 |
| |
|
|
Pax
|
|
Clearly, Isreal has a right to defend itself. But part of there defense doctrine should not be denying all the surrounding countries the ability to defend themselves. Is there one Rightwing, conservative, Isreali, pro-isreali, anti-muslim, or anti-syria person on this site that thinks Isreal has no right to violate another nations airspace or that violating another nations air space is an act of war and provocation? Would the U.S., allow Canadian planes to buzz the capital? Would Isreal allow U.S. planes to enter their air space without permission? This answer is no.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
Isreal is a country of 3 or 4 million surrounded by 100 million arabs that, when you remove the window dressing, want them dead. Only the bravery of Isreal's army with their backs to the ocean and the dominance of their airforce have stemmed the tide in repeated invasions. If you take away the airforce's ability to hit targets in Syria you make it that much more difficult for Isreal to survive. Really, imo, Syrians can stop airstrike we need to put a couple of ACRs on the ground to help Isreal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Az
The "right to defend itself" is such a useless piece of argument. How did the "right to defend itself" help Israel when it needed it?
Israel is certainly under no existential threat from Syria. However, one doesn't have to be in existential danger to be annoyed by a myriad of mind**** games, and little annoyances that the enemy presents. And just as it is Syria's right to buy SAM missile, it's Israel's full right to use it's geo-political capital to prevent it from happening. |
"GEO-POLITICAL CAPITAL" What the **** is that. It's made up. Even more so than the idea that a nation has the "right to defend itself" Are you suggesting that Isreal's repeated violations of airspace and "tactical targeting" inside another nations borders is somehow expending capital. I call BULLSHIT. I agree that when Syria acts to destabilize or destroy Isreal, she has no right. Can you agree that when Isreal violates another countries airspace, it's an act of war and that the violated country has a right to self defense. Just as Isreal does. The fact that you believe that isreal can "expend" capital violating other nations sovereignty is appaling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
Isreal is a country of 3 or 4 million surrounded by 100 million arabs that, when you remove the window dressing, want them dead. Only the bravery of Isreal's army with their backs to the ocean and the dominance of their airforce have stemmed the tide in repeated invasions. If you take away the airforce's ability to hit targets in Syria you make it that much more difficult for Isreal to survive. Really, imo, Syrians can stop airstrike we need to put a couple of ACRs on the ground to help Isreal. |
Since Israel has gotten an airforce, it has only been invaded once, 1973, though actually the invasion was into Arab lands held by Israel. Israel proper has never actually been invaded if you take into account that in 1948 Israel did not declare borders, so its hard to say your territory was violated when you have not made it clear what that territory was.
Also, Israeli forces have never been horribly outnumbered, in any of their wars. That in fact has been one of Israel's greatest strengths, being able to quickly call up significant reserves. Probably within a month of fighting Israel could put 500,000 troops on the field. The problem is that Israel can't afford to have such a huge portion of its population in active duty for any real time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Az
 @ Thread.
Nobody gives a **** about Syria having the missiles. It's who Syria gives these weapons out ( in a perfectly defensive manner, of course!) is what the problem.
|
errr... no
that would weaken Israeli air superiority, which we need in case of war.
I would suspect that a war with syria is the most realistic "real war" scenario.
quote:
Generally, I say we should **** up Syria real hard, as much as you can. They're commiting direct agressions against us, like, for example They're sending Syrian mercenary snipers (Which are very well-trained, probably better than the Israeli snipers) to fight with the terrorists in Gaza, for example. |
eh?
Where have you heard that?
Palestinian terrorist organizations often train their militants in Syria and Iran, but I don't remember hearing about Syrian soldiers in Gaza...
Syrian snipers are indeed better trained that Israeli ones, as far as I've heard.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pax
[...]
Is there one Rightwing, conservative, Isreali, pro-isreali, anti-muslim, or anti-syria person on this site that thinks Isreal has no right to violate another nations airspace or that violating another nations air space is an act of war and provocation? [...]
|
Israeli fly-overs or tactical strikes within Syria are indeed limited acts of war, in response to Syrian backed provocations by Hezbullah.
Israel and Syria do not have a peace accord and have never acknowledged each other's sovereignity.
Israel performed its strikes in response to Syrian backed agression, ie attacks by Hezbullah, which relies on a Syrian permission / condonement for its attacks.
As such, Israel sees Hezbullah attacks as acts of agression and a provocation against it, and resorts to a militant response against the source of agression, and not against the proxy (Hezbullah).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
barely. And the Jewish population in Israel is steadily increasing (birth rate, immigration) while that in the US is stagnant or slowly decreasing. They're gonna pass us any year now. |
Actually, they passed us several years ago
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
Pax, I take it you're against pre-emptive attacks? Was it '67 when Isreal hit first because they knew what was coming, saving many Isreali lives? I think it was '67. Anyway, I have no problem with such an action when the counties around you are sworn enemies determined to destroy you.
