wall around israel? [Archive]

Oh Jerusalem

04-11-2002, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by victot
o' jerusalem, in the article you sent me, it even says somewhere:

"The truth is that the Maginot Line served the exact purpose for which it was built. It dissuaded the Germans from attacking across France's eastern frontier; it gave the French Army time to fully mobilize and deploy; and, if properly used, it could have made up for France's anticipated manpower shortage. The greatest defect of the line itself was that it was too short. In May 1940 Hitler simply chose to ignore it."

israel will simply build a better wall then...

Keep a few things in mind:

1. The bottom line is it didn't work.
2. This will not stop Kassam and Katyusha rockets from being fired at will at almost any point and major city.
3. We're not talking about France. Size matters (http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/france.htm) :)

also, i could be wrong, but i dont think that the rocket thing is even close to as big a terrorist threat as suicide bombers...

What if instead of a suicide bomber every day, we have 20 to 40 rockets landing in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa every day?

What if the wall fails and you have both?

even if israeli arabs did carry out some attacks, i could be wrong, but i think they might be more content then their palestinian brothers, and might be less willing to do that on a large scale...

It's just a matter of time till that starts happening.

also, wouldn't it still be less anyway?

Wall them in and they'll just fly in planeloads of weapons.

anyways, i think this is a good idea, unless someone can point out something flagrantly useless about the plan...

Just a friendly reminder that the IDF is still finding more and more tunnels in Rafiah (Egypt Gaza border area). DO you dig what I'm getting at?

What are you thinking? That you can cage people in and throw food over the fence twice a day?

victot

04-11-2002, 06:19 AM

o' jerusalem...

the bottom line is that the one in france didn't work, but it could have, at least according to the article you sent me...

the fact that israel is smaller, would mean building a wall would be easier, no?

if large scale rocket attacks were launched against israel, israel could respond better to that, no? i don't know, i still don't consider rocket attacks quite as much a threat as suicide bombings, at least people could go to gatherings more often...
and the idf could bomb the rocket attack areas, i don't see how world public opinion could be against that...
israel knows how to respond against this, no?
i think at at least at present time, a forced seperation of the two people wouldbe a good idea...
hopefully eventually it could come down.

also, keep in mind that they wouldn't be walled in, it would be israel's borer which was walled, mined...

the tunnel thing though... yeah, you are right, they'd hafta watch for that.

heh, still think it's a good idea, least at present time.

Oh Jerusalem

04-11-2002, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by victot
heh, still think it's a good idea, least at present time.

My idea is that if you have to build the great wall of China to protect yourself from an enemy who will continue to attack you no matter how much and how well you attempt to defend yourself, then it's time to move the enemy elsewhere - either to the side or down. They don't deserve to remain where they are and no country in their right mind would tolerate such never-ending terrorism and lunacy.

The wall idea stinks! :mad:

mrbaggins

04-13-2002, 09:54 AM

The reason why the Maginot wall didn't work was that it was not a complete defense. No one knows what would have happened if German armor HAD attacked it head on. They just went around the side, effectively.

Just because a wall does not defend against ballistic attacks does not make it useless... such weapons are expensive, and do little damage comparitively to suicide bombers 'choosing' the best location to detonate their bombs.

The other issue that you are able to control is access... access of such weaponry and bomb making equipment. Also hunted individuals would not easily be able to 'slip away' from their persuers. It effectively cages the threat.

Its like putting the Palestinians in a big jail. I'm all for putting these complicit-in-terror-attack-civilians in jail.

muslim4israel2

04-13-2002, 10:31 AM

A wall?

A wall-its 2002AD, not BC. Walls not cut it anymore mate!

Why not just have a sign saying:

"We'd prefer if you didnt"

That may sway them! :rolleyes:

mrbaggins

04-13-2002, 10:36 AM

A metaphorical wall.

A modern wall... A DMZ. Most likely a razor wire fence, with sensors and regular military outposts.

Quite defensible against anyone trying to get from point A to point B.

