Moonbox
-
Posts
8,707 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
Its not a matter of IL being "morally bankrupt" either.
The problem with the enforcement regime is that there never should have been vetos.
It is morally bankrupt. It picks and chooses which conflicts to pay attention to and generally does nothing even when no veto is used. Fact is the VAST majority of humanitarian crises have seen the UN turn a blind eye with or without a veto.
-
Oh I see, US is using its veto (and so consistently, in this specific matter) only to save the other members the embarrasment of not being able to enforce their decision? How thoughtful indeed! Not to mention, how credible
What are you even talking about? Are you proposing that if the US wasn't there the other members of the UN would take action in Sudan? Would they intervene in Congo etc? Would they enforce peace in Sri Lanka and Indonesia?
Simply put, they wouldn't bother/try. The UN is both toothless and spineless and it has proved it time and time again over decades. The same stands for international law. The truth is that Israel and Palestinian violations are small potatoes compared to many other parts of the world.
-
Jack demans and carries on about lots of things. Most of us learned to ignore everything he says a loooooong time ago.
-
If they want to maintain at least the appearance of being interested in a peaceful resolution, they should.
Same goes for both sides. You can't promise and proclaim death and destruction against the other side for 50 years without letting up and appear interested in peace.
But wait, you still haven't posted any evidence of them "not holding back".
Please stop dodging and hiding behind childish and irrelevant technicalities. What evidence do I need to provide of Israel's restraint other than the fact that Israel (being the overwhelmingly superior military power in the region) has not left Palestine, Syria, Jordan etc in a smoking ruin or annexed those regions into its territory and imposed Jewish (rather than Islamic) law on the whole region? That's what Israel's enemies have indicated they're going to eventually do to it. They've already tried several times in fact.
I can't claim 100% accuracy but I read international media daily and in several sources, and according to my view of the situation - and I'll be certainly grateful for any factual updates on that, there haven't been any serious attacks on Israel proper for a while now
You seem to really be having problems with this concept...so I'll explain it again for the 12th time. Arab attacks against Israel are responded to harshly. It's a 'fact' that every Arab attack against Israel results in the Arab side getting its ass handed back to it. The lack of violence by Arab militants is more due to an inability to effectively commit it, combined with a strong sense of fear, rather than any restraint on their part. Both Arab intentions made clear by they themselves, and about 50 years of factual history, support this assertion.
bottom line is, you can't any longer claim this "defence" or "retaliation" excuse for granted, without factual evidence that attacks on Israel proper, in the scale anywhere near Israel's actions in the occupied territories are still taking place. And that's what our convention shall be: analysis of situation based on objective, factual reports.
I'm not claiming to defend the Israeli settlement expansion. Again, for the 12th time, I'll make it clear. The settlement expansion is not promoting peace. It's clearly doing the opposite. What I'm merely saying is that Israel probably sees little reason to stop it or make concessions to people who've over the last 50 years invaded their country, as well as promised and delivered violence against them.
"Ignore" and "commit gross violations" itself are soooooooo diffrent things. You know it for sure, so why waste my time explaining it to you?
We're talking about two different things here. You poo-pooed the fact that Israelis live in fear and I asked if they should ignore threats made against them? Should they not take those threats seriously given that history supports the likelihood of their Arab neighbours to ACT on those threats? Should not the international community ALSO take those threats seriously?
Stop bringing up the settlement expansion for god's sake. I've acknowledged it. I don't think it's right either. I simply can't think of a compelling reason for them to stop aside from it being the 'right' thing to do. If that's going to be the basis of our argument, however, and we're going to get into morality and the west taking meaningful action to uphold human rights etc, you'd also have to consider the fact that the majority of the Middle East is a cesspool of violations and taking action against Israel alone would be pretty blazen hypocrisy.
"The Arab world" has also come up with a comprehensive peace proposal. It what you want to see (and feel), and claim as justification for absolutely unjustifiable by a civilized nation behaviour.
