Politics Unfiltered

[salvador]

BGv4.0 Wrote:

TheFonz Wrote:

Spyder Wrote:The thing about it is that Israel does not need America's help. They are perfectly able to defend themselves. America's involvement merely keeps them from decimating everyone else in the region. If America let them, Israel would destroy what is left of Palestine and launch missile attacks on Iran.

We keep them in check.

They could defend themselves without our help but for how long? They would not be able to sustain long drawn out campaign against all of it's enemies and that is why they manipulate us into backing them so aggressively.

You've got to be kidding....what "long drawn out campaign"....if let off the chain...Israel wipes the whole middle east off the map...like they almost did back in 67...in a measly 4 days.

Spyder is 100% correct on this....the U.S. is the handler holding the dog's chain...and they should be greatful!

"Israel's long term viability is entirely dependent on the US. I understand what Israel gets from it's friendship with us. I just don't understand what we get in return."

Well....it's the elephant in the room that I have not yet seen spoken about during this discussion....

Being a Christian nation and sticking to those orginal ideas and concepts.....Israel and it's people are the chosen ones....and they must be protected at all costs.

We can all make it about land and politics and whatever....but we protect them due to our bloodlines in the Christain faith....and the sacred doctrines that come with that idea.

If Spain and all it's Christian faith decided to annex Morocco for no reason than it wanted the land, the US wouldn't get near it other than possibly to protect Morocco. Israel is doing the same thing with the settlements, but we are sticking by Israel because of AIPAC. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Again, religion and politics are a catastrophic combo.

[TheFonz]

BGv4.0 Wrote:

TheFonz Wrote:

Spyder Wrote:The thing about it is that Israel does not need America's help. They are perfectly able to defend themselves. America's involvement merely keeps them from decimating everyone else in the region. If America let them, Israel would destroy what is left of Palestine and launch missile attacks on Iran.

We keep them in check.

They could defend themselves without our help but for how long? They would not be able to sustain long drawn out campaign against all of it's enemies and that is why they manipulate us into backing them so aggressively.

You've got to be kidding....what "long drawn out campaign"....if let off the chain...Israel wipes the whole middle east off the map...like they almost did back in 67...in a measly 4 days.

Spyder is 100% correct on this....the U.S. is the handler holding the dog's chain...and they should be greatful!

"Israel's long term viability is entirely dependent on the US. I understand what Israel gets from it's friendship with us. I just don't understand what we get in return."

Well....it's the elephant in the room that I have not yet seen spoken about during this discussion....

Being a Christian nation and sticking to those orginal ideas and concepts.....Israel and it's people are the chosen ones....and they must be protected at all costs.

We can all make it about land and politics and whatever....but we protect them due to our bloodlines in the Christain faith....and the sacred doctrines that come with that idea.

Israeli's don't even want to take on Iran by themselves let alone the whole region. Please do some research before you start going off on the ignorant rants that you are known for.


Analysis: Are Israelis tough enough for a long war with Iran?
(Reuters) - For Israel to carry out a long-threatened strike on Iranian nuclear sites, it would have to overcome dissent within its governing coalition reflecting public fear of igniting an unprecedented missile war.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that scenario would be "dwarfed" by the prospect of an Iranian bomb, which he describes as tantamount to a second Holocaust - language that seems to herald a Jewish call to arms.


But the popular, conservative leader has not proven very persuasive. While surveys show a growing minority - now 32-35 percent - of Israelis favor taking Iran on alone, more are opposed. Around a quarter are undecided.

Some commentators ask whether a Jewish state shaped through decades of war has become more fearful of the consequences in the face of Iran, a formidable and distant foe capable, along with Islamist guerrilla allies in Lebanon and Gaza, of raining down thousands of missiles and rockets in retaliation.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak estimates 500 Israelis would die should a strike on Iran, which denies seeking to develop nuclear weaponry, turn into a regional exchange of fire.

