Moonbox

Which may be the sad reality.

How about you read back on this thread and any other Myata has participated in regarding Israel. I don't need to link it. It's all here. He's been providing one side of the story only. He's also denying it. I'm not denying that I've been on the other side. Oh I get it. We're going to play grade 4 now. I'll argue with Myata. At least he'll try and make a point. With you it's a waste of time.

Yeah the Arab side never starts anything. Wait...there was the second Intifada wasn't there? What was that Israeli sergeants name that got bombed right after Arafat walked out on the talks at Camp David?

Myata's position has been no less objective than my own. He's focused purely and exclusively on the Israeli side of the conflict and ignored and discounted everything the other side has done to escalate and perpetuate the conflict. His parameters have LITERALLY been: Israel has to withdraw from all of its occupied territory and withdraw hundreds of thousands of settlers in an effort to appease hostiles who've indicated OFFICIALLY they will NEVER accept peace with the Israel. In return they should expect nothing, but HOPE that militant Arabs around the world will talk to them about peace..which again they've already made clear they won't. Hmmmm....

No genius. Israeli preventative measures are air strikes, tanks rolling in and targetted assassinations. It's brutal, it's violent and it works. When Arab rockets fly, so do Israeli gunships and one side has typically come out on top. We've both provided facts. You ignore the ones I present. You also lie and distort. You said Hamas offered a peace agreement and recognition of Israel. It did not. I provided citations showing their OFFICIAL position and you've discounted it as meaningless. Really credible... You provide me with citations of Israeli leadership indicating they'll never accept peace with the Arab world. Go ahead. Do it. You're getting pathetic. Now you're reallllly making me laugh. That's exactly what you've been proposing the Israelis do. Give up the occupied territories and withdraw back to 1949 borders for....nothing. Your claim of objectivity is pure comedy. Again, you really have a problem with the concept of 'reality'. Reality would suggest that when one side is claiming they'll never accept peace with the other, you've got some pretty big problems.

I'm stunned you're still not grasping this concept. The AK-47 is rifle. You point pull trigger it go boom boom. Really? Well in the 60's the Vietnamese managed to shoot down hundreds of them so..... Let's see a citation on that please...where NATO respects that claim. The Russians have claimed a lot of things about their SAM systems in the past. The fact that NATO and the Russians are still developing $100 million dollar fighters puts your claim into question.... Wow you really have trouble following a concept through to the point don't you. I'm merely suggesting the possibility that we won't always be fighting just the Taliban or Somalians. Badly misinformed? How many fifth-generation fighters are the Russians fielding now? How many super carriers does it have on the ocean? They're at a tremendous economical disadvantage and while some of their tech is pretty impressive they've not had the means to develop most of it. Perhaps I phrased my response poorly, as it's more a matter of their military industrial capacity being SIGNIFICANTLY less capable than that of the West than their actual designs. So the Russians invested in missiles because they're smart, and the Americans invested in fighters because they're dumb? Riiight. The Russians invested in missiles because they could never match NATO in terms of air power. Instead of investing money they didn't have in a race they knew they couldn't win anyways, they chose a cheaper and less effective alternative that could give them SOME air defense capabilities at much lower cost. The west has been beating Russian air defenses all along. They did it in Vietnam. They did it in Iraq. They did it in the 6 day war. The proof is in the pudding. The Russians are developing their own $100 million fighter. Why would they do this if they've already rendered it obsolete. Answer that or step down buddy.

Anyone ever tell you analogy is the worst form of argument? Battleship obsolesence didn't happen over night. We went through a 20 year paradigm shift to air power which was anticipated and accounted for by both the US and Japanese navies. The battleship still maintained its roll but was simply superceded by the carrier in range and firepower as the primary asset of the fleet. Battleships were replaced by --- now get this --- bigger and more expensive ships. Here's a question --- if the best planes today are easily wiped out with cheap Russian SAM systems, why are the Russians still developing 5th generation fighters like the JSF? Ever heard of the Pak Fa? Clearly most of the world's most brilliant military designers and thinkers are all on board with this apparently colossal stupidity...

No now you're just REEEEALLY missing the point. You're defeating your own argument. The AK-47 hasn't been upgraded over the last 60 years because it doesn't take sophisticated technology to shoot a bullet through a man. A kitchen knife similarly doesn't need to be upgraded because all it has to do is cut meat. A fighter plane is probably the most sophisticated piece of military technology out there and the weapons used to counter it are similarily sophisticated. The west has maintained its dominance over the last century BECAUSE of its technological edge. If we were still flying F-4 phantoms right now the Taliban would have laughed us out of Afghanistan. It can stay ahead of SAM technology and it pretty much always has. It's not a futile game. There's not a SAM system out there right now that neutralizes the F-22 nor the F-35. Right now we're fighting third-world insurgents but what would happen if we needed to take action against Iran, or Saudi Arabia or anyone else with a military to speak of? You plan ahead in the military or you die. It's pretty simple stuff. You read too much Wikipedia. While the Russians are ahead in missile technology, it's always been because they're significantly behind in fighter technology. Being behind in fighter technology means they don't really have anything to test their tracking systems against. The USA is leaps above the rest of the world in terms of stealth technology and they wouldn't be investing hundreds of billions into it if it was cheap and easy to counteract as you suggest. Stealth chasing systems at this point are mostly either theoretical or inprecise and nobody (including the Russians) have managed anything practical. Add to this the endlessly advancing list of electronic defenses available to aircraft and the West will continue to confound Russian air-defence systems as they have over the last several decades.

