Moonbox

Sure, but they live there now, have for 60+ years, and they're not leaving. The only questions now are things like the development of settlements in the occupied territories and the blockades on Gaza etc. Those are the points that groups like Hamas etc should be focusing on and trying to negotiate. The state of Israel isn't going anywhere, regardless of their frothing belligerence. I know who he is, and I know what they did. The Arab 'resistance' wasn't weak, however, it was strong and persistent but also incompetent and ineffectual like you said. You're right that Israel benefited from defending themselves successfully (a shocking thought!), but the continued invasions and attacks against them erased any moral high ground the Arabs might have had in negotiating the return of territories. Decades later, with areas heavily settled and developed, there's no hope of going back to the original borders either. Eventually, it's a realistic and practical fait accompli that many (not all) of these settlements and developments are never going to be dismantled. Any negotiations moving forward between Palestinians and Israeli have to be give-take instead of the all-or-nothing demands being made.

No, but if you're going to use the word 'platitude' you might as well use it in the sense that it actually has some relevant meaning. Does Harper spout platitudes? Sure! He does it every day, on a host of issues, just like every politician does. In terms of his support of Israel, however, his stance and his words are a far more principled, meaningful and significant (whether you agree with them or not) than the empty, automatic and consensus statements most of the UN diplomats are making.

Right, you looked up the etymology of the word for no real reason. That's a perfectly normal thing to do, and I totally believe you.... Your source is an Palestine Chronicle columnist and hobby book reviewer. A brief look at his portfolio of articles gives a pretty strong picture of his 'credibility'. As for the use of the word 'platitudes' in this joke of an article, written by a joke of an author, it was a platitude itself. As far as he's concerned, it's a word to use when you don't like what someone has to say. He speaks at length about how awful Israel is and how he disagrees with virtually everything Harper has to say, even going so far as to fabricate his own interpretations of Harper's words, but at no point does he display anything BUT a desperate bias. The fact that you even thought this was a remotely worthwhile reference to bring up in this forum is funny, but it's no doubt an attempt to save face after being caught looking up the definition to a word you didn't really understand.

I can barely even use this forum now on my laptop. I'm running IE11 and have VERY limited functionality. I can create threads and post replies, but can't quote or directly respond to anyone. The changes made last year made the discussion board much more finicky to use even on my desktop. To be able to separate someone's post into more than one quotation I now have to press the button at the top left of option bar (beside the remove format button) and do everything manually. Oh well!

So you looked up the definition and etymology of the word. That's adorable. Good for you! Too bad it's still a terrible word to describe Harper's foreign policy, which, if nothing else, often breaks from the UN consensus.

Yasser Arafat and Fatah said some words back in 1993, but they were one small player among many, and despite their words continued terrorist attacks against Israel. Between Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah, Israel's never been safe from terror attacks from their close neighbors. Whether it's Fatah or Hamas attacking from Palestinian territories, Israel doesn't really care.

Whether or not they think their 'fake god' (talk about being tolerant/open-minded lol) promised them that land, Jerusalem and the surrounding area was the land they historically identified with, and which they were essentially driven out of by multiple parties, multiple times. Now they're there, and have been for 60 years. You could equally say that as long as Palestinians reject Israel's right to exist, there will be no two state solution, and Israel has no reason to stop settling occupied territory. If you're going to get attacked, or threatened to be attacked, whether you build settlements or not, you might as well build the settlements. What do you think is more possible? Palestinians and Arab states recognize Israel's right to exist, or Israeli Jews dismantle their nation and leave as demanded?

The "stealth" code?!? Suffice it to say the Chinese are still probably about 15-20 years behind the US in their weapon designs, at least to any reasonable scale.

I don't think you know what platitudes mean.

