day basis. To shell northern Israel, Syria would have to reclaim the Golan.

Similarly, taking the southern Lebanon, West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Sinai, it became much harder to attack domestic Israel without the IDF being able to put a stop check in place. Certainly, it became nigh impossible to split Israel in two in an attack.

However, with Iraq getting ballistic missiles and working on nuclear weapons with Saudi Arabia and others in the 1980s, the shelling threat dwindled to nothing in comparison

The Israel-Hezbollah war changed some of the rules, with Hezbollah relying on short-medium range rockets (fired individually or in small groups) and anti-tank missiles - a system of asymmetrical warfare that the Israelis weren't prepared for.

Similarly, suicide bombers posed a threat over the last 10 years or so, because they needed to be singled out / controlled / dissuaded is a different manner to massed tanks.

Hogmeister B wrote:

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'm not condoning anything. You need to appreciate the difference between understanding something and approving something / calling it acceptable - my baby niece was crying, I felt like hitting her - understandable but not acceptable.

wes

Victor wrote:

In 1967, Israel took the Golan Heights from Syria, in part to stop Syria shelling northern Israel (also about water, an other reasons). Nominally, this made northern Israel safer on a day-to-day basis. To shell northern Israel, Syria would have to reclaim the Golan.

Similarly, taking the southern Lebanon, West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Sinai, it became much harder to attack domestic Israel without the IDF being able to put a stop check in place. Certainly, it became nigh impossible to split Israel in two in an attack.

However, with Iraq getting ballistic missiles and working on nuclear weapons with Saudi Arabia and others in the 1980s, the shelling threat dwindled to nothing in comparison

The Israel-Hezbollah war changed some of the rules, with Hezbollah relying on short-medium range rockets (fired individually or in small groups) and anti-tank missiles - a system of asymmetrical warfare that the Israelis weren't prepared for.

Similarly, suicide bombers posed a threat over the last 10 years or so, because they needed to be singled out / controlled / dissuaded is a different manner to massed tanks.

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

AbusesToilets

I think the real problem nowadays is a paucity of long term planning being conducted by the major western governments.Short term brinkmanship and opportunism are what lead to situations like Iraq and Iran.
In the US this manifests itself in the government somewhat blindly throwing itself behind regimes that oppose it's current bete noir,be it communism or terrorism or whatever.It gets pretty frustrating to see the same mistakes happening again and again.Iran and Venezuela are saliant examples.Back in the day Iran elects a socialist president who wants to nationalise the oil industry.US helps to overthrow the government and supports a oppressive dictatorship.30 years later we have hostages and terrorism.With Venezuela ,you see a similar situation developing.I'm not a great fan of Chavez but i don't believe he is the devil incarnate either.Chavez expresses a desire to nationalise the countries oil industry,something which would have a big impact on the buisness of the major oil companies.Now the US could try to work with the government,either to reduce the losses or move towards a situation of reduced profits,but one still profitable. No,instead you have the US labeling Chavez as dangerous and oppressive.So then things get more bellicose and the situation moves towards the extremes.
Obviously the above is far from the full situation,merely a perception(mine),but the point is valid.Governments,like most people,looking for the quick buck over long term stability

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.