True, but that is very different from saying that the country has not been able to build up a defence industry of its own, which is untrue. It has done so and, in its various fields, proved extremely successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Printable View
True, but that is very different from saying that the country has not been able to build up a defence industry of its own, which is untrue. It has done so and, in its various fields, proved extremely successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Go see a doctor before the liberal bs you are so full of- backs-up into your throat.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Before you choke on your own bs, give proof that, that statement, was "extremely mild" not your opinion, which is starting to achieve the level of Glauy, but actual proof.
Here are Jenny Tonge's comments:LinkQuote:
If I had been a mother and a grandmother in Palestine living for decades in that situation, I don't know, I may well have become one myself.
That doesn't mean to say I condone suicide bombers - I don't. I think it's appalling and loathsome. But we have to try to understand where they are coming from and understand the situation in which they live.
I concur with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
There was the KFir which was quite a successful aircraft and was in service for almost 20 years. They took a Mirage 5 (?) and whacked a J79 in it, which probably made it a better aircraft than the original.
Australia also "can not afford to build delivery vehicles from scratch", but the F-111C which the RAAF had was still the world's fastest service combat aircraft when it was retired in 2010. Is that also "unsuccessful"?
I bet that if and when the F-35 Lightning II is ever delivered it will be totally unsuited to RAAF capabilities, and so CAC will rip out the avionics suites and start again, as they did with both the F-111C and the FA-18.
I think we have all noticed that by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I think you're wrong (as usual).Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
So it is your opinion that the Israeli defense force can stand on it's own without help from the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Reality, try it sometime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The question of the jews and the middle east, is very complicated so much so beyond debating it on this forum.
I see great arguments on both sides.
Unfortunately in such cases, it usually comes down to who is the toughest and meanest.
But as to the original topic, please, USA walks a difficult path. That is the problem when you try to be the world's policeman and the maker of peace.
And why I say, better to stay home and live happy.
As even the Romans found, being in a state of constant war can get expensive. It can also lead to eventual ruin.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Yes, they could bomb poorly armed and unarmed people back to the Stone Age. In Afghanistan, we could do the same thing, couldn't we? Because we haven't and we probably won't, does that mean that we are under anyone's thumb? No. It simply means that like a man, no nation is an island either. Israel has for most of its modern existence relied on taking a convenient moral (holier than thou) high ground. What limits Israel the most (IMO) is the same thing that limits us: our standing in the world community. Let’s say Israel went "buck wild" on Lebanon or where ever. What would happen if the Chinese and other major trading partners, no matter what the UN did, decided to place an embargo on ALL Israeli made goods and halted trade with them? It would take a lot more than just U.S. assistance (or vetoes on the Security Council) to save their bacon then (no pun intended). Becoming a rogue nation, when you don't have oil or some other high demand asset to offer, is pretty much suicide. The desire for self-preservation is a basic human instinct. It has nothing to do with being under anyone's thumb.Quote:
That would be part of "go for it", or "lifting the thumb", whatever you want to call it. The US would say "go for it", but don't expect us to help. Don't kid yourself, the support of the US military has always come with many strings attached. Do you really think that the Israelis are happy having rockets lobbed into their towns? You don't think they really want to reduce their enemies to rubble? They have the ability right? So what's been holding them back in the recent past, what's holding them back now?
I'm sure there are. Just as there have been discussions about how the U.S would fund the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. American taxpayers were put on the hook for the homes of the illegal settlers. They took the money. They left. And then they came back in even greater numbers. They didn't give our money back though. Oh well, that's OK. I'm sure they needed it more than we did.Quote:
Yes the US policy is a nuclear attack on Israel is an attack on the US. That is not in dispute. However, do you really think that there aren't conversations about the Israelis "limiting" their response to certain situations?
I have no doubt that there are discussions about Israeli military operations. We know for a fact that the U.S. pressured Israel not to become involved in the Iraq conflict in the early 90's. But they were hardly "under our thumb". An Israeli attack would have destroyed the Arab portion of the coalition. So where Israel would have just had Iraq to worry about, they could have ended up in a war with various Arab states. Whether they could win or not is not the point. The point is, they could have easily ended up in another war. They basically sat behind the scenes and the conflict played out fairly well for all.
"No more goodies for you" to the extent that it would violate the Cranston Amendment would be a violation of U.S. law. And it would take an incredibly horrific event to overturn that law.Quote:
Basically the policy is "Be good boys, and do as we say. Or no more goodies for you"
Look, I fully believe in Israel's right to exist. I just don't believe in my (the American taxpayer) obligation to be a "blind in one eye" sugardaddy to them.