Just look at any supermax prison. They have effective 'walls'.

muslim4israel2

04-13-2002, 10:39 AM

A demilitarized zone with UN peacekeepers is the best option. Or Arab League PK.

mrbaggins

04-13-2002, 10:44 AM

The UN has been ineffective. The Arab league would be hugely dubious.

The only party who truly cares about Israels absolute security is Israel.

Whats wrong with Israel maintaining a complete defence of their territory? Why do international people need to maintain a DMZ?

muslim4israel2

04-13-2002, 01:59 PM

Cos Isreal will obviously be a fair broker in an Arab-Israeli peace effort.

:rolleyes:

Have mercy!

mrbaggins

04-13-2002, 02:10 PM

We're not talking about them being a fair broker in Israeli-Arab relations, though... we are talking about them DEFENDING THEIR TERRITORY.

In this case:

You don't need to be impartial. You do need to be effective.

muslim4israel2

04-13-2002, 02:37 PM

But then could not the Arab/Muslim world say that in order to protect there security and existance they have the right to attack?

mrbaggins

04-13-2002, 03:19 PM

That would suppose that the Israeli's were mounting military operations to pose a threat to another sovereign nation.

And no, the Palestine-Arabs are not a sovereign nation, just some confused Jordainians.

Of course, the Arab world could deem Israel a threat and attack them, like they have a several times before, since a few seconds after Israels inception. Its just that they have a habit of getting their ass kicked.

muslim4israel2

04-13-2002, 03:28 PM

Palestine was an Arab state long before 1948. But say hypothetically if that "coalition" of Arab/Muslim states included KSA (they've NEVER been in a war before), Iran (have nukes by 2005 (CIA), well armed) and nuclear, chemical and biologically armed Pakistan?

Opinion?

mrbaggins

04-13-2002, 03:43 PM

The is Palestine really an Arab state is really a question that's never been answered. The Brits gave Palestine to the Jews effectively, with some squatter rights to some Jordainians.

Having the capability to explode a nuclear device is utterly different from having a viable military weapon. You need a delivery system.

Either a plane or ballistic weapon.

The quality of ballistic weapons in the MidEast is so low that you'd most likely explode a device away from a major metropolitan area. Or on friendlies, like the Palestinians.

The other option is to have a viable airforce. Iran has a badly maintained, poorly trained airforce. They'd last about a day, maybe two against a first world airforce, like Israel.

The question is, would a nuclear strike penetrate Israeli airspace? Thats questionable... Israel would likely defend themselves outside their borders if their was a viable threat and they have real OTH radar and good air-air capability.

Israel has the capability to deliver a nuclear bomb to main st. of just about any enemy nation.

If Iran did use nukes first against Israel, then the US may get involved in a hot war with Iran. One Iran wouldn't walk away from.

Pakistan isn't actually a Med-Eastern country... and isn't Arabic, although they do have Islamic leanings, they aren't stupid. They have a second rate, not third rate airforce, but again, inferior. They'd again, not walk away from a hot war with either Israel or Israel/US.

muslim4israel2

04-13-2002, 03:57 PM

Lets discuss 1-1, as no one can beat nation x/USA-USA is just tooooo powerful.

Pakistan-Israel 1-1 however is very interesting.

Pakistan is about 10 times larger then Israel, and has about 50 nuclear bombs at this moment. They can produce 12-15 annually using both Plutonium from Chasma and U-235 from khatua.

They have several missile and ariel delivery systems viable as attack tools. The Ghauri 3 (engine tested, additional stage to PROVEN G2 missle) has some 3500 km range-sufficient to hit Israel. The Abadi SLBM is being aggressively armed with a ABC warhead, and is viable from the Agosta-90B subs-Pakistsan WILL have this option before 2005.

The Shaheen 1/2 are on TEL's and Iran would give permission to use its space in any Pak-IS beef. Pakistan also has m-9,m-11 and Haft missiles with ABC capability.

The PAF has a decent strike capacity, being boosted by the Purchase of 40 Mirage2005's, and the arrival of the PRC J-10 4th gen fighter. IAF has advantage over PAF-granted, but its diminishing as PAF upgrades, pilot training is considered equal btw these 2 nations.

