27-09-2004 22:08									#121
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Something doesn't make sense here. Saddam didn't have a nuclear program after Gulf War I, when the embargo began.

Where have you been. Apparently you never got the news about the discovery of Saddam's nuclear weapons program.

	27-09-2004 22:25									#122
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: GePap, the Iranians may not attack immediately. But their possession of nuclear weapons would destabalize the situation dramatically as neighboring states could now attack Israel knowing that Israel could no longer resort to nuclear weapons if she started to lose

And is that likely? Israel has fought numerous wars against the Arabs when the Arabs were in a much better position to win than they are now. But the Arabs have lost every single one of those wars. More to the point Israel will be the strongest conventional power in that area of the world for the foreseeable future, so a conventional defeat is extremely unlikely.

Of course the rational thing for Israel to do would be to come to some peace agreement with the Arab countries, none of whom are really interested in fighting it again. Of course this requires some just solution to the Palestinian problem, and that was what was happening until the US took its foot off the gas and the Likud nutcases decided to wreck the process.

This is not in Israel's interest. There is no reason to think that the power balance will be the same in 50 years time, and if I was an Israeli who cared about my children and their children, I would want my country to have reasonably friendly relations with the surrounding regimes. In diplomacy almost anything is possible if people want it that bady, and the Middle East is no different.

If the US is forced out of Iraq, as seems increasingly likely, then Israel will be in an even worse position than it currently is.

	27-09-2004 22:28									#123
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

You know, when four of the top six threads in the OT have been started by Ned, it is clear that Elvis has left the building.

Attachment: picture 1_.jpg
This has been downloaded 64 time(s).

	27-09-2004 22:36									#124
	Put an end to popups!

Agathon, all we really have to go on is history. Sharon attacked Saddam's nuclear reactor. I think it likely that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear reactor and processing facilities unless the EU and the UN suceed in getting the Iranians to be more cooperative in a transparent way.

However, I think the Iranians are being very provacative and are even egging Israel on. Announcing a new missile on top of dragging their feet on nuke inspections is just a bit over the top.

	27-09-2004 23:29									#125
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Sharon attacked Saddam's nuclear reactor. I think it likely that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear reactor and processing facilities unless the EU and the UN suceed in getting the Iranians to be more cooperative in a transparent way.

And the world was a different place when he did so.

	28-09-2004 00:37									#126
	Tired of ads?

quote: More to the point Israel will be the strongest conventional power in that area of the world for the foreseeable future, so a conventional defeat is extremely unlikely.

Ah... riight...
You're welcome to check your facts.
There are people with more money and the almost the same technology.

Israel can not hold a long war due to its extremely small terrain, small resources and reliance on reservists.

We only held out in 73 because we got US aid.

A combined arab attack with good use of missiles and planes could probably smite us.

Truth is though, neither Jordan nor Egypt, nor most countries, really want to see a large strong Palestine in this space.

Btw, Iran and Iraq I think have (had) larger armies than Israel.

quote: Then you don't understand the Israeli mentality.

Of which you're an expert. A lefty looney.

	28-09-2004 00:41									#127
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The simple truth is this:

Together (+ using terrorism) the arab states can defeat Israel.

Israel may possess nukes to make them reconsider the threat.

Once Iran possesses nukes as well, the arab agression against Israel will be much less likely to be answered with an attack.

Thus, first, Hamas and Hizbullah will be truly unreigned.

Finally, several countries could join together to rid of Israel.

As I said - I don't think Israeli logistics will last enough, nor could it defend itself in time against a massive blitz krieg.

	28-09-2004 00:42									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

This is exactly why Israel has always tried to act first.

It knows that defending is bad.

And attacking won't last very long, because as soon as Israel is winning the UN enforces a cease fire.

	28-09-2004 00:43									#129
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov Ah... riight... You're welcome to check your facts. There are people with more money and the almost the same technology.

Who? Egypt, Syria, jordan? Saudi Arabia may be rich and have top notch weapons, but last time I looked, SA has never joined its arab neighbors in fighting Israel (except perhaps in 1948, but IIRC not even then)

quote: Israel can not hold a long war due to its extremely small terrain, small resources and reliance on reservists.

All of which was true in 1967 and 1973.

quote: We only held out in 73 because we got US aid.

