Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oppositions to Arabs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sorry, but I just reread your article and had to put this in.

    "It's one of the most efficient military forces around," said Anthony Cordesman, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "Can they thumb their nose at us? Well, for a while. But they don't have the technical or production base to sustain these capabilities without some resupply by us."

    But Cordesman estimated it would take about two years of fighting before Israel needed help.

    It was a much closer thing in 1973, when Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on Yom Kippur, one of the Jewish high holy days. As Egyptian tanks swept across the Sinai Peninsula and plunged through Israeli defenses, a panicked Israeli government pleaded with the United States for help.

    Then-President Nixon quickly stationed two aircraft carriers off the Israeli coast and put U.S. combat forces on alert. Eight days later, U.S. cargo planes began delivering what would be more than 22,000 tons of supplies to Israel, including tanks and jet fighters.

    The deliveries tipped the military balance. Israel counter-attacked with its tank forces, under the leadership of then-Gen. Sharon, chasing Egyptian troops back across the Suez Canal and reclaiming the Sinai.

    From that experience came the U.S. pledge that Israel would never lose its "qualitative edge" in military power to any Arab neighbors, and U.S. military aid to Israel that backed up that pledge. U.S. military support to Egypt, which began after Egypt and Israel signed their 1979 peace treaty, is about two-thirds what Israel gets.

    From - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ilitary09.html

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Calc II
      no not really. US sells military equipment to South Korea but that doesn't make them the kick asser. Don't know if this is true but another thread indicated South Korea ranks fifth in largest military. Yet N. Korea can absolutely wipe their enemy of the face of the planet and N.Korea doesn't get military equipment from US (obviously)
      That's false, North Korea really couldn't hope to beat South Korea in a war, I can only assume either you heard that somehwere else and are quoting it here, in which case they probably meant North Koreas nuclear capabilities, or 2 you that's what you meant. In which case I'm sure you know the U.S. has much more suffisticated nukes then do the North Koreans and if such a case occured then there likely wouldn't be a North Korean Government by the following day. Also you may or may not know this but North Korea got weapons and money from Russia and China for years.

      Another note, (as of July 2001) North Korea was exporting 49% of all exports to South Korea and Japan, and getting over 20% of it's imports from them as well, if they ever tried to engage in a conventional war how long do you think they could continue to feed and arm their military, especially if they were on the offensive? I'm sure both countries would stop all trade pretty quickly.


      ***Some more info on North and South Korea for anyone interested (info from July 2001)***

      Popilation approx:
      North Korea
      22 million

      South Korea
      48 million

      Per capita income:
      North Korea
      $1,000 (edit: this is not a typo)
      South Korea
      $16,100

      Government:
      North Korea
      Authoritarian socialist; one man dictatorship (even though they call them selves the Democratic Peoples Republic)

      South Korea
      Republic

      Larget Cities
      North Korea (note hard city info for north korea is about 10 years old all figures are estimates)
      Pyongyana: 2.25-3 million
      Hamhung: 700-800 thousand

      South Korea
      Seoul 10.8 million
      Pusan: 3.8 million
      Taegu 2.25 million
      Inchon 1.8 million
      Kwangju 1.15 million

      *All info comes from "The New York Times Almanac 2002" most info is from 2000 or 2001 and many are estimates.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gsmoove23
        I'm a little confused by this, I don't know where your previous link is but I've found this one which reports a much smaller number, while stating this is only an educated guess because the size of the Isreali army is classified.
        It seems there's a bunch of numbers floating around. So what I decided to do was go with the CIA's recent numbers. Check this site out, it's pretty cool and has economic, military, and other stats on every country in the world.



        I think it's still crystal clear that Israel's military kicks butt.

        EDIT: Oh yeah, if you wanna see stats from other countries, go to the list box at the top of the page and change it, it's that easy.

        Originally posted by gsmoove23
        Of course they're cutting back and its not entirely because of an economic downturn but a lack of need. They simply don't see the possibility of a large scale war and why should they with the EU slowly erasing borders.
        Well they're sadly mistaken. I think what part of it boils down to is America is expected to bail nearly everyone out. Why were we even involved in Bosnia? My father was stationed over there for 9 months. He's a Colonel, yet he told me the conditions were absolutely miserable for everyone involved. That's Europe's responsibility, not ours. Yet America continues to be forced into a position as World's Policeman.