Such casualties would be painful for a population of 7.8 million, but would not be on the same scale as Israel's 1 percent death toll from its 1948 independence war and the steep losses from similar conflicts in 1967 and 1973.

The difference is that this time, Israel's home front would bear the brunt of any reprisals from Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah militia, Palestinian armed factions and perhaps Syria.

A sophisticated Israeli missile shield would fend off some salvoes, but those that get through could hit almost anywhere, potentially paralyzing the economy and filling bomb shelters.

Matan Vilnai, the civil defense minister, told Israeli Channel 10 TV that while the home front was not fully prepared, he hoped emergency drills held in recent years were "building up the sense, among the people, that there's someone to depend on".

Other reasons Israelis balk at war include reluctance to alienate the United States, which currently prefers diplomacy, and trust in Israeli deterrence against Iran. Israel is believed to be the region's only nuclear power and to have assassinated Iranian atomic scientists in a sabotage and delay campaign.

But Israelis' casualty tolerance, whether civilian or in the conscript military, may also have waned. Their forces inflicted a 10:1 kill ratio in the 2006 Lebanon war and a 100:1 ratio in the 2008-2009 Gaza Strip offensive. Last year, Netanyahu freed more than 1,000 jailed Palestinians in an unprecedentedly lopsided swap for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held in Gaza.

COSTS OF WAR

Martin van Creveld, a military historian who is critical of the Netanyahu government's Iran posture, posited a deterioration in Israel's fitness to confront an enemy state since it absorbed Iraqi missile salvoes in the 1991 Gulf war.

"More than 20 years of fighting the weak has bred in Israel a revolting blend of aggression and self-pity," he said, referring to outgunned Lebanese and Palestinians.

Van Creveld questioned whether Israeli morale was prepared for the costs of an Iran war, such as downed pilots. But retired air force chief David Ivry, who masterminded Israel's 1981 bombing of Iraq's atomic reactor, dismissed such pessimism.

Even were Iran to take 10 pilots captive, he said, "we'll free 10,000 prisoners to get them back. If the country decides that its national security is at stake, then the price is paid."

Philip Handleman, U.S.-based co-author of "Air Combat Reader - Historic Feats and Aviation Legends", said he believed Israel was willing to tackle Iran though bereft of the long-range bombers and refueling planes available to the Americans.

"I don't think Israel would be 'banking on' subsequent U.S. military involvement, though that might very well happen. If Israel strikes, it would be out of a pureness of heart, a very primordial survivalist instinct," Handleman said.

Israel's resilience has been underestimated in the past.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah used to compare it to a "spider's web" - easily blown away. Then Hezbollah triggered the 2006 war with a cross-border raid which Nasrallah later rued, saying he would not have ordered it had he known Israel's response would be that fierce.

There is ample indication Israel would similarly try to hit Iran and its allies hard and fast, hoping to curtail the fight.

"War is difficult and sad, and when it is unavoidable it should be embarked upon with all capabilities utilized so as not to become its victim," Shimon Peres, Israel's president and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, wrote in a weekend newspaper essay.

Israeli public support for a war, once under way, would depend on whether patriotic sentiment sweeps up waverers and surpasses the stress of sheltering from Iranian counter-strikes.

"When there is shooting or the finger gets close to the trigger, everyone goes quiet," wrote Ofer Shelah of the Maariv daily, noting the meager turnout at Israeli anti-war protests.

Amos Oz, Israel's best-known novelist, said only wars deemed necessary could count on broad domestic backing.

"It all depends on whether a war is one of no alternative, or a war of choice," he told Reuters. "I think an Israeli attack on Iran would be a mistake, because Iran is the world's problem."

The debate has reached into Tel Aviv, the Israeli metropolis most prominent in Iran's sights and one of whose councilwomen demonstrated against Barak outside his home on Sunday.

But Moshe Tyomkin, a retired army colonel in charge of Tel Aviv's crisis planning, urged calm in an Army Radio interview.