The rise of fundamentalist militias in Syria has nothing to do with the West. Their LACK of involvement in Syria has been what's angered Syrian rebels, and they blame that for the rise of fundamentalist militias. The West doesn't align themselves with 'Islamists'. It aligns itself with friendly, predictable and cooperative governments. Nobody cares. The borders and lines drawn up are nothing but arbitrary. Claiming vast swathes of territory and expecting people to recognize those claims is pointless if you don't have a presence there. Not patriotism, pragmatism. Canada has virtually unparalleled access to the Arctic region, particularly around our archipelago. Our claim is very strong, very easy to press, and short of large scale military intervention, difficult to prevent. Russia has all of the blame. Clearly you haven't followed what's been going on in Ukraine over the last ten years, but Ukrainians are dirt poor, unhappy and tired of being bullied by Russia, not to mention the horrible memories of Soviet genocide previous generations of Ukrainians endured. Their close ties with Russia have long been fruitless and overall probably detrimental. When Ukrainians decided they wanted to look to the EU for hope and for a better future, Putin's panties got twisted and he's been punishing them ever since. Essentially an ex-KGB thug, Putin's having a tantrum watching the USSR's former sphere of influence shrink and is trying to bully the former Soviet republics back in line. It's not just Ukraine either. Moldova recently made moves to open further ties in the EU, and Putin imposed a ban on imports of Moldovan wine (one of their largest exports) to Russia as a result! The degree to which the West supported Ukrainian protesters (with cheap words) cannot be compared by a reasonable person to the Russian response, which was to send troops and weapons across the border to seize territory and start a civil war where thousands have died. Nobody's rejecting the right to self-determination, but there's usually a process and negotiations that go along with it. The Russians militarily enforced a full circumvention of these processes in Crimea and are attempting to do the same in Eastern Ukraine. Clearly you don't see the difference, but that's not surprising. They've long been unfriendly to one another, as one party has been subservient to the other, and it always suffered under this arrangement. No, a more neutral approach is implicit permission for Putin to press his ambitions further. History tends to repeat itself, and you don't have to look back far to see how things turn out when you allow a belligerent power to bully its neighbours without consequences. It hurts their economy a lot more than it hurts ours, essentially turning the tables on Russia's attempts to economically bully its smaller neighbours. If the Russians are pressed hard enough financially, they'll likely back down. They were counting on Europe (particularly Germany) not having the conviction to impose these sanctions. Well shucks! What a great idea! Let's promote secularism in a region where secularism as a concept is violently rejected! While we're at it, let's promote abortion rights in the Baptist Church! We'll not stop there, however. Democracy in North Korea too! We'll just...you know...PROMOTE IT!

Sure, let's spend a whole bunch of money on soon to be dated plane that will need replacing within a decade.

Providing limited support for a popular uprising against a vicious dictatorship. Funding Islamic militants was never part of the equation. Oh no! We've offended the Danes! Their tiny nation has no more claim over the North Pole than Canada does, as it's uninhabited. They have even less ability to establish a presence there than Canada does, which is the whole point of Harper's language regarding the region. The borders you draw on a map are meaningless unless you actually have people living, working and patrolling the area, which is what he intends to have happen. Antagonizing Russia!? Wow! Someone sure has a screwy picture of the world! Self-determination is one thing, but punishing a neighboring country for drifting away from your sphere of influence by inciting a revolt and supplying it with weapons is another thing altogether! From here, it doesn't seem like you have any clue what you're talking about! WOW! What a great idea! Yes! Let's just make everyone there embrace Western democracy and legal systems! It's THAT simple. How old are you?

That's a good answer, and a clear message that the board is still being actively moderated. Thanks!