The Arab peace proposal was poison-pilled from the beginning. As already mentioned, the unilateral demands from the Arab League in regards to refugee settlements dating back to 1949 were a joke. Read the entire proposal, and if you still think it was a proposal made in good faith I'd be happy to go over it with you point for point and shed some light on it. They knew from the beginning that it wouldn't be accepted and they offered it anyways for publicity's sake.
Oh we do remember the existence of "law" after all? So does it address threats in the same way as actual violence? Or maybe justifies real deadly violence as response to verbal threats? Or maybe, allows to take somebody's possession and claim it for own?
Actually, no, I don't acknowledge the relevance of international law. Since it's enforced selectively and only when convenient, it's morally bankrupt. If, however, you insist on using it as a crutch for your argument, I'll happily show you how even legally you're arguing on pretty wobbly ground.
To answer your question, however, uttering threats is a punishable offence with a sentence of up to 5 years in jail. So yes, the Law does address threats, and fairly harshly at that. Even more interesting, however, is the fact that the Law doesn't even care if the party uttering the threats is capable of acting on them. If, for example, a 90 pound girl was threatening to beat the crap out of a 250 pound man, she'd go to jail if she was prosecuted. God forbid she actually TRY to hurt (or kill) the man, howevever, and she ends up on the losing side. In this case the man would have to prove self defense to get off clean and the woman, providing she survives, would still go to jail.
Now all of this legal balogna is pretty irrelevant because we've already established the impotence of international law. The principles the legal issues are similar, however. The implications of being surrounded by hostile neighbours calling for your death are real. They cause undo fear, stress, financial burdens and countless other problems, particularly when the threats are being uttered by people prone to act on them.
I'm certainly not saying this 'justifies' settlement expansion on the Israeli side, but it clearly does constitute ongoing hostilities from the other side. There's decades of enmity between them and you're never ever going to resolve the conflict by playing the blame game.
No a little more specifically, please, you think that because they occupy these lands they somehow have rightful possession of them? Because you can't "trade" something that doesn't belong to you, in an honest deal can you?
Nobody said anything about 'rightful' possession.
It did though, not in the least through numerous UN and UNSC resolutions(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel). And now you have to prove that it's false, i.e there's a country in the world that recognises Israel's claim to the occupied terrtories.
You've just quoted a wikipedia page that lists 100+ UN resolutions and doesn't summarize the majority of them. The burden of proof is on you. Show me where, as you claim, the international community at large has proclaimed that Israel has to withdraw from occupied territories before peace talks can even BEGIN. That was your claim, so back it up.
-
What do you want to bet nothing comes out of this?
-
We have dumped hundreds of millions into this F35 program already. It would seem a shame not to buy any of them, but on the other hand we could get almost two for the price of one with Boeing and the F18 Super Hornet. So instead of getting 65 birds we would get 130 birds. Food for thought.
The F-18E is an upgrade, but not really a meaningful one for Canada. It will soon be outclassed by numerous other fighters coming to the market and by the time we replace our current fleet of F-18's it will be getting old itself. The F-35 is SIGNIFICANTLY better in almost all aspects. Also, 130 fighters will cost quite a bit more to service and maintain than 65 --- by billions. Food for thought.
Meanwhile I would suggest that we need to deal with coastal defenses immediately. For that all we need do is construct what amounts to as a non-drilling platform that can be towed off shore and secured as a early warning intervention system.
Coastal defenses??? We have about 75 years of history now to show that static defenses are pretty much useless.
What I am suggesting is something of a longer and more infrastructural plan for our military instead of some knee jerk reaction to a perceived need or threat. We need a comprehensive national defense strategy.
Unfortunately our military and its budget are not large enough for marginal and gradual equipment upgrades to our air force.
-
The voters will have to decide whether he's earned it. As for the rest, it's a bunch of CPC talking points. I'm pretty sure he's got quite a long history of holding principles, in fact he's written quite a few books. Perhaps you should read them.