The Gripen is a cheap and robust aircraft designed with the Swedish defensive strategy in mind. The real thing it has going for it is a pretty good cost for performance ration, but it's not really comparable to other 5th generation fighters in terms of performance. In mock battles with Norwegian F-16's the Gripen won 'most' of its dogfights. It's not expected to provide huge advantages (other than cost and flexibility) over current 4th generation fighters nor is it expected to be able to cope with advanced AA weapons like the S-300 or S-400. There's no point really in 'upgrading' to the Gripen if we hang on to our fighters for 20+ years like we did with the Hornet.

Hand-held AA are not really great at shooting down fighter aircraft. They might get lucky here and there but they're primarily used to shoot slower or more low flying aircraft like helicopters, transports, gunships and things like A-10's and Su-25's. We could probably buy tens of thousands of them, but they'd not help us defend against high speed strike craft, nor would they be any good offensively. Gee, you sure sound smart. Unfortunately an F-18 (or F-35 for that matter) isn't really meant to strafe an individual soldier but rather strike high value, high profile targets or provide support to ground troops as they require. Aside from that, 'the rockets' you speak of don't do what you say they do anyways. Learn what you're talking about first.

The F18 is 'capable' against current 4th generation fighters and SAM technology. The F-35 is considered four times as effective as a 4th generation fighter (the F-18 is 4th generation).

Use your brain. Comparing an assault rifle to a fighter jet is like comparing a kitchen knife to a submarine. It doesn't make sense. The AK-47 is simple, cheap design that requires no training and is easy to maintain. It's perfect for third world armies and militia and there's been no reason to improve on the design because there have been no improvements in human flesh over that time. Advances in body armor could render the AK-47 much less useful against modern well-equipped infantry, but until that time there's no need. A fighter plane, on the other hand, has to contend with advances in countless different technologies to stay ahead. Nothing. I was just trying to put into perspective what it would be like to go into battle with 40-50 year old equipment. I'm not sure you really know what you're talking about. Considering that the USA, the most advanced military in the world, is investing something like $350B to purchase thousands of F-35's I think it's safe to say they're confident that present day and forseeable future SAM won't be able to compete with their fighter design. If you knew anything about the F-35 you'd know it's designed as a stealth fighter, and thus evade detection in the first place. Thus far there's been no indication that modern SAM can render cutting-edge fighters ineffective.

Yeah aside from it being a joke Toronto Star hack job there's the simple fact that the media has done this to themselves. The media has made it pretty clear it's not interested in so much what politicians have to say, but rather with what story they can make out of it. When you know the people you're talking to are going to make every effort to distort and blow what you say out of proportion then you're going to make damn sure that your people know better and keep their mouths shut. On top of that Shakey, yeah, you're right, Harper does have to keep a lid on some of the bigger idiots in his caucus. That being said, every party does.

I'm really confused by how upset people are about this. We've been using the F-18 for as long as I've been alive. By the time the F-35 enters full production the F-18 will be a ~40 year old design. Think about that for a second. 40 years is almost half a century. The difference 40 years makes in military technology is incredible. Let your weapons fall behind 40-50 years and instead of throwing Saddam out of Kuwait with M1's and F-18's the USA would have had to do it with Shermans and P-51 Mustangs. Five to ten years from now the F-18 will be nearly obsolete. SAM tracking etc will likely be advanced enough to shoot them out of the sky.