Israel would be annihalated by 2 atomic bombs, and Pakistan could easily deliver that amount. Yes Pakistan would be smoked in return, but suffice to say that NO NATION would exist after that hypothetical beef.

Assume Pakistan did get involved, it would change things alot.

mrbaggins

04-13-2002, 04:35 PM

Assuming that, yes...

however...

No ballistic weapon in the region has the certainty of the tested western systems. Especially the T-LAMs.

If you want to guarantee that you don't hit somewhere else, you'd need to use a plane-dropped nuke.

Of course, both sides would know that this would ultimately mean MAD so they'd revert to conventional warfare.

When you get to the airforce, there are three huge differences.

1) AWACS
2) Experience
3) Training

The IAF has the best training bar-none in the region. It regularly trains with the USAF.

It also flies the most regular sorties of any airforce anywhere.

It maintains operational status, and is battle tested

When you get to the army, again, there are two big differences.

1) AWACS
2) Experience
3) Training

Information is king on the battlefield, and Israel has the cutting edge lead.

The Israeli army again has experienced tank warfare in the region. It knows what it takes to win desert wars. It also has the best gunners (women) and the best equipment and maintainance.

It also has battle hardened veterans training the tank crews.

All-in-all, i'd take the Israeli defense versus anyone except, say, China, USA and Russia.

In our adventures in reality, however, you realize that the US would get involved if Israel was viably attacked.

Oh Jerusalem

04-13-2002, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by muslim4israel2
Israel would be annihalated by 2 atomic bombs, and Pakistan could easily deliver that amount. Yes Pakistan would be smoked in return, but suffice to say that NO NATION would exist after that hypothetical beef.

Assume Pakistan did get involved, it would change things alot.

All this from the standard bearer of justice, peace and morality, member muslim4israel2.

No surprises, though. Just a reminder to the rest of us who we're dealing with here.

muslim4israel2

04-14-2002, 05:05 AM

No mate, we are just playing hypotheticals.

The Pakistani missiles carry a proven Chinese design and are very reliable. Pakistani-Sino cooperation is extensive, and PRC grants Pakistan its test range.

Pakistani pilots have the best GDI training skool in the world, accepted by the US as superior to its Maryland training academy.

You are forgetting that Pakistan could place SRBM in a host of Arab states, the m-11 has a CEP of just 300-400metres-not a great distance.

Pakistan is purchasing AWACS from Brazil, and has extensive fighter experience. Read what Ari Weizermann said of Pakistani pilots in "Eagle Wings", a fascinating book.

Besides, if the Arabs had Pakistan assurance of nuclear cover, they to would get involved, as as we know Egypt and KSA have very modern jets, ect.

With Pakistani nuclear cover, coiupled with numerical superiority-I cant see Israel winning.

It would be a nuclear holocaust, but the diffrenfce is with 1.3 bn muslims, most out of conflict and range, the Srab/Allies side could absorb the shock.

I am totally against ABC warfare, and provided written dislike upon Pakistan going nuclear in may 1998.

mrbaggins

04-14-2002, 06:18 AM

Firstly, no, they don't have the best training. They simply don't have the dollars to achieve the level of training that the US, and conscequently Israel does. Check the GDP's and the military budgets. Check the number of flying hours. This is what really counts. If you're sitting on the ground, you're not learning. The US trains a lot. The Israelis train more.

They don't have the breadth of training that the USAF does, such as RED FLAG, YELLOW FLAG and TOP GUN. USAF pilots train against better threats. The Israelis train with USAF pilots 3 months in 12.

If you've not been keeping up with current events, over half of the officers of the PAF have emigrated to places like Canada. Their defensive capability has been slowly degrading.

The F-15I is Israel's premiere fighter that would be used in air superiority. Buckets of everything you need to shoot down aircraft with. Carries the most leathal mid-range AIM in the world, the AIM-120A. That thing was designed to take out SU-27's. It has leathal and very smart avionics.