Say something like what? The initial statement was made with a pretty understanding of what was to follow. Hamas fires rockets (mostly) ineffectively at Israel, and literally the only thing Israel can do is retaliate. Israel's retaliation was always certain to crushing, and it was expected that a lot of people in Gaza would die. Trudeau made his initial statement of support of Israel despite all of that, and I commend him on it. It at least gives the appearance that he considers the issues, rather than blindly antagonizing his allies like his father did. Harper's lack of respect for the environment is less about hating the environment, and more about rejecting dumb, ineffective and expensive ideas that most Canadians also reject. His foreign policy is actually a foreign policy. Whether or not you like it, it's more effective to take principled positions and stick to them than it is to spout platitudes and be ignored. Canadians cling to the memory of Lester Pearson, but he led Canada in a post-WW2 era where Canada had far more clout and influence with the British, French and US. Nowadays Canada is essentially ignored and irrelevant to Europe and little more than an extension of the US economy - an important trading partner to be occasionally soothed with cheap words. Our days of honest-broker are over, because nobody outside Canada really cares what Canada has to say.

I'm not sure if 'most' Islamic countries want Israel annihilated, as only a handful of nutter nations actually take that position officially, but there is certainly a large number of Muslims who hold that sentiment. No doubt they are engaging in a proxy war, but the very nature of a proxy war requires willing combatants. You can't simply send money and weapons to a country. You need popular support, places to hide, and willing recruits. Do radicals in Iran and elsewhere fan the flames? Sure, but you can't fan the flames unless there's already a fire.

That's the problem with allowing extremists to take control of your government. Once they're in power, they're equally extreme about maintaining it Generally the longer it lasts the more entrenched and worse it gets. This isn't really the whole story, however. First off, Hamas was elected as ruling party of the PLA by popular support in 2006, despite their charter, suggesting that Palestinians do indeed support them. Second, there's long been widespread opposition to Hamas in Palestine and Gaza, both with Fatah (whom the Americans and Israelis were supporting in the 2007 battle for Gaza) and with other groups. As for anti-Hamas protests, they happen: Immediately after the coup, the Salafis in Gaza started organizing demonstrations against Hamas as the Salafi groups in Egypt supported Sissi. http://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2014/07/23/why-has-hamas-rejected-egypts-ceasefire-proposal If Hamas didn't have popular support in Gaza, they wouldn't be able to maintain power. They do have it, so they remain in power. They have enough regional enemies that a popular and more moderate opposition would gain critical support from Egypt (whose new government is very anti-Hamas) and the US as well. Additionally, if a moderate opposition were to reach out to Israel with a message of peace (instead of threats etc), there'd be no hope for Hamas. Unfortunately, the denial of the state of Israel and its right to exist isn't a crazy extremist notion. It's a deeply ingrained and popular idea with decades of history in Palestine. Until this 'notion' is put to rest among the Palestinian people, there's no hope for a long-term solution. If Hamas toppled next week, there'd be another similar group to take its place. Hamas might be worse than its predecessor Fatah, but Fatah wasn't a particularly fuzzy organization itself, nor is it likely Hamas' replacement will be either.

No offense simple, but this type of thinking is all backwards. Hamas doesn't exist without the Palestinian people and their support. The reason that extremism thrives in certain countries is because the people there do nothing to curb it. In a lot of cases, they actively support and shelter it. This isn't a scenario where you can blame Hamas or the IDF. This is a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, any way you want to slice it.

None of those questions offer any relevant information to the argument at hand. If there are items not included in the Australian purchase, then the purchase price is understated, which doesn't help your case at all. Logic. Sure. The Australian purchase of two test planes is completely useless for the discussion. Agreed. Let's go back to the American numbers then. Lockheed and the DoD can't do anything but say that. They are depending on volume to keep costs down, and if they indicate now that their projected costs are going to be higher than planned, they risk potential buyers going with a competitor before the F-35 is even available. There is no reason, whatsoever, for either party to be honest if their cost estimates are fabricated. If they're proven wrong later, they can just say "well it's because this plane is so much better than its competition". Canada and Japan etc will still be on the market for a new fighter, and won't already be flying something else. For an engineer, your perceptions on the actual effectiveness of economies of scale and production learning curve are rather fanciful, particularly since this is a labour-intensive fighter plane we're talking about, and not a Playstation 3. The idea that an F-35 will be cheaper than the Super Hornet is completely ludicrous, as those are numbers that nobody (even LM as far as I'm aware) is projecting. That, right there, pretty much summarizes your delusional bias in this thread. The magical twists and leaps your mind had to make to come up with the reasoning that brings a plane currently pegged at $120-130M per unit down to $60M is tragic.

The comparison is irrelevant. The production versions of the planes coming off the assembly line right now for American squadrons is the best measure of what the actual costs are. A tiny one-off purchase, essentially a trial-run for the plane in Australia, shows us almost nothing for the cost analysis. Yes, and if you're right I'll be shocked and pleasantly surprised. Too many missed deadlines, too many cost overruns, and too many mistakes would suggest that history will repeat itself.

You don't need to have the contract in front of you to see that the Australians paid less for two planes than the Americans (who shouldered the development program) are paying for their own current production models. The most obvious answer is often the correct one, regardless of whether or not you get hung up on black/white certainty. Hey if the planes come out at, or even near, their planned cost, that's great! The problem is that there's a huge difference between what Lockheed Martin says is going to happen, and what all the numbers are actually pointing to. Your single-minded insistence that we should believe Lockheed Martin and Pentagon projections is beyond dubious, seeing as though they've failed to meet any of their budget targets so far and the delays have put the program years behind.

Nobody said they would. We can probably assume that the Americans are going to get the best deal on cost per unit, as they shouldered the vast majority of the development cost, yet their own current procurement numbers show a higher cost per plane than the Australians paid for their "one-time introductory offer" . I'd say that's a pretty obvious signal that they got a deal, and that LM is trying hard to ensure that the anticipated bulk order follows from it.

No, but the cost of two introduction models can be whatever Lockheed Martin wants it to be. They don't need to sell them at a profit as they could contribute as loss-leaders towards the anticipated firm contract on the bulk order. As likely as not, this is just throwing the Australians a bone. As has been mentioned before, the better measure of cost/unit is the figures from the Pentagon procurement budget.

Yes, we all know that Lockheed Martin has eschewed GAAP for their own special version of Magical Mystery Numbers. They can say whatever they want about unit cost going down etc, but as production scale has increased over the last couple years, so too has the per unit cost of the plane, which is sort of the exact opposite of what's supposed to be happening. Given the current lack of progress, it's exceedingly unlikely that they'll manage to reduce per unit costs by 30-40% 2018-2019 when large scale production is set to start. Costs will likely go down, but not to the level Lockheed claims or the Pentagon hopes. Bogdan commenting on the unacceptable cost of the Pratt & Whitney engine: “Whatever acquisition program you're in, when you are in a sole-source environment, it is difficult to find the right levers and motivation to drive cost out of a program,” Brilliantly, the Pentagon eliminated GE as a second manufacturer of the F-35 engine, and now P&W appears to be gouging them on the engine cost. His words are poignant not just for the basic economic sense they make, but also as a commentary on the lousy decision to sole-source virtually the entire Air Force.