What, 3 billion a year for the last 20 years is not enough? And Egypt is no longer an enemy.

quote: A combined arab attack with good use of missiles and planes could probably smite us.

Which won't happen, so what the point of phony hypotheticals?

quote: Truth is though, neither Jordan nor Egypt, nor most countries, really want to see a large strong Palestine in this space.

Jordan is too weak to do anything-Egypt and SA are both US allies/client/weapon customers. your only real threatening neighbor right now is Syria, against which Israel has a massive superiority.

quote: Btw, Iran and Iraq I think have (had) larger armies than Israel.

Which means little given neither border Israel. Iraq right now has no army, and besides ballistic missiles Iran has no way to hit Israel.

quote: Of which you're an expert. A lefty looney.

Ned said Israel would give up if attacked by neighboring Arabs to prevent an Iranian nuke attack- do you think this would happen?

	28-09-2004 00:58									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Who? Egypt, Syria, jordan? Saudi Arabia may be rich and have top notch weapons, but last time I looked, SA has never joined its arab neighbors in fighting Israel (except perhaps in 1948, but IIRC not even then)

all it takes is a small coup.

and : no comment.

quote: All of which was true in 1967 and 1973.

Israel pre-empted in 1967 so it doesn't count.

And the situation is worse today:
Israeli supply lines are small and vulnerable.

Arab planes and missiles are now much more powerful and have much more firepower and new technology.

quote: What, 3 billion a year for the last 20 years is not enough? And Egypt is no longer an enemy.

No, I mean aid as in supply planes flying in, faster than threy flew to allied berlin in the 40s.

quote: Which won't happen, so what the point of phony hypotheticals?

"this won't ever happen" attitude already failed Israel in 1973

quote: Jordan is too weak to do anything-Egypt and SA are both US allies/client/weapon customers. your only real threatening neighbor right now is Syria, against which Israel has a massive superiority.

Guess what - US weapons are not programmed to avoid hitting Israelis.

If they cut off ties with the US, their weapons would last them a long enough time to attack Israel.

Syria also has some quality russian stuff. No further comments.

quote: Which means little given neither border Israel. Iraq right now has no army, and besides ballistic missiles Iran has no way to hit Israel.

Iraq has always sent aid troops.
Iran has sent out thousands of missiles to Hezbullah, now position in Lebanon.
Iran also kept their US fighters in good shape.

quote: Ned said Israel would give up if attacked by neighboring Arabs to prevent an Iranian nuke attack- do you think this would happen?

I must admit I was mostly amused by that response coming from you.

But Ned isn't very wrong.

Israel would introducing nukes first at any cost, anyways - esp. if there is a chance of a nuclear reaction.

The idea being - saving your citizens life.

Freedom > Absolute defeat
however:
Some living citizens >> no living citizens and glowing in the dark.

	28-09-2004 01:07									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov all it takes is a small coup. and : no comment.

Sorry, but of course there could be a "small coup" in Syria and Iran installing pro-western governments. Trying to make a case that depends of massive regime change is weak at best.

quote: And the situation is worse today: Israeli supply lines are small and vulnerable. Arab planes and missiles are now much more powerful and have much more firepower and new technology.

And Israel has even more firepower. No serious military analyst thinks even all four of Israel's neighbors combined would beat Israel with conventional weapons.

quote: No, I mean aid as in supply planes flying in, faster than threy flew to allied berlin in the 40s.

You think the same would not occur today? Why exactly?

quote: "this won't ever happen" attitude already failed Israel in 1973

Israel was cocky- but Egypt now has 0 reason to attack Israel.

quote: Guess what - US weapons are not programmed to avoid hitting Israelis.

quote: If they cut off ties with the US, their weapons would last them a long enough time to attack Israel.

Still basing your arguement on imaginary coups, are we?

quote: Syria also has some quality russian stuff. No further comments.

Right- Israel's military lead over Syria is bigger today than in 1973.

quote: Iraq has always sent aid troops. Iran has sent out thousands of missiles to Hezbullah, now position in Lebanon. Iran also kept their US fighters in good shape.

Iraq is highly unlikely to do anything much for the next decade, perhaps break up into civil war, but nothing more.
Iran alrady gave Hizbullah those weapons- haven't seen them used. maybe if Israel attacks Iran, but otherwise.
As for Iran's airforce, now you are just being silly.

quote: I must admit I was mostly amused by that response coming from you. But Ned isn't very wrong. Israel would introducing nukes first at any cost, anyways - esp. if there is a chance of a nuclear reaction. The idea being - saving your citizens life. Freedom > Absolute defeat however: Some living citizens >> no living citizens and glowing in the dark.

