Why Does Battlefield Armor Bother Republicans So Much?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az
Bull****. The settlers can take care of themselves. I have little doubt of this, really. The arab fighters are complete numbskulls and have a ****e learning curve.

The Arab fighters manage to kill a significant number of them even when the IDF is around to protect them.

Without the Army backing their asses up you'd see the outlying settlements be the first to go. The ones nearer the frontier would probably be safe. But Israel wouldn't be able to let it get that far. They'd find it politically untenable to allow settlers to be killed and do nothing.

[Az]

Of course, of course, but "I'll bet" shows a certain amount of prejudice.

KH, with regards to any ensuing fighting on the territories:

My proposition is the following:

-Army Leaves.
-Settlers who want to leave, can leave, as well.
-Settlers who don't want to leave, don't.

Why am I sure that the settlers won't be in existential danger? Because:
A) just like the palestinians, Settlers have their own means, and can procure arms.
B) They're much better organized.

[Lancer]

You ooze "prejudice" Az. Your bias is very evident.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az
Of course, of course, but "I'll bet" shows a certain amount of prejudice.

KH, with regards to any ensuing fighting on the territories:

My proposition is the following:

-Army Leaves.
-Settlers who want to leave, can leave, as well.
-Settlers who don't want to leave, don't.

Why am I sure that the settlers won't be in existential danger? Because:
A) just like the palestinians, Settlers have their own means, and can procure arms.
B) They're much better organized.

c) There's a lot less of them than there are Palestinians, and the ones who would be in danger are the ones who are isolated in outlying settlements, effectively increasing their numerical inferiority.

[Az]

We all have our general prejudices. However, you show prejudice WRT this particular case - and this is wierd. I just see that republicans didn't vote for more armor. It just surprises me, that's all.

[Az]

c) There's a lot less of them than there are Palestinians, and the ones who would be in danger are the ones who are isolated in outlying settlements, effectively increasing their numerical inferiority.

no settlements are truly isolated. They're all in a visual distance from each other. And the numerical inferiority isn't important - Again, there are many professional soldiers, and trained people there. And I am not even talking about the outside help, from volunteers, and stuff, that they'll get.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lancer
Wait a sec, Oerdin, did the dems add something to it like a billion $ for gay whales?

Not to my knowledge. You have the same news report I have posted in the OP.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

well well well, look at the hypocracy by the republicans. looks like they not only use the religious right, they also use the nationalistic and militaristic voting bloc for their own gains. feeling used there lancer? you should be.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I[t] just seems like Republican law makers are very hypocritical. . . .

You could have stopped right there.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az

no settlements are truly isolated. They're all in a visual distance from each other. And the numerical inferiority isn't important - Again, there are many professional soldiers, and trained people there. And I am not even talking about the outside help, from volunteers, and stuff, that they'll get.

And who will reach the settlements from? JOrdan? (that haven of Jewish lovers), or Egypt? (another haven of Jew-lovers?)

Of course, you will have the ships docking in Hebron..... OR those convoys through Palestinian territory..... Oh, wait....

Simplest way to end a settlement? Siege. Cut them off from any food supply, cut of their water and electricity and fuel shipments to eventually cut the use of generators. Then sit back. Without water or resupply, that's the end of it. Even the best military force will wither away when surrounded, and a bunch of families will certainly not last long.

You don't need a learning curve at all.

[DanS]

To be honest, I think the Army should decide on this, not the congress. Why should the congress be micromanaging such stuff?

If there's a problem in the Army management and decision-making on this stuff, then that needs to be addressed. But with votes like this, the symptoms are being treated rather than the disease.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
To be honest, I think the Army should decide on this, not the congress. Why should the congress be micromanaging such stuff?

If there's a problem in the Army management and decision-making on this stuff, then that needs to be addressed. But with votes like this, the symptoms are being treated rather than the disease.

And a good doctor will treat both. Only the party in power though can treat the disease. Please tell us DanS why your party is so irresponsible as to not treat the disease.

[Dinner]

DanS: Congressmen want pork and they want control over the money to control where the pork goes.

[Dinner]

To quote Ming from the Airbus A380 thread:

You just aren't looking at the big picture... I worked on a major defense contractor account for over 17 years, and got to see what a distinct advantage they had on the commercial side thanks to their defense contracts... they would sit around and discuss it while laughing about it... If you truely think that defense contracts are soley awarded based on the value of the specific proposal, you are living in a fantasy world

On one HUGE defense contract, the key was setting up production and supplier support in as many congressional districts as possible... spreading the jobs out to as many "votes" as they could... so even if the contract came under fire, there was a built in base of law makers who had a vested interest in keeping the jobs in their districts

[Q Classic]

Why did Inoue vote against it?