"We have had experience with missiles, and we know exactly what will happen," he said. "People, the country is living its life, and you can't concoct a catastrophe at every moment."

(Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Jeffrey Heller and Giles Elgood)

[TheFonz]

Spyder Wrote:Israel listens to us because they are alone without us. In that regard, we are doing them a favor by keeping them out of anything that would soil their UN relations. But don't be fooled into thinking that they need our help in a war with the region. They are crazier than we are, and they would do whatever is necessary to defend themselves.

The Japanese in WW2 where just as crazy as Israel is today. It doesn't mean that they could take on the whole region by themselves. If they could do it by themselves they would have already.

[Spyder]

TheFonz Wrote:

Spyder Wrote:Israel listens to us because they are alone without us. In that regard, we are doing them a favor by keeping them out of anything that would soil their UN relations. But don't be fooled into thinking that they need our help in a war with the region. They are crazier than we are, and they would do whatever is necessary to defend themselves.

The Japanese in WW2 where on par just as crazy as Israel is today. It doesn't mean that they could take on the whole region by themselves. If they could do it by themselves they would have already.

They haven't because we stand by them, and the world does not think kindly of countries that start World Wars.

[TheFonz]

Spyder Wrote:

TheFonz Wrote:

Spyder Wrote:Israel listens to us because they are alone without us. In that regard, we are doing them a favor by keeping them out of anything that would soil their UN relations. But don't be fooled into thinking that they need our help in a war with the region. They are crazier than we are, and they would do whatever is necessary to defend themselves.

The Japanese in WW2 where on par just as crazy as Israel is today. It doesn't mean that they could take on the whole region by themselves. If they could do it by themselves they would have already.

They haven't because we stand by them, and the world does not think kindly of countries that start World Wars.

Like article posted I posted states, Israeli's don't even like there chances against just Iran by themselves let alone the whole fucking region. They need us more than we need them, yet they have great influence over our politics and it just doesn't balance itself out.

[BGv4.0]

TheFonz Wrote:

BGv4.0 Wrote:

TheFonz Wrote:

Spyder Wrote:The thing about it is that Israel does not need America's help. They are perfectly able to defend themselves. America's involvement merely keeps them from decimating everyone else in the region. If America let them, Israel would destroy what is left of Palestine and launch missile attacks on Iran.

We keep them in check.

They could defend themselves without our help but for how long? They would not be able to sustain long drawn out campaign against all of it's enemies and that is why they manipulate us into backing them so aggressively.

You've got to be kidding....what "long drawn out campaign"....if let off the chain...Israel wipes the whole middle east off the map...like they almost did back in 67...in a measly 4 days.

Spyder is 100% correct on this....the U.S. is the handler holding the dog's chain...and they should be greatful!

"Israel's long term viability is entirely dependent on the US. I understand what Israel gets from it's friendship with us. I just don't understand what we get in return."

Well....it's the elephant in the room that I have not yet seen spoken about during this discussion....

Being a Christian nation and sticking to those orginal ideas and concepts.....Israel and it's people are the chosen ones....and they must be protected at all costs.

We can all make it about land and politics and whatever....but we protect them due to our bloodlines in the Christain faith....and the sacred doctrines that come with that idea.

Israeli's don't even want to take on Iran by themselves let alone the whole region. Please do some research before you start going off on the ignorant rants that you are known for.


Analysis: Are Israelis tough enough for a long war with Iran?
(Reuters) - For Israel to carry out a long-threatened strike on Iranian nuclear sites, it would have to overcome dissent within its governing coalition reflecting public fear of igniting an unprecedented missile war.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that scenario would be "dwarfed" by the prospect of an Iranian bomb, which he describes as tantamount to a second Holocaust - language that seems to herald a Jewish call to arms.


But the popular, conservative leader has not proven very persuasive. While surveys show a growing minority - now 32-35 percent - of Israelis favor taking Iran on alone, more are opposed. Around a quarter are undecided.