Another instance, the airstrike on the Iraqi nuke reactor, damn good idea imo.
Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, and this is why Isreal shouldn't allow Syria to make an air defense that will cost lives and aircraft. If they need to they should just take it out before it gets set up. People worldwide would go nuts about it, but it's better than another '73 when the Isrealis knew they were coming but didn't attack first because of appearances. That cost alot of casualties and could have been the end for Isreal.
You know what will happen if the arabs overrun Isreal, right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
Pax, I take it you're against pre-emptive attacks? Was it '67 when Isreal hit first because they knew what was coming, saving many Isreali lives? I think it was '67. Anyway, I have no problem with such an action when the counties around you are sworn enemies determined to destroy you.
Another instance, the airstrike on the Iraqi nuke reactor, damn good idea imo.
Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, and this is why Isreal shouldn't allow Syria to make an air defense that will cost lives and aircraft. If they need to they should just take it out before it gets set up. People worldwide would go nuts about it, but it's better than another '73 when the Isrealis knew they were coming but didn't attack first because of appearances. That cost alot of casualties and could have been the end for Isreal.
You know what will happen if the arabs overrun Isreal, right? |
My opinion, If Isreal has GOOD intelligence or a sound reason to believe that an attack is being PLANNED to occur within a GENERAL TIMEFRAME then I believe they should conduct a pre-emptive attack. The argument you use for justifying violating Syrian sovereignty would make every country that supports the state of Isreal an enemy of Syria by proxy. I think both countries should take actions that could possibly lead to peace. If the state of Isreal is really interested in peace they would respect Syrian airspace.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
Peace is certainly the goal. Your way of attaining it depends on trusting an enemy sworn to destroy Isreal not to attack. My way of attaining it depends on eliminating their means of destroying Isreal, making it pointless to attack.
Peace is what its all about, we just have a different way of going about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
Peace is certainly the goal. Your way of attaining it depends on trusting an enemy sworn to destroy Isreal not to attack. My way of attaining it depends on eliminating their means of destroying Isreal, making it pointless to attack.
Peace is what its all about, we just have a different way of going about it. |
Your method of peace is actually called war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
"Your method of peace is actually called war."
Was there a war when the IAF took out the Iraqi nuke reactor?
Anyway, imo Syria has no right to their soverienty as long as they have sworn to destroy Isreal, and Isreal has the right to do whatever it needs to in order to prevent that end.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
"Your method of peace is actually called war."
1. Was there a war when the IAF took out the Iraqi nuke reactor?
Anyway, imo Syria has no right to their soverienty as long as they have sworn to destroy Isreal, and Isreal has the right to do whatever it needs to in order to prevent that end. |
1. ANSWER: I don't think Isreal had the right to do that either.
2. Sure, you're right. Gunboat Diplomacy always works. Wait a minute. That's how we got to this point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
"Russian advanced weapons? Isn't that an oxymoron? "
In Iraq there was a new Russian AT missile that got through the Abrams armor. Heard about it during the invasion but not much since. The Russians aren't all that far behind. Their SAMs and AAMs, I've read they're getting pretty good.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Vince278
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
"Russian advanced weapons? Isn't that an oxymoron? "
In Iraq there was a new Russian AT missile that got through the Abrams armor. Heard about it during the invasion but not much since. The Russians aren't all that far behind. Their SAMs and AAMs, I've read they're getting pretty good. |
Guess what I was trying to say is that they have been suffering from a brain drain (the best techs going elsewhere) and really low R&D funding. So, they may be advancing relative to themselves but compared to the US and many other countries the gap is widening and at an increasing pace.
I'm also not a strong believer in armour. You can put a hole in any armour if the ammo is heavy and fast enough.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
errr... no
that would weaken Israeli air superiority, which we need in case of war.
I would suspect that a war with syria is the most realistic "real war" scenario.
|
"weaken Israeli air superiority"? well tough. I don't think that this is a real threat, and if it is, that just proves once again, that the airforce are money hogs that aren't worth the investment in, and in the case of a serious AA shield will crumble ( as in 73 where the good old armor, so often called dead, saved the day, big time, once again). However, in 82' the airforce performed just fine against an up-to-date AA coverage, so, again, I don't see any threat from it in case of a full war.
quote:
quote:
Generally, I say we should **** up Syria real hard, as much as you can. They're commiting direct agressions against us, like, for example They're sending Syrian mercenary snipers (Which are very well-trained, probably better than the Israeli snipers) to fight with the terrorists in Gaza, for example. |
eh?
Where have you heard that?
Palestinian terrorist organizations often train their militants in Syria and Iran, but I don't remember hearing about Syrian soldiers in Gaza...
Syrian snipers are indeed better trained that Israeli ones, as far as I've heard.
|
I think if you check it out, you'll see that I am right. It's not classified, otherwise, you wouldn't hear about it from me. Is there an issue of BITAHON SADEH here? PM me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-04-2005 01:07
|