Moonbox

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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. Nobody said anything about 'rightful' possession. 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?

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. Coastal defenses??? We have about 75 years of history now to show that static defenses are pretty much useless. Unfortunately our military and its budget are not large enough for marginal and gradual equipment upgrades to our air force.

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. 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. 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.

Why would you ever want a levitating weapons platform?

The F-22 was too good to be feasible. It was too expensive, too hard to maintain and way ahead of its time.

One of the few instances where I agree with you

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.

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 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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'. 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. 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. 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 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.

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.

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 upgrade Upgrading 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.

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.