So why do you think the Arabs would not have a similar reaction?

Besides, will people stop exagerating the effect of nukes? And lets remember than a nuclear strike vs Israel will invariably kill plenty of Palestinians and muslims, while an Israel nuclear attack elsewhere has about 0 dange of killing any Jews (except in Iran). Would a bunch of Islamic fundies nuke the Dome of the Rock?

	28-09-2004 01:26									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap Sorry, but of course there could be a "small coup" in Syria and Iran installing pro-western governments. Trying to make a case that depends of massive regime change is weak at best.

you misunderstood me.
but no comment.

quote: And Israel has even more firepower. No serious military analyst thinks even all four of Israel's neighbors combined would beat Israel with conventional weapons.

Again, fire power does one one side does not reduce fire power on another side.

If Israeli supply lines and centers are reduced quickly using projected fire power, Israel can only stop so much of it and probably will be left with no war-oxigen.

But I do not wish to speculate further.

quote: You think the same would not occur today? Why exactly?

Because today a united arab front could probably bomb Israel to death despite all its defences before the first plane leaves US soil.

quote: Israel was cocky- but Egypt now has 0 reason to attack Israel.

Internal instability as a result of growing Islamism and growing resistance to incompetence to act against Israeli "agression" against the palestinian brothers.

quote: quote: Guess what - US weapons are not programmed to avoid hitting Israelis.

Seriously.

US weapons could do serious harm very quickly.

quote: Still basing your arguement on imaginary coups, are we?

a. nothing here is too imaginary. especially when a nuclear bomb protects the arab armies from total loss.
b. no coups - just desperate decisions.

quote: Right- Israel's military lead over Syria is bigger today than in 1973.

no comment.

quote: Iraq has always sent aid troops. Iran has sent out thousands of missiles to Hezbullah, now position in Lebanon. Iran also kept their US fighters in good shape.

Iraq is highly unlikely to do anything much for the next decade, perhaps break up into civil war, but nothing more.
Iran alrady gave Hizbullah those weapons- haven't seen them used. maybe if Israel attacks Iran, but otherwise.
As for Iran's airforce, now you are just being silly.

Hezbullah is very good at polishing them for use in the next grand-scale conflict. It will rain metal in haifa and tel aviv.

Iranian airforce really ain't that bad.

quote: So why do you think the Arabs would not have a similar reaction?

They did have the same reaction.

in 1973 Israel threatened to use nukes, and they backed off.

In 20?? Israel threatens to use nukes, and so will they.

Both sides will prefer to avoid nukes, and by that time the gap between Israel and the rest will be much smaller.

quote: Besides, will people stop exagerating the effect of nukes? And lets remember than a nuclear strike vs Israel will invariably kill plenty of Palestinians and muslims, while an Israel nuclear attack elsewhere has about 0 dange of killing any Jews (except in Iran). Would a bunch of Islamic fundies nuke the Dome of the Rock?

They'd nuke Tel Aviv.

Dome of the Rock would be deserted for 100 years, which they won't care much for, since they never cared that much for it. Its the fact they don't have it now that makes it so damn important. "Islamic land" - a holy value.

	28-09-2004 01:38									#133
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Once Iran possesses nukes as well, the arab agression against Israel will be much less likely to be answered with an attack. Thus, first, Hamas and Hizbullah will be truly unreigned. Finally, several countries could join together to rid of Israel.

You really think the reason that the Arab states aren't attacking Isreal is because Isreal has nukes? Get real!

	28-09-2004 01:39									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I'm tired of this.

In short - u have a much rosier view of Israeli defences than you should as a self-acclaimed critical thinker. You have too low a view of arab forces.

In short - You've been had by Israeli propoganda.

	28-09-2004 01:41									#135
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Wasn't there a joke about the '73 war and the ever disappearing, reappearing and re-annihilated, smashed, etc. Iraqi division to the effect that the Israelis had learned how to handle information from the Arabs, while the Arabs had learned how to fight from the Israelis?

	28-09-2004 01:41									#136
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You really think the reason that the Arab states aren't attacking Isreal is because Isreal has nukes? Get real!

