Re: The National Defense Authorization Act
I just can't see it. I really can't see how you can put Israel to go face to face with Iran. Dude, it lost to a tiny army back in 2000 and 2006, I just can't see it holding it's own for that long before it gets destroyed. Yes, it was at one point a really strong army, but even with advanced US weapons and technology, without having US troops there, I don't see Israel doing much.
It's any countries right to shoot down, control or do whatever it wishes to a spy drone, or any flying object in it's sky that's not theirs. And were the same situation to happen in any other country, no one in their right mind would return a machine used to spy on them, I don't see why it should be any different with Iran.
Re: The National Defense Authorization Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Remnant King
I just can't see it. I really can't see how you can put Israel to go face to face with Iran. Dude, it lost to a tiny army back in 2000 and 2006, I just can't see it holding it's own for that long before it gets destroyed. Yes, it was at one point a really strong army, but even with advanced US weapons and technology, without having US troops there, I don't see Israel doing much.
We're wandering further off topic here, but I have to disagree with this.
Israel did not "lose" the 2000 Second Intafada, nor the 2006 Lebanon war. In both instances Israel repelled the threats against it. Also, in both cases, world opinion and the threat of a wider conflict kept Israel somewhat in check. Much like what occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq, had Israel chose to crush the opposition utterly, it certainly could have done so. But at the risk of creating a much wider conflict pullling Arab states and the US into it, among others.
Israel is the 10th most powerful military in the world. They are a modern, well trained, well equipped and formidible force. The only nation in the region that comes close is Iran. Israel is quite capable of defending itself against any of it's regional adversaries. Where it could have trouble is fighting a wider war in the region but they have been very adept at insuring that that does not occur. In fact that has not happened since the Yom Kippur war in 1973 when they battled several nations in the region including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. These nations were significantly assisted by others. Still, with some US hardware but no troops, Israel managed a victory. They are even better prepared today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Remnant King
It's any countries right to shoot down, control or do whatever it wishes to a spy drone, or any flying object in it's sky that's not theirs. And were the same situation to happen in any other country, no one in their right mind would return a machine used to spy on them, I don't see why it should be any different with Iran.
I agree completely
That drone is likely already in China or Russia where they can do a proper job of dismantling it.
Re: The National Defense Authorization Act
Since the Yom Kippur War, Israel's conflicts have been confined to fighting terrorist groups such as the PLO, Hezbollah, and Hamas. They have not attempted to conquer their neighbors, but only to suppress what they see as threats to the State of Israel. In that regard they were successful, at least in the short term. Victory is often defined differently depending on what side of the conflict you are on, and so I do see your side on this. In recent decades, it is not unusual for both sides to claim victory. War is much more complicated than it was 60 years ago. Nations don't even bother to actually "declare war" against each other and no one seems to agree on who is a "soldier" or a "terrorist" any more.
Re: The National Defense Authorization Act
Re: The National Defense Authorization Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OldFart
Since the Yom Kippur War, Israel's conflicts have been confined to fighting terrorist groups such as the PLO, Hezbollah, and Hamas. They have not attempted to conquer their neighbors, but only to suppress what they see as threats to the State of Israel. In that regard they were successful, at least in the short term. Victory is often defined differently depending on what side of the conflict you are on, and so I do see your side on this. In recent decades, it is not unusual for both sides to claim victory. War is much more complicated than it was 60 years ago. Nations don't even bother to actually "declare war" against each other and no one seems to agree on who is a "soldier" or a "terrorist" any more.
I agree with almost everything you have to say, except the first two sentences.
So occupying a country or an area isn't an attempt at conquering? And if their sole reason was to suppress terrorist groups, why did the whole nation have to suffer? Why did every person living in that country have to suffer? My parents fled Lebanon because of that war, because there were airstrikes going on everyday. Of course moving here may have been hard for them, but it's provided me with opportunities I may never had over there, it still doesn't justify it though you know?
Hezbollah was never considered a terrorist organization until either 2000 or 2001, I may be wrong but I am pretty sure. And also, Israel's occupation of Lebanon began before Hezbollah was even formed.
Re: The National Defense Authorization Act
I suppose that Israel's purpose for occupation can been seen both ways. Israel saw it as protecting their citizens and Lebanon rightly saw it as an act of aggression toward it' people. Both are right to varying degrees. I feel for you and your family. I follow events in that part of the world as closely as I can and I have some small idea of what they must have faced.
The middle east is a very complicated place. Plenty of opinions on three sides of every issue. I have no desire to agrue with you, in fact I respect and appreciate your opinion. Trying to understand that part of the world is an endeavour that I know full well I'll never achieve, but I enjoy the pursuit.
You are right about Hezbollah, although I can't say exactly when they began to be referred to as a terrorist organization and by whom. On man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
Peace
Re: The National Defense Authorization Act
I had no desire to argue as well, think of it as an exchange on opinion from two sides.
Thanks for keeping this mature and intelligent, I really appreciate it.
Re: The National Defense Authorization Act
I went to college with a guy from Lebanon. He had moved here with his family in the early 90s. One thing that he opened my eyes to about Lebanon is the incredible natural beauty and rich history. Before the civil war, it was know as the "Switzerland of the East". Unfortunatley, these days,all that we in the west seem to hear about is the politics and conflicts. Lebanon has it's problems but in many ways it is an example to be followed in the region.
Lebanon is actually a prosperous nation and has an excellent human rights record and is truly a melting pot of cultures and religions. I'm sure many here would be surprised to learn that is once again become a very popular tourist destination. I know that you know all of this RK, just thought I'd throw it out there for anyone who stumbles across this thread. Reasearch Lebanon - you will be surprised at what you learn.
Re: The National Defense Authorization Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
matt5112
Soup in spanish.
Re: The National Defense Authorization Act
"So occupying a country or an area isn't an attempt at conquering? And if their sole reason was to suppress terrorist groups, why did the whole nation have to suffer?" Afganistan? Iraq?
The art of war changed the second we declared war on terrorism. No longer can we crush a countries millitary and declare victory. The second we try the terrorist groups again come crawling out of their caves and once again infest the country.
Re: The National Defense Authorization Act