Some commentators ask whether a Jewish state shaped through decades of war has become more fearful of the consequences in the face of Iran, a formidable and distant foe capable, along with Islamist guerrilla allies in Lebanon and Gaza, of raining down thousands of missiles and rockets in retaliation.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak estimates 500 Israelis would die should a strike on Iran, which denies seeking to develop nuclear weaponry, turn into a regional exchange of fire.

Such casualties would be painful for a population of 7.8 million, but would not be on the same scale as Israel's 1 percent death toll from its 1948 independence war and the steep losses from similar conflicts in 1967 and 1973.

The difference is that this time, Israel's home front would bear the brunt of any reprisals from Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah militia, Palestinian armed factions and perhaps Syria.

A sophisticated Israeli missile shield would fend off some salvoes, but those that get through could hit almost anywhere, potentially paralyzing the economy and filling bomb shelters.

Matan Vilnai, the civil defense minister, told Israeli Channel 10 TV that while the home front was not fully prepared, he hoped emergency drills held in recent years were "building up the sense, among the people, that there's someone to depend on".

Other reasons Israelis balk at war include reluctance to alienate the United States, which currently prefers diplomacy, and trust in Israeli deterrence against Iran. Israel is believed to be the region's only nuclear power and to have assassinated Iranian atomic scientists in a sabotage and delay campaign.

But Israelis' casualty tolerance, whether civilian or in the conscript military, may also have waned. Their forces inflicted a 10:1 kill ratio in the 2006 Lebanon war and a 100:1 ratio in the 2008-2009 Gaza Strip offensive. Last year, Netanyahu freed more than 1,000 jailed Palestinians in an unprecedentedly lopsided swap for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held in Gaza.

COSTS OF WAR

Martin van Creveld, a military historian who is critical of the Netanyahu government's Iran posture, posited a deterioration in Israel's fitness to confront an enemy state since it absorbed Iraqi missile salvoes in the 1991 Gulf war.

"More than 20 years of fighting the weak has bred in Israel a revolting blend of aggression and self-pity," he said, referring to outgunned Lebanese and Palestinians.

Van Creveld questioned whether Israeli morale was prepared for the costs of an Iran war, such as downed pilots. But retired air force chief David Ivry, who masterminded Israel's 1981 bombing of Iraq's atomic reactor, dismissed such pessimism.

Even were Iran to take 10 pilots captive, he said, "we'll free 10,000 prisoners to get them back. If the country decides that its national security is at stake, then the price is paid."

Philip Handleman, U.S.-based co-author of "Air Combat Reader - Historic Feats and Aviation Legends", said he believed Israel was willing to tackle Iran though bereft of the long-range bombers and refueling planes available to the Americans.

"I don't think Israel would be 'banking on' subsequent U.S. military involvement, though that might very well happen. If Israel strikes, it would be out of a pureness of heart, a very primordial survivalist instinct," Handleman said.

Israel's resilience has been underestimated in the past.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah used to compare it to a "spider's web" - easily blown away. Then Hezbollah triggered the 2006 war with a cross-border raid which Nasrallah later rued, saying he would not have ordered it had he known Israel's response would be that fierce.

There is ample indication Israel would similarly try to hit Iran and its allies hard and fast, hoping to curtail the fight.

"War is difficult and sad, and when it is unavoidable it should be embarked upon with all capabilities utilized so as not to become its victim," Shimon Peres, Israel's president and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, wrote in a weekend newspaper essay.

Israeli public support for a war, once under way, would depend on whether patriotic sentiment sweeps up waverers and surpasses the stress of sheltering from Iranian counter-strikes.

"When there is shooting or the finger gets close to the trigger, everyone goes quiet," wrote Ofer Shelah of the Maariv daily, noting the meager turnout at Israeli anti-war protests.

Amos Oz, Israel's best-known novelist, said only wars deemed necessary could count on broad domestic backing.

"It all depends on whether a war is one of no alternative, or a war of choice," he told Reuters. "I think an Israeli attack on Iran would be a mistake, because Iran is the world's problem."