Also, Israel and US maintain their equipment better than any nation in this region. Especially important with ECM and avionics.

Numerical superiority is utterly meaningless in air warfare. Look at, say, Lebannon, Libia... hell look at any Israeli air war. What counts is the combination of man and plane.

The PAF is second rate certainly vs. the Israeli airforce, and against.... ooh. 1 US CVN. a squad of F-14's could wipe out the PAF.

BTW... the future , especially 2005 isn't now. Israel has this stuff NOW... not in 4 years. Also there were questions as to the number of planes that PAF would be getting in 2005, the way I heard it.

If we're talking about the future, the JSF is just around the corner, and Israel is getting it. A next generation fighter than can wipe the floor with the best of the best of threats, and makes the majority of AAMs obsolete.

Now... playing hypotheticals... Pakistan moves nuclear devices over the border, towards one of its allies. The US promptly steams a CVN group or two into the area, and tells the Pakistani's to put the missles back, or else. Pakistan, knowing its not going to win against the US, puts them back. Or it goes up against the US, and becomes crispy.

So... what were you saying?

Any arab or muslim in this war is unlikely to use nuclear war, because of the reality that a) the israelis have nukes too... b) their friends have nukes in the area, but wouldn't be destroyed in an exchange.

BTW... do you really thing that the PAF would go up against Israel based on how far Musharraf has his tongue up Bushes rear?

Also, the threat to pak isn't to the west, its to the east; India... No way would pakistan move its defence out of the area, giving India the chance to wipe them out. Lets see, Pakistan move their nukes and airforce and... oh... India invades. Theres no country left. Pakistan will never turn its defence away from India. To do so would be suicide.

ibrodsky

04-14-2002, 07:02 AM

And what is Pakistan's complaint against Israel?

Other than the kind of anti-semitism that motivated Pakistani jungle beasts to cut off Daniel Pearl's head...

Sure, Pakistan might be able to annihilate Israel. This is the Islamicist dream, and Pakistan has plenty of Islamicists.

But what would this accomplish, besides proving to the world how evil Islamicists are?

Do you think the US would then let the Arabs take over Israel?

Do you think Christians would remain asleep? (What would a couple of atomic bombs do to Christian Holy Sites?)

More likely, the world would wake up to the fact that Islamicists are 21st century Nazis, and act accordingly. And no doubt the US would ensure that Israel is rebuilt and provided with defensible borders.

Hypothetical or not, if any Islamic country nuked Israel it might make you happy for a day... but the surviving Muslims would regret it for very long after.

ibrodsky

04-14-2002, 07:11 AM

Also remember that Arab countries were armed to the teeth by the Soviet Union. With 20 times as much hardware and 20 times as many men, they were repeatedly trounced by the Israelis.

It's easy for Islamicists to create fairy tales about what powerful, third world Pakistan is gonna' do to Israel. But if the Soviets' client states couldn't pull it off with such a numerical advantage, and many Soviet "advisors," how are the Pakistanis going to do it?

If I were a Pakistani leader, I would concentrate on more urgent matters... like pulling my dirt-poor country up into the modern age.

ibrodsky

04-14-2002, 07:23 AM

Let's consider another hypothetical:

What if Israel decided that the hostility from the Islamic world is just too intense, and that the only hope of Israel's survival would be a pre-emptive nuclear attack?

Of course, this is just a hypothetical. I'm not saying I'd like to see this happen. Oh no.

muslim4israel2

04-14-2002, 11:09 AM

Ok, lets continue:

The 2005 hit was for sufficient SLMB with ABC capability. Pakistan has 3-5 subs with this capability being fitted. That would:

1) Provide a second strike capability
2) Nukes on the move

Pakistan has 50~ bombs, + 12-15 per year increase, assume over another 5 year period-that becomes about 100 nukes.

Pakistan maintains 60-80 on its Indian front, and moves 20 more into the Arab world via SRBM/IRBM are allows Arabs to use them against Israel............Its India defence is solid. Defence analysts from both sides believe that another war is unlikely, nukes are a major equalizer and terror factor.