I think you're failing to understand WHY militant activity is reduced. It's because Israel takes incredibly harsh preventative measures and retaliates decively. Don't mistake it for peaceful intentions. That's a joke. It's the selection and choice of facts that you deem relevant that I take issue with. The conflict is not an equation and you can't break it down numerically. Your argument is basically: Israeli settlements > Arab killings of Israeli, therefore Israel is in the wrong. There's sooo many more issues to this mess and breaking it down like you've tried to is a joke. The extreme right of Israel doesn't run the country, nor do religious zealots. Palestine IS run by Hamas. Statements like this are echoed across Arabia and Persia. If I absolutely NEEED to I'll look some more up for you. Check your 'facts' again because no formal plan to recognize Israel or lasting peace was ever offered. The closest we've had is Hamas offering hudna, which is a temporary truce, which is no better than a ceasefire. They've been very clear they will NOT recognize Israel's right to exist nor will they consider lasting peace. TEHRAN, Iran — Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told thousands of Iranians on Friday that his Hamas-led government will never recognize Israel and will continue to fight for the "liberation of Jerusalem." I'm insisting from this podium that these issues won't materialize. We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem," he said. http://ctestp.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20061208/hamas_haniyeh_061208?hub=CP24Entertainment That's just Hamas, only a fraction of what Israel has to deal with. Here's Hezbollah: Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah reiterated on Friday that Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people and not to the Zionist entity, stressing that recognizing Israel’s existence is forbidden and calling on all Arab and Islamic governments and people to adopt the choice of stead fasting in the face of the Israeli enemy. http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=203566 Since Iran finances them, let's see what they have to say: Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map for great justice and this was a very wise statement.....whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?_r=1&ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070 Apparently the translation was botched and instead of saying 'wiped off the map' he actually said 'erased from history' but either way he makes his point. Comment on those FACTS please. I've made it pretty clear that I think Israel isn't going to leave territory it's occupied for decades, nor do I think they should. I haven't pretended I don't lean one way on this issue. Clearly you don't either, though you have trouble admitting it. What are you getting at here? I'm pro Israel I think it's clear. You're very anti-Israel and everything you've said has made it clear. Let's dispense with the pretenses of objectivity and get to discussing what it would take for both sides to bury the hatchet and move on.

You're right but a relationship doesn't need to be sexual for that kind of bond to be built. A very close friend could instill the same sort of loyalty and somehow the military withstands that. Even so, I largely agree with you.

Okay thanks that only proves my point. Palestine can police its militants. Great. The Israeli ceasefire was unilateral. The only reason Hamas stopped firing rockets was because Israeli counter attacks were swift and brutal. Sorry Myata, but the conflict unfortunately cannot be reduced to an equation. Get real. As mentioned above, militants from Palestine etc cannot act without fear of retaliation from Isreal. It's purely this fear that has kept their militancy in check. As for 'factual reality' as you so eloquently put it, perhaps you'd like to comment on this: There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors That's a nice little highlight of the Hamas Covenant and I invite you to read the whole thing yourself. That's the governing authority of Palestine. That's their 'Charter'. You can bleat and carry on about the standing joke that is international law, but it's absolutely pointless. Both sides haven't a leg to stand on in that regard and the only way you're going to negotiate peace is if both sides are willing to make concessions. Israel has no reason to dismantle its settlements or halt expansion. Give them one or the whole process is a joke, much like the international law you keep bringing up.

This is adolescent crazy talk. Take your tinfoil hat off, stop exaggerating and come back to reality.

Exactly. If you actually looked at the budget numbers from those times smallc you might see that the majority of the actual spending cut decisions had to be made by the provinces. I'll give credit to Paul Martin and Chretien for not spending, but I'll give them only marginal credit for cuts in expenditures. Mike Harris and his contemporaries had to do the dirty work.

The Palestinians themselves could more or less put a stop to this. Once support, both official and unofficial, dries up for militant action against Israel, it becomes extremely difficult for them to operate. The arab side has more or less been able enforce ceasefires so extending that to a peace treaty isn't inconceivable.

If things got nasty enough Israel's armed forces could roll over the entire region with impunity. At present they strike at will and it's only their restraint as well as their respect/fear of the international community that keeps them from doing so. Again, it's not an ongoing land grab. The land grab happened several decades ago after they embarrassed the attempted invasion of their land. At this point I'd say their goal is to hang on to land they've already occupied and claimed. As far as I can tell, they've not expanded their borders since the last attempted invasion against them. Read the Hamas charter. Read the statements its leaders have made in regards to peace with Israel. They themselves have specifically stated they will NOT negotiate peace with Israel. Get a clue about what you're talking about before you start asking for referenced facts. Nope. It's more like if your neighbors are going to try to kill you regardless of what you do (their intentions made clear in their OWN words) you probably wouldn't really give a damn if you piss them off or take their stuff. Myata get this through your head please. You're really struggling with this concept I know...but: I AM NOT SAYING ISRAEL IS INNOCENT. Read that to yourself slooowly a couple of times and maybe it might sink in for you. That's the trouble isn't it? From the way you speak on the subject I'd say you're one of the least objective people I've spoken to on the matter, yet you somehow claim to be.... I think you have a really skewed view of what objective and principled actually mean in the context of an actual real world setting. I don't mean to be insulting but I truly and sincerely believe you really don't have a realistic view of the situation nor any grasp of how practical negotiations would take place. You can go on and on about objectivity and principles but pragmatism and realism are every bit if not more important to the process. In previous discussions you've indicated that for any credible peace process to begin then Israel needs to unilaterally withdraw hundreds of thousands of settlers out of annexed land. You've indicated that in return Israel should not even expect the other side to indicate a willingness to discuss peace. The suggestion itself is ludicrous. To suggest that one side should have to make huge, expensive and far-reaching concessions and to not expect the other side to even consider long term peace discussions is patently insane. It will never happen. No. I'm saying that international law is about as credible as 'democracy' is in Iran. Not only is it applied selectively, but as a cohesive institution it's completely impotent. The fundamentalist Islamic world brings up 'international law' only when it suits their purposes. Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan etc are all human rights disasters and operate so far outside international law in the first place that to bring it into the discussion is pretty pointless. Applying and enforcing grossly unfair standards on one side alone isn't going to move things forward. For peace to succeed both sides are going to have to come to the table and talk about it. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Sexual relationships amongst soldiers are fine I think. Sexual relationships with underlings are not. I didn't read the whole story but a brigadier general fooling around with subordinates is inappropriate in the same sense that a professor sleeping with one of his students is inappropriate. In the military, however, this is faaaaaaaaar more serious because there are life and death implications involved. A commanding officer may make emotionally based combat decisions in order to keep his lover safe which can have very realistic implications not only on the success of the mission itself, but on the morale of the troops as a whole. How would you feel as soldier if you were constantly being put in harms way while a similarly ranked peer was being given the easy assignments on a regular basis because of a relationship with a superior?