The debate has reached into Tel Aviv, the Israeli metropolis most prominent in Iran's sights and one of whose councilwomen demonstrated against Barak outside his home on Sunday.

But Moshe Tyomkin, a retired army colonel in charge of Tel Aviv's crisis planning, urged calm in an Army Radio interview.

"We have had experience with missiles, and we know exactly what will happen," he said. "People, the country is living its life, and you can't concoct a catastrophe at every moment."

(Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Jeffrey Heller and Giles Elgood)

Fuck you on the ignorant rant commit...you asshole.

I'm basing that on REAL life...look what they did in 67. And they were not armed to the teeth like they are now...and what has REALLY changed for the rest of the Muslim world?

You would still have a military beast going against sand sucking rock tossers for most of the event...oh sure you might have a few hundred old outdated Russian tanks and Chinese planes here and there....but the bottom line....if let off the chain Israel would wipe out every Muslim state around them.

And sure...from the stats you provide a little over 3 out of 10 want to go to war with the rest of the muslim world...NOBODY WANTS to go to war....but that says nothing about their ability.

The people of Isreal have fighting and killing in their veins....hell even the women were flying attack planes in 67....

the argument is moot as you and I will most likely never see it play out in our life times.

But...unlike a report here and there that you are tossing out...I'm using 1 actual event that took place in history that showed what that country is capable of.

If the rest of the Muslim world had advanced to the degree the rest of the world has since 67....I'd say you might be right...but you know that is not the case.

[Spyder]

TheFonz Wrote:

Spyder Wrote:

TheFonz Wrote:

Spyder Wrote:Israel listens to us because they are alone without us. In that regard, we are doing them a favor by keeping them out of anything that would soil their UN relations. But don't be fooled into thinking that they need our help in a war with the region. They are crazier than we are, and they would do whatever is necessary to defend themselves.

The Japanese in WW2 where on par just as crazy as Israel is today. It doesn't mean that they could take on the whole region by themselves. If they could do it by themselves they would have already.

They haven't because we stand by them, and the world does not think kindly of countries that start World Wars.

Like article posted I posted states, Israeli's don't even like there chances against just Iran by themselves let alone the whole fucking region. They need us more than we need them, yet they have great influence over our politics and it just doesn't balance itself out.

Don't think for a second that Israel would stick to carefully targeted drone strikes in the tribal regions. I hate the fact that we are dragged into this dispute as well, but I do see the role that we are playing as somewhat necessary to avoid a much broader war.

We are the big brother holding the little brother back from getting in a fight. If we stepped out of the way, Israel either cues up their strikes or balks and get ousted from the region. I think that they go on the offense, you think that they curl up in a ball. We both agree that we are preventing everyone from finding out.

[BrotherCane]

Some good points by all! But did y'all know that once this next delivery of F-16's, that Egypt will have more fighter jets than Israel?

[BGv4.0]

BrotherCane Wrote:Some good points by all! But did y'all know that once this next delivery of F-16's, that Egypt will have more fighter jets than Israel?

They had more in 67 too. Did not help them one bit when they were being bombed sitting still on the runway. Even if they had lifted off....the sheer skill and military abilities of the Israelis would most likely over power any incident of being outnumbered. You have to realize the mindset of a people that are surrounded by mouth foaming enemies ready to leap up at any given moment. Many of those people are born ready to fight. It's a concept very few nations could ever really grasp.

[Warlord]

salvador Wrote:

Warlord Wrote:

lloyd mayflower Wrote:

Warlord Wrote:

salvador Wrote:News update: "Israeli war planes bomb Syrian research facility"

I wish our journalists were more specific: "Israeli pilots flying incredibly sophisticated American fighter jets that were given to Israel by the American people just bombed Syria and killed a bunch of Muslims." ......Because that's how every Muslim will see it.

Who gives a shit. Militant Muslims deserve to get their shit pushed in, doesn't matter by who or how.

