Harper's Stance on Obama's Palestinian Plan

[Guest Derek L]

On what basis do you say Israel is forced to fight with both hands tied behind their back?

It seems to me, with all the arms support the US gives Israel, not to mention the political backing, they have a significant advantage.

(I hate the Palestinians as much. They are both totally wrong IMHO.)

I don’t really want to speak for jbg, but I think what he means (and I agree 100%), is that outside pressure has forced the Israelis to “let up” once their Arab adversary’s during the various wars where defeated…….Perhaps if in 1973, the Israelis had of occupied Cairo and Damascus (You can add Beirut & Amman I suppose) and soundly defeated their enemies, we might not be having this conversation today…….There where no ifs, ands or buts after the Germans and Japanese got shellacked.

And/or, took an approach similar to what the Romans/Nazis did to insurgents in their occupied lands…….The “Israeli genocide” might than have some real meaning behind it… The ultimate example of Israeli restraint has to be though, their reluctance to use the Samson option.

[Saipan]

Why is it that whenever Palestinians try to assert themselves it is regarded as a threat to Israel?

For the same reason FLQ in Canada, or ETA in Spain, or Albanians in Serbia...... are.

Why is it when they stand up for themselves it is considered bad by everyone else?

Define "stand up".

[jbg]

On what basis do you say Israel is forced to fight with both hands tied behind their back?

It seems to me, with all the arms support the US gives Israel, not to mention the political backing, they have a significant advantage.

(I hate the Palestinians as much. They are both totally wrong IMHO.)

I don’t really want to speak for jbg, but I think what he means (and I agree 100%), is that outside pressure has forced the Israelis to “let up” once their Arab adversary’s during the various wars where defeated…….Perhaps if in 1973, the Israelis had of occupied Cairo and Damascus (You can add Beirut & Amman I suppose) and soundly defeated their enemies, we might not be having this conversation today…….There where no ifs, ands or buts after the Germans and Japanese got shellacked.

Basically Derek L has it right. Back in 1948 the West and the U.N. stood by idly while the Arabs invaded within hours of Israel's declaration of independence. They restrained Israel as soon as it got the upper hand, creating the armistice lines that have become the so-called "1967 borders". In 1956 the U.S. put the kibosh on the joint British-French-Israeli effort to retain the international character of the Suez Canal against a rapacious Gamal Abdul Nasser. This had the effect of permanently giving the Arab world the upper hand over the West and stifling what possibility Israel had of nurturning free world alliances in addition to the U.S. In 1973, similar to 1948, the U.S. restrained Israel when it recovered from the Arabs' initial sucker-punch on Yom Kippur and almost made it to Damascus.

I do not think that the U.S. would have enjoyed someone restraining it from finishing the War of Independence, Civil War or World War II. The "negotiations" that finished off each of these wars concerned details, not the fact of who won or lost. World War I's relatively inconclusive end had its coda; World War II. This will keep happening in the Middle East until Israel finished the job.

And/or, took an approach similar to what the Romans/Nazis did to insurgents in their occupied lands…….The “Israeli genocide” might than have some real meaning behind it… The ultimate example of Israeli restraint has to be though, their reluctance to use the Samson option.

If the Arabs hold to their path this may result. Remember, there is a possibility Israel is a member of the "nuclear club".

[bloodyminded]

. Remember, there is a possibility Israel is a member of the "nuclear club".

Ssshhh. Not supposed to talk about it.

[RNG]

If the Arabs hold to their path this may result. Remember, there is a possibility Israel is a member of the "nuclear club".

I think it is considered by most middle east experts to be way more than a possibility.

IMHO the main reason Iran is willing to endure all the sanctions to develop their own.

[jbg]

IMHO the main reason Iran is willing to endure all the sanctions to develop their own.

Israel will never let that happen, even if our pantywaist traitor President will.

[RNG]

Israel will never let that happen, even if our pantywaist traitor President will.

I agree. Didn't the UN Nuke watchdog just say that a remote location Israel bombed in 2009, I forget the country, not Iran, was a nuclear development center?

Sure wish BBC fixed it's search function.

[jbg]

I agree. Didn't the UN Nuke watchdog just say that a remote location Israel bombed in 2009, I forget the country, not Iran, was a nuclear development center?

Sure wish BBC fixed it's search function.

Syria in 2007 (link to article).

Edited May 27, 2011 by jbg

[DogOnPorch]

Ssshhh. Not supposed to talk about it.

The Arabs already claim the Kaaba radiates energy...perhaps we'll see if it glows in the dark, too.

[Guest Derek L]

If the Arabs hold to their path this may result. Remember, there is a possibility Israel is a member of the "nuclear club".

Sure, and the Jericho III is for deploying weather satellites

[DogOnPorch]

Sure, and the Jericho III is for deploying weather satellites

Ah, yes...that's what Iran's ICBM Shahab-3 rocket is for, as well.

[Guest Derek L]

Ah, yes...that's what Iran's ICBM Shahab-3 rocket is for, as well.

But the Israeli leaderships doesn't claim that their "weather satellites" are going to be used to drive the Iranians into the sea….then there’s North Korea, which doesn’t need “weather satellites”, since the Dear Leader controls the weather…..they’re just building ICBMs

[RNG]

But the Israeli leaderships doesn't claim that their "weather satellites" are going to be used to drive the Iranians into the sea….then there’s North Korea, which doesn’t need “weather satellites”, since the Dear Leader controls the weather…..they’re just building ICBMs

Can there be 2/3 of an axis of evil?