Its not the only reason.

But it is a part of a wide array.

A wide array that may narrow with time.

My interest is to keep it as wide as I can. Nuclear superiority is just one thing.

Friendly regimes don't last forever.
American supremacy and aid, don't last forever.
Hatred of Yassir Arafat doesn't last forver.

	28-09-2004 01:43									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: u have a much rosier view of Israeli defences than you should as a self-acclaimed critical thinker. You have too low a view of arab forces.

No, I just look at the fact that any aggression is going to get the US steamed (& ready to deploy) and the fact that the Arab world can't even get together to decide on a color of a flag (exaggerating, of course) these days, not even counting agreeing on a course of warfare.

	28-09-2004 01:44									#138
	Remove this text

quote: Again, fire power does one one side does not reduce fire power on another side. If Israeli supply lines and centers are reduced quickly using projected fire power, Israel can only stop so much of it and probably will be left with no war-oxigen. But I do not wish to speculate further.

Israel would have total air superiority over itself, and within little time over the entire area: balistic missiles are not good against military targets, and Israel's neighbors lack cruise missiles.

quote: Because today a united arab front could probably bomb Israel to death despite all its defences before the first plane leaves US soil.

Again, with what? You are inventing a conventional threat that does not exist.

quote: Internal instability as a result of growing Islamism and growing resistance to incompetence to act against Israeli "agression" against the palestinian brothers.

Egypt crushed its islamist resistance in the late 90's. As for the "Israeli aggression", that has been going on since 2000 and the most Egypt has done is pull it ambassador.

quote: a. nothing here is too imaginary. especially when a nuclear bomb protects the arab armies from total loss.

Beyond the fact Iranians are NOT ARABS and have no ARAB solidarity, you also ignore there has never been such a thing as arab solidarity since 1948, and even then it was weak. Each arab state has its own reasons. If Syria got back the Golan, they would be appeased. Egypt is no longer an enemy, and Jordan has nothing to fight for, ditto for Lebanon.

quote: Hezbullah is very good at polishing them for use in the next grand-scale conflict. It will rain metal in haifa and tel aviv.

And you have not yet explained a plausible reaosn for said conflict, except the old tired "the Arabs all hate us" boogeyman. Its an old and tired tune.

quote: Iranian airforce really ain't that bad.

So how likely is an Israeli attack vs, Iran be.

Iranian airforce really ain't that bad.

	28-09-2004 01:49									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov I'm tired of this. In short - u have a much rosier view of Israeli defences than you should as a self-acclaimed critical thinker. You have too low a view of arab forces. In short - You've been had by Israeli propoganda.

I am sure Egyptian and Saudi force are proficient, and that the Syrians can be tough when fighting in defense, and a convetional war would not be cheap or easy.

That said, you seem oblivious to the divisions and rivalries within the Arab world, or the fact the large Arab states like Egypt and SA have bigger concerns that Israel and the Palestinians. Also, that the mot powerful Arab states are in no condition for war or have no reason for it. Egypt is certainly out of the running since it gets too much aid for making nice and there is no threat of yet another Israel attack or attempt to take the Sinai.
SA has too many ties to the US and getting involved in a war would be to disasterous to oil prices, the life blood of the Monarchy.
Syria is alone, has to worry about Massive Turkey to the north, and the mess in Iraq to the east.

	28-09-2004 01:50									#140
	Get a bigger avatar today!

FIGHT@!!##!@#!@

	28-09-2004 02:09									#141
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: No, I just look at the fact that any aggression is going to get the US steamed (& ready to deploy) and the fact that the Arab world can't even get together to decide on a color of a flag (exaggerating, of course) these days, not even counting agreeing on a course of warfare.

I'm talking about X years from now, with some changed regimes.

GePap - same for you. Israeli friendly regimes are not going to last forever. Can you tell me what will happen in 5 years?


A threat is judged by its abilities, not by its intentions. that because you never have a chip inside the opponents head.

We learnt it the hard way in 1973, when it seemed all the reasons were against Egypt and Syria understaking a silly war they can't possibly win.

quote: And you have not yet explained a plausible reaosn for said conflict, except the old tired "the Arabs all hate us" boogeyman. Its an old and tired tune.

Exlcuding the option of an Israeli attack on Iran (as it has not occured in this reality, and thus Iran has its nukes):

A severe terrorist attack by Hamas (israeli president killed) causes an Israeli retaliation against Syrian targets and the killing of Arafat.