IAF will meab 0 once Israel is incinerated, as would PAF once Pakistan is cooked, Nukes nullify conventional arms-thats there sole purpose.

Once the IDF nuke black mail/cloud is gone-Arabs would put on a better show.

You forget that the giant 54 state , 900 million muslim nation can absorb nukes and survive,Israel cannot.

That does not include 300 million Muslims spread across the globe. In a clash of civilizations-only 1 winner.

Barkokhba

04-14-2002, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by muslim4israel2
Ok, lets continue:

You forget that the giant 54 state , 900 million muslim nation can absorb nukes and survive,Israel cannot.

That does not include 300 million Muslims spread across the globe. In a clash of civilizations-only 1 winner.

I do not believe that nukes will be used, but I could be wrong. I will say that I do not fear the Muslim world. Every so often we hear these radical proclamations from folks who claim that the entire Muslim world will one day attack Israel, that is just ridiculous.

Pull out all of the non-military muslims and the numbers drop dramatically. It would be a slaughter of epic proportions if the entire Muslim world attacked. It is such a ludicrous thought that it is silly to continue.

Conventional warfare belongs to us-not arrogance just an unfortunate reality that has been forced upon us.

David A

04-14-2002, 07:11 PM

I think some kind of barrier or DMZ between Israel and the West Bank (at a minimum, a barrier between Israel and that part of the West Bank from which the Israelis are withdrawing) is a great idea.

The Palestinians will end up with their own state. The Palestinians could go their own way (just so long as it is not into Israel).

muslim4israel2

04-15-2002, 06:22 AM

It would be nice to see a united Muslim superstate strectching from Palestine to Indonesia to Tunisia to Xiang Province in China to Turkey.

Yeah, nukes should not be ruled out. The Muslim world is happy to absorb such casulties for a greater good.

alm0nd

04-15-2002, 07:31 AM

This is the most fun topic I have ever read :) .. Really .. I read every single word ..

I hate to break the discussion but you have to read this..

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-1835690,00.html

http://www.arabynet.com/SITE/TEMPLATE/DOC_VIEW.asp?did=9366

Oh Jerusalem

04-15-2002, 07:41 AM

Well, I had a bit of a tough time trying to read the Arabnet article ;) but Sharon's plan is dee you em bee - DUMB!

NewsGuy

04-15-2002, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by alm0nd

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-1835690,00.html

Pretty impressive, alm0nd. Do you actually read Hebrew?

As for the discussion itself, keep in mind that the fence around Gaza has been relatively successful so far, and there are some effective fences in many of the West bank areas, as well. In general, there is very broad support in Israel for unilateral separation from the Palestinians.

The Israeli right wing is concerned about short-changing themselves by building a fence that might then turn out to be a de facto international border that they are not satisfied with.

I personally think that the army should determine the location of the separating fences according to what would be realistically defensible.

But of course, the most secure solution for Israel would be to take a lesson from your own country, alm0nd, which knew very well how to deal with the Palestinian danger. The Kuwaitis simply deported hundreds-of-thousands of Palestinian enemies after the Gulf War. If Israel would follow suit, no more fences would be needed, just one-way tickets to Jordan.

Then, there could be real peace in the Middle East and many innocent lives would be saved, while the Palestinians get to live independently in their own state of Jordan.

Oh Jerusalem

04-15-2002, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by NewsGuy
The Israeli right wing is concerned about short-changing themselves by building a fence that might then turn out to be a de facto international border that they are not satisfied with.

The left, top, bottom and center will also eventually be very unsatisfied from such a scheme. This is all we need - another "I told you so"! How much time will we give this one? 1, 2, maybe 4 years?

mrbaggins

04-15-2002, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by muslim4israel2
The 2005 hit was for sufficient SLMB with ABC capability. Pakistan has 3-5 subs with this capability being fitted. That would:

1) Provide a second strike capability
2) Nukes on the move

No you also included the 2005 arrival of some Mirage 2000's. Assuming that happens...