Writing books and articles has nothing to do with 'holding' principles. It's a matter of practising what you're preaching. You can preach all you want but unless you practise it's all irrelevant.
No history in politics? Here I thought Canadians were getting tired of the old breed. No history of leadership? He was a professor at Harvard and Oxford and was a journalist for the BBC. You don't get to where he's been without tremendous skills.
Nobody's arguing that he's not intelligent. Intelligence, however, doesn't equate to political success. I would say the majority of full-time professors I had at university were social disasters or walking on clouds. Thus far, he's shown very little political skill. Canada's biggest deficits ever should have been a free ride to a majority, or at least a minority, such as what happened in the US and GB. In Canada, however, Ignatieff was able to use the recession to bury himself.
The Liberal Party stands for a fiscally responsible and socially progressive government. Easy. Specific policies haven't been released yet.
Oh god. Please. Wake up. Was Trudeau fiscally responsible? No. He was the biggest spending PM we've ever had and the biggest actual contributor to our national debt. Was Martin? No, he spent and spent and spent as soon as the right united. So of our last 3 Liberal PMs, we had one that was fiscally responsible.
The Liberal Party stands for nothing. None of the parties stand for anything really, except for the ones who have no chance of being elected.
-
That is basically what a fighter jet is. BTW you can make mines levitate, you can also stealth them. You can also make weapons platforms levitate.
Why would you ever want a levitating weapons platform?
-
Yeah the only thing comparable/better is the F-22 Raptor but those are even more expensive. Even the US only has ~150 of them. The F-35 is supposed to have much simplified logistic support requirements, that was one of the major goals and criteria behind its development.
The F-22 was too good to be feasible. It was too expensive, too hard to maintain and way ahead of its time.
-
Another absolutely basic requirement I could see woudl be to require them all to pass a basic English of French test.
One of the few instances where I agree with you
-
What is meant is that the competion to replace the CF18 has not been tendered...no other planes has been asked to copmpete.
There aren't that many alternative options. The Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale etc are all marginal upgrades and wouldn't provide nearly the same effectiveness nor longevity.
The F-35 is the only plane out there that's going to provide a meaningful upgrade that we can use for the next 30+ years.
-
I'm getting exhausted here... but have to keep on, in a faint hope that my statements would get noticed, somehow. So, for the n-teenth time, what about the appopriation of lands or in plain words, LANDGRAB? How does it figure in the picture? Or does it at all? I mean does it even exist (in your reality)?
You're getting exhausted too eh? What about the land annexation and settlement? Really...what about it? It happened. Nobody is denying that. Nobody is saying it's a friendly gesture. The question is what reason do the Israelis have to leave? Please don't bring up international law. Like I said before it's impotent, grossly unfair and selectively enforced/respected.
I pointed out a significant difference between these facts though. Mine relate to acts, clearly aggressive acts of continuing and even accelerating build up of occupied lands. While you only come up with citations. I see that in your view an inflammatory word would equal, or rather justify inacceptable, atrocious acts.
I already addressed this. The militant Arab side has made their intentions very clear. They're not holding back out of respect for peace or anything noble like that. They're prevented and deterred by the looming threat of violent Israeli retaliation. Any violence against Israel is magnified and returned against the militants and where they live.
Is Israel to ignore the threats and inflammatory dialogue? Are they to pretend that Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas did NOT indicated they'd never accept peace? I think it's safe to suggest their intentions aren't exactly peaceful.
But it would be possible to gradually reduce hostilities on both sides and along with it build up confidence and trust. But obviously, this is not the intent (at least, genuine one) here. Because one form of hostility and aggression, illegal landgrab is going on unabated regardless of other aspects of the conflict, the undeniable fact that we should stop treating as an odd curiousity, but rather as a persistent and conscious policy of the party that perpetrates it.
The Arab world is not giving Israel any reason to stop. As far as they're telling Israel, regardless of whether they continue the occupation or withdraw, they're still going to be attacked and threatened.
I said that the plan was put forward by the Arab League, and it's clearly stated in the reference. But of course who else could be at fault for your inability to read plain English?
The plan put forth by the Arab League was more an ultimatum than anything. It was a take it or leave it affair. It did not negotiate with Israel on the offer and some of the conditions of it were ludicrous. The proposal itself, however, was at least a step forward in the sense that it entertained the possibility of long lasting peace.
Let's look at a few of the problems with it:
1. It was proposed immediately following the Passover Massacre
2. It did not invite Israel to the discussion
3. It demanded settlement of the refugee crisis based on a UN Resolution passed in 1948 which was completely and totally unpalatable to Israel (and the Arab League knew that).
4. Important factions were not factored into account (neither Iran, Hezbollah nor Hamas endorsed it)
The refugee issue is a non-starter. Personally I'd be in favour of the plan providing we could account for rogue states/militant groups and they dropped the refugee issue. Withdraw to the 1967 pre-war borders in exchange for formal recognition and official peace agreements. Couldn't we settle on that?
If in your view, armless civilians "scare" uber armed occupying army into appropriating more and more of their land, it must be me and me alone that made you misread or misunderstood? or misrepresent? and so on the quoted link. Such is the nature of reality you live in and nothing could be done about it
( Don't be stupid. First off, they're not scared of unarmed civilians. Their scared of suicide bombers, rockets and guerrila attacks. They've a history of enduring these things. Second, they're not being scared into occupying territories. They're doing it because in their eyes they have no reason not to.
Nope, I'm not here to play word games. I know the difference between word and act. And I can see unjustifiable acts regardless of which side commits them. There's the essential difference of our positions in this dispute.
I'm glad you clarified that for me. Unfortunately for you the law would not respect the difference. In Canada, or anywhere with a legal system worth its name, a threat of violence is indeed a punishable offense. There's a reason for that. It's something to be taken seriously, especially from someone (the militant Arab world for example) that has a history of acting on those threats.
Only if you suggest that illegally occupied lands somehow belong to Israelis, and are up to them to "give up".
No I would merely suggest that they're in control of these lands and that nobody is going to 'force' them to give them up on the laughable grounds of 'international law'. So yes, I would suggest that those lands are therefore theirs to 'give up'.
Most of the world sees it as unquestionnably illegal practice with all lands returned as a condition of any meaningful dialogue of peace.
Myata that's such an outrageous and untrue claim I can't believe someone like you would even say that. There need not be ANY conditions for dialogue pertaining to peace and most of the world has most CERTAINLY NOT stated as such. That's patently false and I'd almost suggest you're deliberately misrepresenting facts.
Essentially this comes to a very basic question: could one take something that doesn't belong to them and claim it for their own? And we can already see where you're going with your answer.
Um...yes. Someone definetly can take something and claim it for their own. The validity of the claim can certainly be put to question, but the claim itself is pretty easy to make. If we're going to go down the path of useless and inept simplification, pretend Israel is a parent punishing children for misbehaving. Promise to behave and you can have your toys back. See? We can both dumb an argument down.
Please keep showing up your humoristic side when you've got nothing else to offer, it's very amusing.
I can't help it. Your claims of objectivity are something I'd expect from a clown...except clowns aren't even funny so...hmmm
But wouldn't it - the (full) reality be, by definition, hearing what each side is saying and seeing what they're doing?
Threatening is an action in and of itself. The fact that the ones doing the threatening are impotent to fulfil them does not in any way mean the threats are meaningless. You've decided they are, but you're among the loonie in that department, because most courts of law certainly wouldn't turn a blind eye.
Here's a final question I'll leave you with. What if Israel and the Islamic world came together and came up with an agreement where, if Israel withdrew to 1967 borders, and the Middle East agreed to recognize, coexist and declare permanent peace with them, we'd have a situation where both parties could reasonably benefit and be satisfied with?
If Israel refused an offer such as this Myata, I'd jump on your bandwagon in an instant. It hasn't been offered yet, however, and as long as both sides refuse to acknowledge that they both need to make concessions nobody is going to get anywhere.
-
the Gripen can be customized how ever a country likes more than the F-35!
We can use our own avionics's if we want F-35 not so!!.
No the Gripen cannot be upgraded 'however a country likes'. It can be customized to some extent, but it can't be customized to avoid radar detection like the F-35, nor can it be customized to perform 4 times better than Canada's existing fighter fleet.
The Gripen isn't even an option for us to 'upgrade' to. It would be like upgrading from a 2007 Toyota Corolla to a 2010 Honda Civic. It would be a pointless and expensive marginal upgrade that would leave us in the same situation as we're in now within the next 10-15 years.
-
OK but did you see the updated The info on the Future gripen
Actually, I've read a fair bit about the Gripen. It's a good plane, by 4th generation fighter standards.
In mock dogfights with Norwiegan F-16's, it was found to come out on top most of the time
. I don't know how pumped I am about spending billions for a marginal upgradeUpgrading from the F-18 to the Gripen would be dumber than not upgrading at all in my opinion.
The F-35 makes it look like garbage and is better suited to the role we're intending anyways.
-
Neither Hamas nor Israel appear to be interested in reaching any peace. Neither side seems to be run by folks with a modicum of humanitarian thoughts.
Which may be the sad reality.
-
Can you link me to your harsh condemnations of Israeli behaviour and intransigence?
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.
Or have you been "focused purely and exclusively on the Palestinian side of the conflict and ignored and discounted everything the other side has done to escalate and perpetuate the conflict?
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.
-
Usually these are not "preventive measures, but provocations designed to incite retaliation.
For example, Israel broke a cease-fire; after which Hamas restarted its rocket attacks; after which Israel committed Operation Cast Lead.
That's an act of aggression.
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? -
Yeah, and what's this "anti-Israel" shit, anyway? I get a little tired of people thinking they can determine all parameters of every debate...including my own stance...after which I must play by their arbitrary rules of definition.
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....
-
OK, so Israel's land grab is actually just a "preventative measure"? It's so nice and neat when you just find the right word for it.
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.
I see, I provide facts, you - ponderous thoughts about many issues. Works, doesn't it?
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...
No, really? Even when when they are in the government, like now?
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.
OK, you do think that words equal acts. You give me the thousand bucks, I - sincere assurances that our account is settled.
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.
OK, if as much as asking for objectivity is "very anti-Israel", does it mean that pro Israel must be anti-objectivity? Necessarily or by definition?
Your claim of objectivity is pure comedy.
But of course, let's go! Only wait.. if we dispense with objective reality as the ground for our discussion, what other foundations could it be based on?
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.
-
try do some reading before you make silly claims...the AK47 has recieved numerous upgrades in it's history...
I'm stunned you're still not grasping this concept. The AK-47 is rifle. You point pull trigger it go boom boom.
and the Taliban would have done what to a F-4?...that's right nothing an F-4 could still do the job...
Really? Well in the 60's the Vietnamese managed to shoot down hundreds of them so.....
the russian claim the S-400 does exactly that and NATO respects that claim...
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....
Canada is going to war with Iran or Saudi Arabia??? it what alternate universe will this happen?
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.
I read wiki? please show me a reference I've made to show that???
badly misinformed the best Russian equipment is top quality, you're typical of armchair warriors watching the US military take on Russian export equipment of 3rd world countries and mistaking them for the best Russia has to offer
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.
...they choose to invest in missile technology because it's smart, it's cost effective it's their game plan since WW2(build it strong, build it cheap and build many to overwhelm the opponent)and makes sure they are always ahead of the game in defense...
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.
and you know this how??? how exactly is the west confounding Russian air-defenses which are in place before the west has developed the means to overcome them...
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.
-
this constant upgrading of latest and best is fools game(the taxpayer being the biggest fool)...the same thing went on for centuries with battleships, each superpower building a bigger more expensive ship than the other guys only to discover they were obsolete, wiped away by aircraft and carriers...
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.
the best planes today give an illusion of invincibilty because their battles are with adversaries thatdo not have the latest and best, attack a country with layers of S-300 and S-400's and that illusion will disappear...the US put considerable pressure for Russia not to sell the older S-300 to Iran why? because the US cannot have air superiority over Iran if it has the S-300(forget about the S-400)...
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...
-
apparently you're not using your brain, you missed the point...despite massive differences in technology high tech has it's limits...a kitchen knife will kill you as sure as a F35...
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 cannot stay ahead of SAM technology it's a futile game...F35's to take out insurgents and third world countries that can't even cope with a F18 is just dumb...
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.
I'm sure you really don't what you're talking about, before the first F35's roll out the Russians have SAM's that neutralize the F35's...the current stealth technology was designed to overcome the previous generation of Russian SAM technology the S-300 and it's varient...the Russians have already moved on to the S-400 Triumf anti-stealth SAM's, the Russians are continually ahead in missile technology...those cutting edge fighters are already ineffective and they aren't even in service
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.
-
very doubtfulthe Gripen is well rated and much less costly...and which countries F35's do you envision us taking on?...you're not thinking logically any country that has that capability is not our enemy...any country that has that capability can take us out in a matter of hours regardless on the type of plane we purchase...we're little boys playing with the big boys, having big boy toys does not make us one of them...
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.
-
How many hand-held anti-aircraft weapons could we buy for the price of one of these aircraft?
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.
Add to that that if the aircraft spots a soldier, a missile is an expensive way to get a few soldiers. If a soldier spots an airplane, a rocket of probably no more than a few hundred dollars could take a multi-million dollar airplane out of the air.
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.
Think about it.
Learn what you're talking about first.
Israel's New Best Friend?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by Moonbox
The Israeli government dictates the policies of its military and it controls its militants. The Palestinians do not, nor do they control what its neighbours policies are.
It's not a justification as much as it highlights how silly the other side's proclamations are. That's what groups like Hamas and Iran say they intend to do. Unfortunately they're unable to do it. Imagine if Israel actually had the same intentions.
I'm simply saying that having your intentions thwarted at every turn does not give you the moral high ground as you seem to assume.
What is anyone going to do about it? Aside from trying to mediate, nobody is going to do anything. Like most conflicts going on right now in the world, the UN etc will stand back and watch.
Well there's an idea now. Yes. If both sides would come to the table and make concessions we'd be in a lot better shape. Unilateral demands and/or peace proposals, however, aren't going to work.
Well I think the last option is best. All we can do is mediate, however, because arbitration and enforcement are not really options.
The Arab League killed the proposal before it even had a chance. There have been plenty of responses from the Israeli side. Ehud Olmert (former Prime Minister) acknowledged it and invited the Arab League to discuss it further. Unfortunately, those 'contentious issues' we're talking about were non-negotiable. The Arab League has indicated that the proposal must be accepted before any further dialogue takes place. It wasn't a serious peace proposal. It was an ultimatum disguised as a peace proposal and was pure publicity.
Okay. Let's list the facts:
1. Both sides are hostile to the other. Neither side is innocent.
2. Nobody is willing (or able) to take serious action to stop the conflict for all sorts of reasons
Any discussion from there is going to have to take those two 'facts' into account and that both sides are going to have to NEGOTIATE. Otherwise they'll keep doing whatever they please and nobody is going to stop them. If one side refuses to negotiate, regardless of who it is, the whole thing is a non-starter.
Oh no you don't champ. That's not the reference I was asking for. You specifically stated that the the majority of the world has indicated that prior to ANY negotiation taking place, Israel must withdraw from occupied lands. You said it. I want to see the reference for it. Otherwise you're talking out of your butt, making things up and flat out lying. Recognition of Israeli rights to occupy the land have NOTHING to do with the pre-reqs for negotiation.