Lebanon starts raining missiles on Israel.
Israel attacks Lebanon.
Syria invades golan heights to reclaim it, especially mount Hermon.
Israel attacks back at Syria.

At this point I stop elaborating for my own reasons, but it can involve Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.


Another reason is possible unfriendly coups in some countries, which I also won't elaborate on.


You can call it silly, but I dare you 5-7 years from now.

	28-09-2004 02:18									#142
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov GePap - same for you. Israeli friendly regimes are not going to last forever. Can you tell me what will happen in 5 years?

No, I mean, in the next five years Turkey might invade Syria an annex it while the iranian regime falls- that could happen. not likely, but it could.

quote: A severe terrorist attack by Hamas (israeli president killed) causes an Israeli retaliation against Syrian targets and the killing of Arafat.

1. Why hit Syria? So you begin your hypothetical with an Israeli act of war against an Arab state? rolleyes:

quote: Lebanon starts raining missiles on Israel. Israel attacks Lebanon. Syria invades golan heights to reclaim it, especially mount Hermon. Israel attacks back at Syria.

Again, why do you begin your scenerio with an Israel attack against Syria? Its hard to see why Syria and its allies shouldn;t attack Israel if Israel was the first to attack Syria (thought you have already done it). Maybe if Israel gives up the tired ideology that attacking its neighboring Arab states will solve the palestinian problems, this would not occur yet again.

quote: At this point I stop elaborating for my own reasons, but it can involve Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

You already have lebanon included. Even with Israel starting the war, i don;t see Egypt or SA coming to the aid of Syria thanks to heavy US pressure.

	28-09-2004 06:04									#143
	Increase Your PM Length

I think Siro has supported my basic point that Iranian nukes would be destabalizing and adversely, to Israel, affect the balance of power which today keeps the "relative" peace.

	28-09-2004 06:09									#144
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: A severe terrorist attack by Hamas (israeli president killed) causes an Israeli retaliation against Syrian targets and the killing of Arafat. Lebanon starts raining missiles on Israel. Israel attacks Lebanon. Syria invades golan heights to reclaim it, especially mount Hermon. Israel attacks back at Syria. At this point I stop elaborating for my own reasons, but it can involve Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

Aside from GePap's concerns (is Israel going to be the aggressor? Then it deserves to be struck down), how would Iranian nukes change ANY of that? You think Israel won't launch them if it is about to be extinguished?

	28-09-2004 06:56									#145
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Imran, it makes Israel use of nukes far less likely. I expect that Israel would accept very bad terms if things began to go bad in any upcoming war.

	28-09-2004 07:35									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: it makes Israel use of nukes far less likely.

Why? You are seriously telling me that if Isreal was about to get annihilated, Iran having nukes would stop it?

	28-09-2004 07:41									#147
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: it makes Israel use of nukes far less likely. Why? You are seriously telling me that if Isreal was about to get annihilated, Iran having nukes would stop it?

Probaby.

What I suggest instead is that they would not let it go that far, but would cut a deal on very unfavorable terms.

	28-09-2004 08:13									#148
	Increase Your PM Length

I seriously doubt that as well. Why the Hell would they do that for?

	28-09-2004 08:37									#149
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: A combined arab attack with good use of missiles and planes could probably smite us.

As someone said, no serious military analyst believes this. One of the reasons many Arab countries are unhappy with the Palestine situation and the invasion of Iraq is that they are deathly afraid that their own populations will demand they do something about it by attacking Israel. They would do anything to avoid that because they know that they would lose.

How many sodding wins does it take before Israelis realize that there's something wrong with the Arab military?

You've thoroughly down-trousered them five times I think. Isn't that enough?

	28-09-2004 08:53									#150
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: And is that likely?

Past Performance is never a guarantee of future performance.

quote: Of course the rational thing for Israel to do would be to come to some peace agreement with the Arab countries, none of whom are really interested in fighting it again.

Is it in their interests to have a true peace with Israel? After all, the A-I conflict has, in many cases strengthened the governments of their countries from internal dissent. Even countries that have a peace agreement with Israel try to stoke those flames (eg, Egypt's Protocols miniseries)

(And, of course, when the dictator of such a country gets replaced/deposed/dies, will his successor maintain such a treaty?)