Punch Up

This country has given Israel a lot of technical support when it comes
to weapons development so they don't really need to nick stuff like
that again.

 

I recall many Mig 29's flying to Iran to escape allied destruction
during GW1. How many made it to Iran? I believe that it was a fair old
number, enough to equip a couple of squadrons... I suppose the
Iranians were extremely greatful... And what became of the pilots?
Were they flying to Iran with Saddam's approval?

 

Indeed. Partly because Israel has never fought a guerilla war before in
the same way - and never tried to do it the 'American Way'[1] either.

I suspect they will go back to their usual method of just targeting the
Hizbollah leaders with assassination squads. It seems more effective.

Phil.

[1] Through use of overwhelming technology rather than military tactics
& grunts. They seem to have forgotten the old maxim of "you can't
defeat the enemy from the air" - the best you can do it hurt him badly
before your troops move in. And when your enemy is a mobile & fast
moving (and indistinguishable from the general populace) you just can't
do it from the air.

 

The only reason that Hizbollah would disband is if Israel no longer
existed and every Jew in the middle east was dead. Hardly a valid basis
for a long-term peaceful settlement.

Ah yes - the Golan Heights. The place where Syria used to shell Israel
from prior to the 6-day war in 1967.

I'm sure Israel would be perfectly happy to hand them back on the basis
that a hostile power (Syria) was not allowed to use them as a base for
attacks on Israel.

Which part of the removal of settlements from Gaza and the West Bank did you
miss?
I would agree that Israel needs to minimise their hard-right religious
factions. Since they run a form of proportional represntation it is
going to be very difficult - they can't disenfranchise them.

Mostly they are of European descent - and culurally much closer to
Europe than Middle-Eastern.

Phil.

 

Actually most of the West Bank area was owned by Jews pre-1947. They
were kicked out as part of the partition plan.

Most of the Palestinians were not removed from their lands by the
Israelis (although some were - and fairly forcibly too) - most were
told to leave by their leaders & mullahs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the situation is more complex -
neither side is innocent, neither side is wholly guilty. And until they
both sit down and talk in a meanful fashion about how to fix things it
isn't going to get fixed.

While you are at it you might like to examine how the surrounding Arab
nations dealt with the refugees.

Phil

 

This bit I agree with

This bit I don't agree with. Israel wasn't supported by the US in 1947
or 1967 but still managed to win.
Their standard of living would nosedive and they would be more
vulnerable to people like Hizbollah but they would survive. The fact
that they now have peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt (and provide
gateways to the European market for goods from both of those countries)
as well as their trading links to places like Turkey means that they
are much much more stable than they used to be.

And when you think about it 3-5 billion dollars is a drop in the ocean
compared to how much it actually costs to keep a modern country
running. But it does buy a whole lot of guns.

Phil

 

It isn't - because that isn't what happened.

Read the history - starting with the Balfour declaration and ending
with the UN vote in 1947 - and then the various wars where the
surrounding nations have tried to wipe Israel off the map.

Phil.

 

Neither were a lot of the people who lived there - a lot of the land
was owned by absentee Arab landlords who took it over under the Ottoman
Empire.

Phil

 

Other than in Lebannon you mean? The 20-year occupation that nobody got
too stressed about..

And probably take a sizeable fraction of Iran & Syria with it.

Phil

 

<CoughHiroshimaCough>

 

I suspect that the NK state defines cooperation as "doing what we tell
them".
As does Iraq.
And since NK is rabidly communist I suspect that they would have
nothing to do with a theocratic state like Iran.

Phil

 

ITYM "Stalinist."

NK is a borderline theocratic state, the difference being that the deity
is also the ruler.

 

Which they also tried in Central America - with the same level of
success.
And they armed and funded the anti-Soviet forces in Afganistan - and
then were suprised when said forces developed a nasty case of Sharia
and kicked all the foreigners out. And went on to establish terrorist
training camps.

As was the very anti-US attitude prevalent in Central and South
America.

Indeed it is - and getting less by the minute. Even (especially) at
home.

The US has failed to apply *any* of the lessons of the fall of the
British Empire other than 'might is right'. Which has been proved to
not be a viable long-term strategy at all.

Phil.

 

<CoughEnemyAlreadyDefeatedAndTryingToSurrenderCough>

 

Indeed. In fact I'd go further and say that the state has no business
messing in religion (other than to moderate any excesses) and religion
has no business meddling in the state.

Phil

 

And set our political timeline back by several hundred years by
introducing feudalism.

Phil.

 

The main opposition to democratic rule is the autocrats. Would you want
to vote yourself out of power when you know that all the murky stuff
that you did while in power will come out afterwards?
Just look at General Pinochet for an example.

Phil.

 

But not "unconditionally", which was the sticking point for the Septics. It
was too much of a political issue for them. They had said "unconditional" so
many times that it wasn't possible for them to concede anything to the
Japanese, even something as benign as "We'd like you to tell us that you
won't kill/remove our Emporer".

Anyhoo, the point I was trying to make is that you *can* defeat the enemy
from the air, but only if you don't give a flying **** about civilian
casualties along the way. In the present day "War by TV" situation, it's
practically unthinkable.

ISTR that in World War 1, there were more deaths every single week than
there have been so far in Afganistan and Iraq since we began GWB's
"crusade"...

 

That didn't defeat Japan - it merely proved to them (as if they didn't
already know) that defeat was inevitable - and that they could
surrender without losing face.
It also saved a lot of lives (US and Japanese) compared to what would
have happened had the US actually invaded.

Phil

 

Indeed. My knowledge of communist esoterica is not huge.

"My theocratic ruler is tougher than your theocratic ruler!"
"Tisn't"
"Tis"

<Boom>

Phil