        Europe and the U.S. cut down military spending during the times of the Depression, with the exception of Germany, who re-militarized and pulled itself out quicker than any other country. We almost made the same mistake under Clinton again. I don't understand why Santayana's quote always seems to revisit us. Why must we not realize that people's inherit nature doesn't change? There will ALWAYS be some whackjob out there ready to attempt a Pinky and the Brain.

        Originally posted by gsmoove23
        I can assure you, if Israel were in such a calm part of the world they wouldn't see the point either.
        I couldn't disagree more. I think Europe as a whole is MUCH, MUCH more pacifistic than the rest of the world. Although countries like Britain have always been fairly aware that there is a constant danger to disarmament. As Jefferson said, "The price of liberty is to be ever-vigilent." If we ever get another Roosevelt in office that guts our military, we're utterly screwed and likely doomed to deal with another Pearl Harbor.

        Originally posted by gsmoove23
        My list of other worthies definately Incan and Mayan and hearing more about the Koreans I think they're a good choice. Byzantines, no they're not the same as Romans. Goths. Can't think of more right now but I'll be back. Are there really 8 more slots?
        Apparently there are 8 more slots. Umm my first few choices would be (in order):

        1. Netherlands
        2. Incas
        3. Israel

        I haven't given too much thought past this.

        Comment


        • Military Expenditures

          I know I know, this is also OT. But I know you guys will find it interesting. Here the top 15 countries with respect to military expenditures. The link is:



          Top 15 Countries with Highest Military Expenditures
          Rank County Millions of Dollars
          1. United States 277,800
          2. Russia 76,000
          3. China–Mainland 63,510
          4. Japan 50,240
          5. France 47,770
          6. Germany 41,160
          7. United Kingdom 33,400
          8. Italy 19,380
          9. Saudi Arabia 17,210
          10. Korea, South 14,410
          11. China–Taiwan 13,140
          12 Brazil 10,900
          13 Canada 9,077
          14 Israel 8,734
          15 Spain 8,652

          Comment


          • there are more than 8 slots... the editor can handle more (64 iirc), but you can only play with 31 at a time (barbarians count as a civ too, so 32 minus them ). but the firaxis guys said that 31 civs in one game isn't everybody's choice.

            in my list, polynesians would get in too. the jews not as israel ... but as the hebrews
            - Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity
            - Atheism is a nonprophet organization.

            Comment


            • It seems there's a bunch of numbers floating around. So what I decided to do was go with the CIA's recent numbers. Check this site out, it's pretty cool and has economic, military, and other stats on every country in the world.



              I think it's still crystal clear that Israel's military kicks butt.
              Actually from that site there really isn't any good indication of their actual military power.

              It basically says that 3 million people are available for military service (this is including females) and also that about 2.5 million are fit for service, however the most accurate numbers I've gotten of actual active full time troops (possibly army only) is in the 40-50 thousand range which I have heard from atleast 3 sources I can remember. One was an all news network, another was an almanac (this one was over a year old however) and yet another from an online newspaper article.

              BTW for the US it says that about 71 million are available and this is no where near how many we could actually get into the military even in a war. Someone correct me if I'm wrong (as I have only pre sept 11th or slightly later then sept 11 info) but the US has well below 2 million people in the military if I remember correctly. However keep in mind that Isreal recruits everyone and they must serve atleast 3 years I think(that's what I've heard from numerous people who say they are from Isreal anyway) but don't take that last part as hard facts.

              Comment


              • If there are 64 or 32 civs available in the new release(is this really true?!) then I have no prob with an Israeli civ, but I have to respond to a couple of your arguments anyway
                Originally posted by Traelin

                I think it's still crystal clear that Israel's military kicks butt.
                Where do you see this. The CIA factbook only lists Israeli citizens available for armed service. Even if you count that every Israeli has to serve when they reach 19 it doesn't mean much because they only have 8bil dollars worth of military hardware to equip them with. China's number in this area are 300mil. Its doubtful that all these could possibly serve at one time. Plus, you should take into account that israeli arabs and orthodox jews are exempt from military service. Israeli arabs are about 20% of the population.
                Originally posted by Traelin
                Well they're sadly mistaken. I think what part of it boils down to is America is expected to bail nearly everyone out. Why were we even involved in Bosnia? My father was stationed over there for 9 months. He's a Colonel, yet he told me the conditions were absolutely miserable for everyone involved. That's Europe's responsibility, not ours. Yet America continues to be forced into a position as World's Policeman.
                I sort of agree with you here, where it comes to Israel. If you'll read the quote I extracted from your article in 1973 we assured Israel's success in that war and promised to maintain their military supremacy in the MidEast, which we have ever since. Bosnia was not a large scale conflict or a threat to the security of the more stable european countries and America was upholding its roll as world policeman whether people wanted it to or not something it has been doing for quite a long time, but european countries had a large stake in that action anyway.
                Originally posted by Traelin
                Europe and the U.S. cut down military spending during the times of the Depression, with the exception of Germany, who re-militarized and pulled itself out quicker than any other country. We almost made the same mistake under Clinton again. I don't understand why Santayana's quote always seems to revisit us. Why must we not realize that people's inherit nature doesn't change? There will ALWAYS be some whackjob out there ready to attempt a Pinky and the Brain.
                Maintaining forces that can counter existing threats is necessary. Maintaining overburdensome forces to counter imaginary threats is stupidity. For instance, some amount of demobilization is to be expected after the end of the cold war. We simply don't need that level of expenditure on forces that will not be used in the forseeable future. However we still have to maintain a significant military as a deterrent for the likes of China and petty dictators like Saddam but choosing to maintain unnecessary forces is a drain on economy which is an extremely significant weapon which if used properly can forego the need for war.
                Originally posted by Traelin
                I couldn't disagree more. I think Europe as a whole is MUCH, MUCH more pacifistic than the rest of the world. Although countries like Britain have always been fairly aware that there is a constant danger to disarmament. As Jefferson said, "The price of liberty is to be ever-vigilent." If we ever get another Roosevelt in office that guts our military, we're utterly screwed and likely doomed to deal with another Pearl Harbor.
                I think you need to look at the list of military expenditure you posted and if you consider that Europe is now in the process of dissolving its borders consider what that might mean in the coming decades. I am frankly suprised by the amounts I see there. They seem to put Israel to shame as well.
                As for your WW2 analogy, it is true that mistakes were made but these were because of a general exhaustion and fear of war following WW1 and these were huge mistakes because Hitler's mobilization should have been obvious to everyone. Where are the obvious threats today?! Iraq, please. If any madman takes control of a country and begins a significant rearmament economically strong countries like France and Britain will be better placed to react in the future if they don't maintain a huge, useless and expensive army today.

                As for Israel, if you don't think its current state of mobilization has anything to do with its political situation I don't know what else I can say. Except its occupying land, oppressing 3 or 4 mil palestinians, fighting a guerilla war!

                Anyway, thanks for the interesting list, but I've got to ask, does it support your arguement or refute it?

                Comment


                • As for Israel, if you don't think its current state of mobilization has anything to do with its political situation I don't know what else I can say. Except its occupying land, oppressing 3 or 4 mil palestinians, fighting a guerilla war!
                  It's just like the US did with the Native Americans, the indians would attack again and again and colonists would fight back and sometimes militias would head out to their camps and burn them etc.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gsmoove23
                    Where do you see this. The CIA factbook only lists Israeli citizens available for armed service. Even if you count that every Israeli has to serve when they reach 19 it doesn't mean much because they only have 8bil dollars worth of military hardware to equip them with. China's number in this area are 300mil. Its doubtful that all these could possibly serve at one time. Plus, you should take into account that israeli arabs and orthodox jews are exempt from military service. Israeli arabs are about 20% of the population.
                    I actually only included the CIA factbook for reference. When I looked at the numbers, I was listing it more as evidence of the lack of preparedness in the rest of the world than I was as evidence in support of Israel. Although, you have to agree that their state of readiness is impressive, given their population. Of course Israel couldn't go to war unilaterally with China, and this is more or less due to the populations of both countries. But c'mon, to simply write off Israel military prowess because of their state of mobilization is unfair.

                    Originally posted by gsmoove23
                    I sort of agree with you here, where it comes to Israel. If you'll read the quote I extracted from your article in 1973 we assured Israel's success in that war and promised to maintain their military supremacy in the MidEast, which we have ever since.
                    But you'll note that the point of the article is that we are much less responsible for their capabilities now than we were back then. That's the point of the article. Look at the first couple paragraphs again.

                    Originally posted by gsmoove23
                    Bosnia was not a large scale conflict or a threat to the security of the more stable european countries and America was upholding its roll as world policeman whether people wanted it to or not something it has been doing for quite a long time, but european countries had a large stake in that action anyway.
                    Unless one of our strong allies pleaded with us to help (which they didn't), we should have had NO stake whatsoever in there. I like to follow the Monroe Doctrine, unless our economic, political, or military interests are threatened. It was about as big a mind-boggler as our humanitarian mission in Somalia.

                    Originally posted by gsmoove23
                    Maintaining forces that can counter existing threats is necessary. Maintaining overburdensome forces to counter imaginary threats is stupidity. For instance, some amount of demobilization is to be expected after the end of the cold war. We simply don't need that level of expenditure on forces that will not be used in the forseeable future.
                    Agreed, but unfortunately it almost became a gutting of the military. My father used to manage the standard missile program for the DoN. At one time he was also responsible for acquisitions management of Tomahawks and the like. He told me that the last couple years of the Clinton administration saw an over 50% cut of that program.

                    Another example was the Seawolf program in Grotten, Conn. Did you know that, during Clinton's first election bid, he promised to include the Seawolf as a top military priority in his admin.? Then he immediately turns around and eliminates probably the most important submarine program in our nation's history. The Seawolf would have absolutely raped anyone and everyone, but oh well.

                    Originally posted by gsmoove23
                    However we still have to maintain a significant military as a deterrent for the likes of China and petty dictators like Saddam but choosing to maintain unnecessary forces is a drain on economy which is an extremely significant weapon which if used properly can forego the need for war.
                    Actually this couldn't be further from the truth. People always, always mistake increasing military expenditures with a drain on the economy. It's actually very untrue. I live outside D.C., and we are considered the only "recession-proof" area in the country. That is, when commercial jobs are slashed, the govt. ends up picking up the slack. It really boils down to jobs. The military creates a ton of jobs, as is witnessed in the massive increase in counter-cyberterrorism positions in my area. Plus, look at the actual economic figures of the Reagan admin. Some attest that our economy grew 300% in his 8-year tenure, although I don't know how true that is.

                    The only thing that can even remotely be linked to an increase in military expenditures is deficit. My philosophy is to stop funding ridiculous regimes in S. and Central America, stop paying farmers NOT to grow certain crops, and stop the silly, ramped-up troop mobilization in Europe.

                    Originally posted by gsmoove23
                    I think you need to look at the list of military expenditure you posted and if you consider that Europe is now in the process of dissolving its borders consider what that might mean in the coming decades. I am frankly suprised by the amounts I see there. They seem to put Israel to shame as well.
                    Again, look at the populations of the European countries. If you were to look how much one of those countries spends per citizen, you would find it to be much less than that of Israel and the U.S. I'm telling you, history is cyclic. Nothing good can come of SIGNIFICANT downsizing of one's military. They really are in a state of downsizing. I'm just too tired to post all the links I found on the topic.

                    Originally posted by gsmoove23
                    As for your WW2 analogy, it is true that mistakes were made but these were because of a general exhaustion and fear of war following WW1 and these were huge mistakes because Hitler's mobilization should have been obvious to everyone. Where are the obvious threats today?! Iraq, please.
                    We weren't a significant (read: significant) factor in WW1. (Yes, I know about our supplies running to Liverpool, yada yada). We were more exhausted from the Great Depression than anything else. We wanted an economic savior, so the general populace forgot about everything else.

                    The scary thing is that we don't really know where all the significant threats are. It was nicer to have the Soviet Union on the receiving end. On the whole, they acted civilized toward us in terms of warfare. Yeah, we had the Cuban Missile Crisis. But at least we knew that the USSR wouldn't automatically have an itchy trigger finger. They were predictable.

                    Iraq is not. And God knows who else is not. That's what worries me the most.

                    Originally posted by gsmoove23
                    As for Israel, if you don't think its current state of mobilization has anything to do with its political situation I don't know what else I can say. Except its occupying land, oppressing 3 or 4 mil palestinians, fighting a guerilla war!
                    Well of course their current preparedness has something to do with the situation at hand. I was arguing that they are a crack force anyways. We have sent our elites to train with them, so that should say something. Throughout history, Israel has proven to be a strong people who hold steadfast to their beliefs. This is more a part of their military mindset than anything else.