Yeah, the israeli bombers should just drop whatever ordnance they had left on the palestinians whose land they have stolen. They deserve it too. How dare they stand up to an invading force.

Islam was spread by the sword, including the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem. The great thing about Muslims is not just the way they felt entitled to rape, kill, and pillage the land and homes of the "infidels", but also their penchant for destroying the historical/cultural/religious heritage of said infidels, and then rebuilding a fucking mosque on top of their smoking ruins.

So don't come in here all wounded-knee on me, crying a fucking river over how some poor militant Muslim was maltreated by the big, bad, Israeli wolf.

I don't condone the death of civilians ever, but militant Muslims and this garbage notion that they deserve, DESERVE, a fucking homeland or preferential treatment of any kind is laughable. They deserve to get bombed into oblivion. Anything short of that is already an act of mercy.

For the 2000 years prior to 1948, the land that is now Israel was controlled by the Jews for a grand total of about 11 years in the 7th century. Other than that, the Jews were always a minority. It wasn't until the US and England and the UN got involved after WW2 because the Germans killed 6 MM Jews a thousand miles away from Jerusalem that the Jewish state was reborn. Without the US and England, Israel doesn't exist.

I think it's safe to say that if Russia had been able to take control of the US in the 1980s (and disarm us) and put Russian military on every corner of our country just because they were stronger, that every American would be jumping for joy every time a patriotic American strapped himself to a bomb and killed one of them.

As far as "Muslim being spread by the sword" - WHAT RELIGION WASN'T except for Buddhism? The Catholic church's directive to conquer the world was simple: destroy all other religions and establish Catholicism. Go to Latin America. There used to be way more pyramids there. But the first thing that the Catholic/European explorers did was tear down the pyramids and build churches on top of them to let the natives know that their god was dead and the Catholic god was the new god - and turned the natives into slaves in the most barbaric ways to make it happen. Muslims didn't invent torture - just ask anyone involved with the Spanish Inquisition. Muslim cruelty can't hold a candle to the Catholics'.

If history has taught us anything it's that religion and politics are a terrible mix.

And personally, I don't care. If Israel wants to kill all the Muslims in the world, fine - JUST DO IT WITH THEIR OWN GUNS AND DON'T MANIPULATE THE US INTO BACKING THE LAND GRAB. I don't want American money, blood, or political capital used in suppressing anyone - particularly anyone who has legitimate complaints and lots of people willing to die for their religion/dignity.

I'm not gonna waste my time responding to some of the more nonsensical stuff (like Americans blowing themselves up to fight off imaginary Russian invaders). It's just schlock that has no basis in reality.

As for the played out argument that Christians spread their religion by the sword, well, think about it. How long ago did that shit happen? It didn't happen in your lifetime, and it likely didn't occur in the lifetimes of any of your known ancestors.

Militant Muslims are STILL trying to push their extreme religious ideologies through bloodshed, and they don't care whose it is. Do you ever wonder how so many goddamn innocent women and children get killed by missile strikes? How is it that we have technology to zoom in on a fucking nickel on the sidewalk from space, but we can't bomb some rug-heads in the desert?

Because one of the most common strategies for Muslim terrorist groups is to hide out among local civilians, with the sole purpose of drawing missile strikes in the hope that innocent civilians WILL get killed. Because when innocent civilians get killed, it fucks with the psyche of civilized Americans (and Israelis), and we start bitching and whining and wanting to pull out, which is exactly what those sand-eating motherfuckers want. Hitting innocent civilians also serves as a great marketing tool for those rat bastards, because then they can point out how evil the "West" and Israel are for bombing the ever-loving shit out of the local populace.

So yeah, forgive me if I'm fresh out of pity for those militant bastards, or those who support them. If Muslims in the middle-east want to be treated with respect and dignity, they've gotta start giving it in return. This means not dive-bombing public buses, restaurants, and others types of buildings, for starters.

Until then, they can eat shit and die.