JFYI Israels defence budget is 8.7 Billion, Pakistans is 2.8 Billion. Israel is in a different league. Israel gets to buy the best hardware in the world. Everyone else gets to buy second rate stuff. Not even first line Soviet and Chinese...

In 2005 the IDF will have the best of what USA has to offer. This is obviously advantage to the IDF. Any Arab attack would benefit happening today, not when the next generation stuff is shipped.

Regarding the first idiotic argument (about the subs capabilities)

Nuclear subs (and especially second strike) are only as good as their ability to launch. They canâ€™t launch if theyâ€™ve been destroyed.

The US would destroy a submarine if a) a country was posing a clear and present danger b) that submarine had nuclear strike capability c) that submarine was moving to a firing depth
The US has more than 120 submarines in the theatre, and the US make it their business to know where nuclear capable submarines are. Diesel models, such as Pakistanâ€™s are the easiest to track. Pakistanâ€™s submarines are French, and France makes some of the poorest quality subs in the world, second only to some of the Chinese rust buckets. Pakistanâ€™s subs would not last long if the US Navy choose. Agostaâ€™s are Los Angeles and Seawolf fodder, not to mention the potent force of a CVN BG.

Pakistan has 50~ bombs, + 12-15 per year increase, assume over another 5 year period-that becomes about 100 nukes.

Pakistan maintains 60-80 on its Indian front, and moves 20 more into the Arab world via SRBM/IRBM are allows Arabs to use them against Israel............Its India defence is solid. Defence analysts from both sides believe that another war is unlikely, nukes are a major equalizer and terror factor.

Firstly Musharraf is on record of desiring to get rid of the nuclear weapons in the asian region. Its because he is on the loosing end of an arms race behind India.

YOU ARE UNABLE TO ANSWER the point regarding the US not letting nukes move to threaten a country they have sworn to protectâ€¦ Pakistan moves nukes. They are not IMMEDIATELY available. It canâ€™t â€˜immediately arriveâ€™ in an Arab State, unless Pakistan have somehow perfected some StarTrek transporters : ) It also takes at least 24 hours and up to a few days to ready a SRBM. Any number of intelligence agencies around the world would know that a nuke was on the move in that region, and Bush would be on the phone with Musharraf. If Musharraf for some insane reason decided not to back down, then the nuclear launch sites and all of Pakistanâ€™s submarines would be punished. No more threat.

Secondly Pakistan is said to have 24 to 48. 50 is very liberally highâ€¦ but maybe. They also only have enough enriched uranium to make another, say 15 to 30 devices.

Thirdly, Here is a portion whitepaper regarding the effects of nuclear war by Steve Fetter, faculty of UOM.
The â€œlimitedâ€ war scenario receiving the most attention is a counterforce first strike against key military targets. If the Soviet Union launched such an attack against the United States with about 3,000 warheads (used mostly against missile silos, and avoiding cities), it has been estimated that 12-27 million Americans would die outright, another 11-18 million would be injured seriously and 2-20 million more would develop fatal cancers from exposure to fallout, for a total of 25-65 million casualties. For comparison, 2 million Americans have been killed or injured in all previous wars. A counterforce strike using only 100 warheads would kill 3-11 million Americans If 100 warheads wer used to destroy key U.S. industries, 11-29 million would die. A 100-warhead attack designed to maximize deaths could kill 25-66 million Americans. Corresponding U.S. attacks would kill and injure comparible numbers of Soviet citizens.

Two things to noteâ€¦ PAKISTAN MAKES SMALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Most are in the 4-8 kiloton range. Their largest are in the 20-40 kt range. THE AVERAGE YIELD OF NUCLEAR WARHEAD IN THE ABOVE SCENARIO IS 150 or so KT. Your statement that 2 Pakistan nukes could destroy Israel is LAUGHABLE. Their entire arsenal, even given the most optimistic estimates, couldnâ€™t wipe out Israel Two small nukes might kill a few hundred thousand.. possibly. If Pakistan got 50 or so devices on target (unlikely due to the above reasoning). A few million. Maybe.