[DogOnPorch]

But the Israeli leaderships doesn't claim that their "weather satellites" are going to be used to drive the Iranians into the sea….then there’s North Korea, which doesn’t need “weather satellites”, since the Dear Leader controls the weather…..they’re just building ICBMs

The 'satellite' ploy is going to be something to watch-out for from these lesser nuclear powers...keeping a nuclear device in orbit with the ability to change orbits and re-enter @ will. Sure it has been 'banned' re: US/Russia...but frankly I don't even trust Red China to not orbit a nuke in the future.

[Bonam]

The 'satellite' ploy is going to be something to watch-out for from these lesser nuclear powers...keeping a nuclear device in orbit with the ability to change orbits and re-enter @ will. Sure it has been 'banned' re: US/Russia...but frankly I don't even trust Red China to not orbit a nuke in the future.

That's not what was meant I don't think. It's that they develop launch vehicles for "weather satellites" that can also be used as intercontinental missiles, which is often their real purpose and the weather satellite only a convenient cover.

Putting nukes that just orbit around the Earth and are ready to re-enter at will is technologically much more difficult than building a simple ICBM. That's because an orbital nuke would have to re-enter the atmosphere at orbital speed (8 km/s) and would thus need re-entry equipment of the type found on vehicles like the space shuttle, soyuz spacecraft, etc, to survive re-entry. On the other hand, ICBMs are sub-orbital vehicles which travel at less than orbital speed. Less heat during re-entry makes it a much simpler re-entry problem.

And, there is little advantage to an orbital nuke. If you want it to strike the target faster than a ground launched ICBM, you'd need hundreds of them so that at any given time, one would be in the correct position in its orbit to deploy and begin re-entry. And if you wanted enough of them to be able to saturate enemy ABM defenses with MIRVs, you'd need tens of thousands of warheads in orbit, an undertaking that would cost on the order of $100 billion (10000 warheads, 10 warheads per launcher = 1000 launchers. $100 mil per launcher -> 100 billion dollars).

In short, a lot more expensive, more complicated, and not much advantage gained in the process. I don't think we'll be seeing orbital nukes soon. The US and Russia kept to the treaty during the cold war largely because there was no real advantage to put nukes in space. If there was a real advantage to it, a piece of paper would not have stopped either side.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Bonam

[DogOnPorch]

The ploy, Bonam, is that the lesser powers call this orbital nuke a benign 'science sattelite' or something similar. Who's going to go look? As for reentry technology...that's just a matter of time. The technology is all 1960s. As for danger...space based weapons are banned for a reason. A launch is easily detected while an orbital plane shift followed by a retro burn wouldn't be nearly as obvious. It might even go undetected if someone is a bit sleepy @ the helm.

Edited May 28, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

The ploy, Bonam, is that the lesser powers call this orbital nuke a benign 'science sattelite' or something similar. Who's going to go look? As for reentry technology...that's just a matter of time. The technology is all 1960s. As for danger...space based weapons are banned for a reason. A launch is easily detected while an orbital plane shift followed by a retro burn wouldn't be nearly as obvious. It might even go undetected if someone is a bit sleepy @ the helm.

To add to that, back in the early 60s during the Starfish Prime test, it was shown that the EMP effects of a thermonuclear explosion at a relatively high altitude over a country could wipe out most of said countries electrical/electronic devices……it was figured, with three such nukes at a few hundred miles above, you could send the United States back to the middle ages.

Clearly, with a few such devices deployed from a space station/satellite, a country has the ultimate first strike weapon….hence why the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System was a major condition to SALT II

[Scotty]

Explain why a country should be allowed to attack another without any form of punishment for the action.

Who is going to do the punishing?

Who wants to punish Russia for their recent invasion of Georgia?

[DogOnPorch]

Who is going to do the punishing?

Who wants to punish Russia for their recent invasion of Georgia?

Immaterial. My question was why...not how.

[Scotty]

Immaterial. My question was why...not how.

I would think the lack of a 'how' would explain the lack of a 'why'...

[DogOnPorch]

I would think the lack of a 'how' would explain the lack of a 'why'...

Perhaps...but let's face it...giving back land (UN 242) only applies to Israel. Not (North) Viet-Nam, for example.

[eyeball]

I do not think that the U.S. would have enjoyed someone restraining it from finishing the War of Independence, Civil War or World War II. The "negotiations" that finished off each of these wars concerned details, not the fact of who won or lost. World War I's relatively inconclusive end had its coda; World War II. This will keep happening in the Middle East until Israel finished the job.

WW2 was likewise inconclusive and the resulting coda to that was the Cold War. I doubt the U.S. government would have liked anyone restraining it from starting that. Doing so would have disempowered it's so-called enemies leaders by taking away their biggest raison d'etre which of course was our leader's who'd trapped us in the same feedback loop. The War on Terror is just the latest iteration.

Perhaps the War of Independence wasn't as conclusive as you think, or perhaps the lessons learned have simply been forgotten or lost. Probably during the Cold War, that's where I'd look.

[DogOnPorch]

WW2 was likewise inconclusive and the resulting coda to that was the Cold War. I doubt the U.S. government would have liked anyone restraining it from starting that. Doing so would have disempowered it's so-called enemies leaders by taking away their biggest raison d'etre which of course was our leader's who'd trapped us in the same feedback loop. The War on Terror is just the latest iteration.

Perhaps the War of Independence wasn't as conclusive as you think, or perhaps the lessons learned have simply been forgotten or lost. Probably during the Cold War, that's where I'd look.

So the US 'started' the Cold War. Not the Soviets building the Iron Curtain. Interesting.

[bush_cheney2004]

So the US 'started' the Cold War. Not the Soviets building the Iron Curtain. Interesting.

Sure...why not...and the US finished it too. The US got a lot of experience doing that when the existing "Empire" (and Commonwealth) couldn't git 'er done anymore.

Edited May 30, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

The 'USA is to blame for everything' crowd would like us to forget their old chums from the Cold War era...the Rooshins. Oh...and of course Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh.