 |
|
Edan
|
|
quote: 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) |
IIRC, Saudi Arabia contributed troops at least in the Six Day War and possibly 1948 and the Yom Kippur War as well (not to mention paying part of the funding)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pax
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Bush promised O'Reilly last night that Iran will not have nukes.
"My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically," Bush said in a TV interview broadcast Monday. "We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them."
Pressed on whether he would allow Iran to build a bomb, Bush said: "No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...y.ap/index.html
What does this mean? That WE will take out Iran's reactors? | Ned,
Why don't we get rid of our nukes as a gesture to all nations that having nukes is baaad. Otherwise what right does the only nation that has ever used nukes in anger against anyone have to decide who should and should not have nukes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000 time: 07:22
|
|
quote: 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.
|
Yes, I imagine you are well acquainted with many military analysts. Oh wait... 
quote: 1. Why hit Syria? So you begin your hypothetical with an Israeli act of war against an Arab state? rolleyes: |
Because Syria, just like Afghanistan was, is currently a haven for terrorist leaderships, training camps and so on.
Part of the logic of the war on terrorism is striking the regimes which actively or passively support or condone terrorism. Terrorism needs such host countries, otherwise it has difficulties surviving. Syria is on that list of supporting countries. High up there.
quote: 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. |
Attacking Syria will most definitly almost completely solve the problem with Hizbullah, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Brigades and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Its not an ideology but a fact.
quote: 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. |
If Israel attacks Syria (no matter justified or not) and Syria is losing, I'm willing to bet that Egypt and SA will save it.
Iraq was a unique case which the US located, which could be attacked without real resistance from the Arab world. Syria is not a (semi) legitimate target like Iraq.
quote: You think Israel won't launch them if it is about to be extinguished? |
Yes, I think that if Iran has nukes, Israel won't use theirs and won't even threaten to use theirs.
No Israeli nukes = nothing to stop a sudden successfull Arab attack.
quote: So how likely is an Israeli attack vs, Iran be.
Iranian airforce really ain't that bad. |
It is similar to Civ II with howitzers - it depends on the element of surprise -
With the current amount of firepower on both sides, the initiator is much more likely to win.
quote: Again, with what? You are inventing a conventional threat that does not exist. |
Egypt and SA are very much an existing conventional threat.
quote: 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. |
Ballistic missiles / rockets / airplane raids are great against supply centers and supply routes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pax
|
|
Every country has the right of self-defense attacking other countries before they attack you is not self-defense. Building weapons to defend against countries who feel they have the right to attack you in order to make sure you remain weak is not only self defense but wise.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pax
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
What if you have reliable intelligence that they enemy will launch an attack at 6 in the morning and that your only hope of survival is to hit first? |
That's not the case here. The case is that based on Isreal's respect for arab sovereignty that the Isreali's will launch attacks that violate arab territory at will.
I do support the abolition of NBC weapons.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|