Tweet
It would be very lopsided. There is a large force in the country to the East...
-
-
Iraqi problems notwithstanding, could we withstand another political defeat? I don't think so. Plus, it would just be throwing fuel onto the fire...I can see the headlines now:
AMERICAN AND JEWISH INFIDELS ATTACK MUSLIM HOLY LANDS! JIHAD AGAINST THEM!!!Comment
-
Yes, that possibility makes sense.Originally posted by GePap
What is the definition of reservists? Syria might have tiers of them.
Without the backing of the Soviet Union, most likely any conventional war between Syria and Israel would be very one sided. With the exception of a possible suprise attack, Syria's best chance at attacking Israel now is what it has been doing - fight Israel by proxy through the terrorist groups it supports and aids.Also, the matchup woul not be as lopsided as people think, if onyl becuase Israel is right next door, not an ocean away, and no, nukes are very unlikely to be used, and if they were , its not like Israle ended up pretty either (cause the only time the nukes would be used is if Israel was in mortal peril, or had suffered a large WMD attack).Last edited by Edan; October 13, 2003, 22:42."I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie AllenComment
-
An Israeli land assult straight into Syria is very unlikely, as it runs right into the bulk of the Syrian army fortwhith. Certainyl an air campaing could do a lot of damague quickly, but the Israelis till have to absorb the Syria attack on the heights, and attacks from Lebanon. And the US would not be getting involved at all.
Would Israel win? Ceartinly Would Israel win without significant cost to itself? NO. Becuase if the Israeli have nukes t keep the Arabs out of Tel Aviv, the Syrians have chemicals weapons waiting for anyone coming into Damascus. Lets put it this way: as much as people talk, the IDF is NOT as good as the US Army, and the Syrians are not as hapless as the Iraqis (at least they feed, clothe and arm their concripts).If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard ShawComment
-
Plus, of course, there is the aftermath of any war..Israel could not control tiny southern Lebanon...after all, it was Syria at the end that ended up with a proxy, not Israel. They can't even totally control the relatively unarmed Pals....what exactly would they do in Syria?If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard ShawComment
-
I wished to hell they would do something. Peace is so over rated. War helps restore the proper balance and I for one need to be balanced.Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We are evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that. --Saul TighComment
-
Third thing: after 1949, which of Israel's ,military victories have actually lead to lasting peace in israel's favor?
Not 1956, or 1967. 1973 lead to a peace with Egypt, but Egypt got back all the land Israel had taken from it. 1982 lead to an open ended commitment that ended with Lebanon in the hands of Syria...
All and all Israel's ability to capitalize from military victories has been pretty bad.If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard ShawComment
-
Actually, 1956 got Egypt to stop sending in Fedayeen at Israel, and 1967 led to an (unspoken) peace with Jordan. The Gulf War led to the Oslo Peace process (which failed)Originally posted by GePap
Third thing: after 1949, which of Israel's ,military victories have actually lead to lasting peace in israel's favor?
Not 1956, or 1967. 1973 lead to a peace with Egypt, but Egypt got back all the land Israel had taken from it. 1982 lead to an open ended commitment that ended with Lebanon in the hands of Syria...
As to Egypt getting back some of it's land, while it may have been lopsided in Egypt's favor, I don't see what your point is - should Israel have not returned the Sinai in exchange for peace?
"I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie AllenComment
-
Hmmm... This must be why we saw it advertised in the newspaper that Israel had fitted nuke warheads to cruise missiles...I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I thought Israel and experts had dismissed that. (Though in regards to Syria, I doubt Syria could do anything in regard to Israels two other platforms for delivery).Originally posted by DanS
Hmmm... This must be why we saw it advertised in the newspaper that Israel had fitted nuke warheads to cruise missiles..."I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie AllenComment
-
Yeah, but Israel doesn't even admit to having nuclear weapons - of course they're gonna deny having nuclear-tipped cruise missiles
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
Maybe Syria needs to cut its surplus population?- "A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it still ain't a part number." - Ron Reynolds
- I went to Zanarkand, and all I got was this lousy aeon!
- "... over 10 members raised complaints about you... and jerk was one of the nicer things they called you" - MingComment
-
Us and the Jews have them surrounded
But Jews please handle this our people are kinda tired I mean we even have Serbs fighting for us nowWe the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham LincolnComment
-
We had complete aerial superiority in 1982, and since then the balance of powers tipped even more in Israel's favor. So unless Syria has some super-secret anti-aircraft death rays, this "bulk" of the Syrian army will be bombed to pieces faster than you can say "UN calls for cease fire".Originally posted by GePap
An Israeli land assult straight into Syria is very unlikely, as it runs right into the bulk of the Syrian army fortwhith. Certainyl an air campaing could do a lot of damague quickly, but the Israelis till have to absorb the Syria attack on the heights, and attacks from Lebanon. And the US would not be getting involved at all."Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master" - Commissioner Pravin Lal.Comment
-
If the Syrians would somehow manage to sneak attack us ( impossible due to the Intel gap ), they could do some serious damage. They have lots of armor and artillery concentrated there. But, This wouldn't last for long. As soon as we get our armored and artillery forces concentrated on that sector, we'll roll, no doubt in that. Maybe Syria feeds their conscripts, but they still have too much T-55s, and not enough T-72s (That would burn, as well, but nevermind that )
Oh, and our reserve pool is much larger than 400k, btw, IF NEEDED.Comment
Comment