They weren't personal attacks, and if you believe so you can report me. Asking a rhetorical question that you've already answered yourself several times, and which I never disputed, is completely absurd. It serves no constructive purpose other than generating frustration. It's a childish tactic, trolling even, and calling it such is not a personal attack. You glossed over a few peripheral advantages (electronics packages, ammunition choice), while outright dismissing any of its disadvantages with your 'witticisms'. The superior gun on the Leopard 2A6 is a fact. If it were loading the depleted uranium ammo, the M1A2 could not match it. If the Leopard 2 operators needed to load DU ammo, this could be quickly and cheaply accommodated, whereas replacing the gun on the M1A2 is another story. The enormous cost advantage of the Leopard 2 is also a fact, and goes back to the reason I brought it up in the first place. The American military procurement budget is so bloated right now that the companies contracted to build the stuff don't seem much inclined towards efficiency and value. Your previous argument that the US army doesn't need value because their budget is so big, and that I need to take off my 'accountant hat' when comparing equipment is case in point for the general silliness of your position. The Pentagon fella in charge of the F-35 program has stated that when he took over, the relationship between LM and the Pentagon was dysfunctional and the program had "ran off the rails". Key to his bringing the program back in line was to make LM accountable for their contractual obligations and promises, quoting loosely that "LM only gets winner's profit by performing" which apparently wasn't the case before. That speaks volumes for how ridiculous the system was, and it's not much of a stretch to assume this sort of environment permeates large parts of the US M.I.C. A good indication of this phenomenon is the US MBT. The newer Leopard 2 models cost 30-40% less than the American M1A2, yet a direct technical comparison between the two does not offer up a clear winner, which it should. You've tried to suggest it has, but failed remarkably. "But...but...Ammunition!" doesn't cut it. The engine is more powerful, yet the Leopard 2 has better off-road mobility. The electronics and communication package might be better, but similar features are being implemented in the 2A7 and beyond and we're unlikely to see a corresponding 30-40% increase in cost. Like I said, if you think those were personal attacks, feel free to report me. Ridiculing bad logic and mocking schoolyard tactics of persuasion (that repetition omg) weren't emotional or personal attacks. They were highlighting how bad your arguments were, how baffling your red herrings were and how irrational (foolish) it was to repeat a rhetorical question over and over that we'd both already answered!

Not if your opponent doesn't have the systems or capabilities to fight back in the first place. Both tanks had an identical intent behind their design, and thus offers nothing to distinguish them in a comparison. That's a really impressive failure of logic. You've already answered it yourself, numerous times, and I never contested it: Whether or not the Leopard 2 has ever faced enemy tanks in combat was never in question, by me or you. The significance of that fact WAS in question, and I explained at length why it was a trivial. Your continued insistence on repeating this question, therefore, is rather worrying. Either you're struggling to follow simple logic, forgetting what you already wrote, or you're trolling. Nope, because that's a comparison of ammunition, not tanks. If you fired that same ammunition in a Leopard 2's L/55 (which you can), it would hit targets harder, more accurately and further away than if fired from the M1A2's L/44. The sources online for this sort of information, as you know, are at best nebulous, as even going on the contractor's website doesn't provide the information. The best we get are estimates: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm "Estimated penetration performance of the DM 53 (LKE II) tungsten long rod penetrator round fired by the Rheimetall 120mm L55: 750 mm at 2000 meters." http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126322 "US M829A3 120mm DU 765mm at 2km (2003) (Russian estimate 795mm)" Granted, neither of these sources are fabulous, but the information is classified so this is the best I can find. Regardless, whatever ammunition you put in the Leopard 2A6, it can fire it more effectively than the M1A2. Another rhetorical question. Of course, if both tanks had the exact same gun, they'd sport the exact same firewpoer, and thus the shell selected would dictate penetration. This all depends on the M1A3 going past prototyping and us actually getting information on it. none of which you bothered mentioning. I'm saying that Egyptian military tradition is one of utter incompetence, whereas Germany's has, for centuries, evoked respect. Germany's defeats weren't due to the incompetence of it's armed forces, but rather from the geo-political catastrophe that they found themselves in - literally unwinnable wars. All of this goes back to your absurd implication that the Egyptians somehow knew more about armored warfare than the Germans and their Allies do. For good reason. One performed well above expectations and circumstances, one performed incompetently and well below expectations. The childish logic you employ here (ie. they lost so that's all that matters) is the same as the foolishness you employ with your comparison between the Leo 2 and the Abrams. The Abrams has seen combat, the Leopard 2 has not, therefore the Abrams is superior, irregardless of technical specifications etc. That's the argument you've been making, and a high school student can point it out for the pathetic logical fallacy that it is. Regardless, I wipe my hands of this thread, and it should probably be locked. The amount of effort required to keep up with your pointless red-herrings is exhausting, and I shouldn't have indulged. Your badgering repetition of already-addressed questions and arguments makes me feel like I'm arguing against a cheerleader. That bias is unassailable.