                    My data neither refutes nor proves my argument, it's more interesting than anything else. If you don't believe Israel has an awesome military after this thread, I'll never be able to convince you.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by gsmoove23
                      Except its occupying land, oppressing 3 or 4 mil palestinians, fighting a guerilla war!
                      I forgot to comment on this. It's also completely unfair to accuse Israel of being oppressive. Since when did they ask for the tet offensive against them that allowed them to gain the lands they now occupy? I understand the overall Palestinian population is innocent, but dude Israel succeeded in acquiring land through war in much the same way any other Civ has.

                      And if the terrorism would stop against their civilians, I guarantee the peace process would move forward. Any moves they make toward giving that land back while in the midst of terrorism means only one thing: the terrorists win.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Traelin


                        I don't know too much about the Korean War and the present military states of North and South Korea. However, alot of the guys I work with have been enlisted military. From what they said, it's almost a freaking requirement to serve 9 months over there. Some of them served in Seoul, but some served near the DMZ and said it's crazy when you can see enemy snipers a couple hundred yards away.

                        Anyways, they told me that there's no way in heck North Korea could come close to taking out South Korea, due to our substantial presence there. Which leads back to my other point that we are a very strong ally of Israel, and yeah we do help them (and others) out a lot, but you still can't take their accomplishments away from them. I guess when the U.S. spends 278 billion annually on military expenses, we have a good deal left over for aid.
                        It's no brainy secret that even South korean toddlers know, that within 24 hours N.K tanks will roll down Pusan if they were to attack.

                        That substantial presence you refer to according to South korean view is not being funded enough. and the support has been shrinking slowly. Whether this is true or not, they should still be independently be able to take care of themselves IMO.

                        DMZ still sees firefights. You just dont hear about it since they are both violating the laws by being in DMZ! (My dad went in there for reconaissance. Its the heaviest mined piece of land in the world!) While serving as a Ranger for 3 year mandatory draft he worked near DMZ for 6 months. He knows of dozen people that died. As well as the famous incident when N.K infiltrated beyond DMZ and killed off whole barrack full of dudes. (or was that like korean dad's version of boogieman stories? lol)
                        :-p

                        Comment


                        • Argueing about superiority of one's military force is kinda pointless. Since there is no clear cut #1 in these things. There's no balance beam to weigh training, equipment and etc. factor for these things. Most of what we know is probably propaganda anyway. And besides even if someone is known to be superior, the Mets have their day where they cream th Yanks in the subway series. Or even worse, when baltimore does it. (sorry Oriole fans) I imagine battles to be no different.

                          EDIT: IDF is a very good Military force. I think everyone can say that for sure.
                          :-p

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Traelin
                            And if the terrorism would stop against their civilians, I guarantee the peace process would move forward.
                            Indeed, that's true. But the Palestines are just going to continue with blowing up car bombs, etc. So the thing Israel has to do, is wipe out al the terroristic Palestines and if they continue then, wipe out al the Palestines. I think I'm getting much on my point of view, but that's the way it is. I don't want it, though. And the won't do it, because they can't make it in world politics.
                            Yours,

                            LionQ.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by CivilopediaCity
                              Indeed, that's true. But the Palestines are just going to continue with blowing up car bombs, etc. So the thing Israel has to do, is wipe out al the terroristic Palestines and if they continue then, wipe out al the Palestines. I think I'm getting much on my point of view, but that's the way it is. I don't want it, though. And the won't do it, because they can't make it in world politics.
                              Ouch, I hope it doesn't come to that. We can only hope they'll stop bombing civilians. Although when I see pics of 8 and 9 year-olds holding up signs praising Usama Bin Laden, you gotta wonder where their mindset is.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Calc II
                                Argueing about superiority of one's military force is kinda pointless. Since there is no clear cut #1 in these things. There's no balance beam to weigh training, equipment and etc. factor for these things. Most of what we know is probably propaganda anyway. And besides even if someone is known to be superior, the Mets have their day where they cream th Yanks in the subway series. Or even worse, when baltimore does it. (sorry Oriole fans) I imagine battles to be no different.

                                EDIT: IDF is a very good Military force. I think everyone can say that for sure.
                                Agreed. Don't bring the Spankees into this though, I hate them with a passion! You brought up the O's cuz you know I'm from this area!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X