What are you even talking about??? Both sides have a right to feel threatened. One side, however, is in a position to act against and neutralize threats against it to some extent. One thing that you might REALLY want to investigate is the reality of the situation in regards to the intents of each side. One side has made it clear that its intention/goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. That's their intention, yet they lack the means to make it so. The other side clearly has the means to wipe the other off the map, yet does not do so, which would suggest some restraint on their part and at least respect for the notion of peace. These are facts and you only need to do about 30 seconds of research to confirm this. There's nothing idealogical about it. The idealogical distortions hold on both sides. Israel annexed territories like East Jerusalem something like 40 years ago after they were pre-emptively invaded. I won't argue that international law forbids this, but I wonder what it would have said about the invasions themselves? At this point there are hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers in some of these territories (who've been living there for many years now) and in any realistic and logical world you'd have to give Israel a good reason to withdraw and resettle those people. Launching an invasion (and subsequently getting your ass handed to you) and then bitching about lost territories after the fact is pretty ironic I think. What makes it even more contemptible is the righteous indignation and demands the Arab world places on Israel while at the same time stubbornly refusing ANY notion of long-term peace and co-existence with them. Myata we've been over this about a hundred times. I don't think Israel is innocent in any way. I don't think they believe in the peace process there and a lot of what they do is just sand in the Arab world's eye. I simply take issue with people like you who've decided that Israel is the instigator and the main source of blame in a conflict when for 50 years the militant Arab world has done nothing but threaten and inflict violence on Israel and never even entertained the idea of long term peace. One final thing I'll mention is how the Arab world will point towards Israeli breaches of 'international law' when the majority of Arab nations in the area have no respect for human rights, freedom or international law in the first place. If we're going to get into 'international law', let's take a broader view of things and investigate the idea that realistically there's hardly an Arab state in the area that could be held to the same standards that you and people like you hold Israel to.

Very articulate. You're a real asset here.

Well there's an interesting notion and one worth investigating. Whose land is it? Obviously the inhabitants of the land back in the 1940's have some claim to it, but then so too wouldn't the people born and raised there who've lived there for 60 years? It's an absolutely useless argument at this point because it does nothing to move the peace process forward and instead holds everyone back in the past. Don't try to get into 'logic' Myata because that's generally where your arguments start to crumble. Why are we even talking about whose fear takes 'precedence'? That doesn't make sense in the first place. The fact of the matter is that Israel is surrounded by enemies. It has a long history of its neighbours attacking it and it DOES get struck by suicide bombers and rocket attacks. This is enough to make them fearful. It makes ABSOLUTELY no difference to the people of Israel that Arabs in the area are also scared and I have no idea why you would think it should. That's really the point isn't it? Who ARE we talking about in respect to the 'other side'. In that I'd say it's the cowards who hide behind the honest people of Palestine and encourage violence and violent rhetoric against Israel at all costs. Those are the only people that MATTER when it comes to the peace process and unfortunately it's rather hard to bring them to the table. We're not talking about just Palestine here. We're talking about the entire angry militant Arab world. Israel is constantly being condemned. Europe is condemning them. The Arab world condemns them. The UN condemns them. Unfortunately toothless condemnation by international bureaucrats matters little to either side. What sort of 'action' do you suggest? Sending a UN military mission? Sanctions against Israel (in which case you'd have to sanction most of the middle east as well)? It's not going to happen. Israel and Palestine have to figure this out themselves.