IAF will meab 0 once Israel is incinerated, as would PAF once Pakistan is cooked, Nukes nullify conventional arms-thats there sole purpose.

This point is BSâ€¦ Israel wouldnâ€™t be cookedâ€¦ (see above) hence their airforce would still exist. Pakistan would not be able to get to the point of threatening Israel. Even if they did get a shot or two off, that would be a far cry from destroying the entire population and defence forces.

Arab states might try to place a nuclear threat in place, but would be unable to. Israel would then take the oportunity to kick the **** out of a few neighbors and send their economies spiralling.

Once the IDF nuke black mail/cloud is gone-Arabs would put on a better show.

Again, the point is BS (see above.) The IDF is vastly superior to the entire rest of the forces in the region. The point is moot. 900 million muslims with inferior weapons, just means sky high kill ratios for the technologically superior nation. (just look at the gulf war)

You forget that the giant 54 state ,900 million muslim nation can absorb nukes and survive,Israel cannot.

Not if they canâ€™t retaliate against the regional power and a superpower sponsor. There would just be Islamic mush on a glass desert. ;)

That does not include 300 million Muslims spread across the globe. In a clash of civilizations-only 1 winner.

You're right... and that winner is Israel, with a little help from their friends. What superpower friends does Pakistan have?

victot

04-15-2002, 04:42 PM

i remember once i was seeing on cnn a few months ago, that if india ever attacked pakistan with its army, pakistan might resort to using nuclear weapons, cuz india's convential militairy was vastly superior to pakistan's...

gev

04-19-2002, 03:58 PM

Oh Jerusalem,

Your arguments against "the Wall" was only the fact that it is not effective against some of the threats Israel is facing...

So what? these threats exists today without the border, what the fences, mines, posts and sensors will do is eliminate the suicide bombers threat. than other threats will be delt with in other ways.

Mediocrates

04-19-2002, 06:23 PM

1) Pakistan's nuclear capability is vastly overstated. Their 'tests' it seems were little more than sputters - failures really and the one success they claimed may have been several near failures ganged together. In a real exchange with the Indians, Islamabad would be a glassy crater and Pakistan would cease to exist.

2) The Saudis were sold advanced F16s that aren't even available to American fighter wings.

JustPat

04-27-2002, 11:00 AM

The wall around Israel better be more than just a fence.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/27/1019441314943.html[

Mediocrates

04-28-2002, 04:52 AM

And a discontiguous "Palestine" would no doubt have overfly rights over Israel whereas the reverse would never be permitted by the peaceful peaceloving lovers of peace of Palestine a.k.a Saudi Aramco.

JustPat

04-28-2002, 07:23 PM

In the name of fair and just protection, of course. :rolleyes:

Vic

05-02-2002, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by NewsGuy

As for the discussion itself, keep in mind that the fence around Gaza has been relatively successful so far, and there are some effective fences in many of the West bank areas, as well.
I understand the big difference from the military point of view is the landscape issue: the West Bank lies above the most densely-populated Israeli areas, making it a perfect platform for attacks. Someone - I can't remember who it was - came forward with an idea of splitting the West Bank into several Palestinian "enclaves" and encircling each of them with "buffer zones", which sounds pretty crazy to me.

ehuna

05-02-2002, 04:43 PM

Hello,

Having a wall around the West Bank would be a great step in reducing the number of terrorist attacks in Israel.

It does not mean we would move out the IDF out of the territories, it would simply be one more obstacle for any Palestinian wishing to kill innocent Israeli civilians.

Sure, missiles can go over the fence, but the role of the fence is not to stop the missiles: it's to stop the homicide/suicide Palestinian murderers.

Right now we have an electronic fence around the Gaza Strip and there are no suicide bombers coming from there.

This is not because Gazans are more peaceful than other Palestinian terrorists, it is simply much harder for them to get into Israeli cities.

A lot of people on the right in Israel make up other arguments because they do not want to separate the West Bank from Israel and create a de-facto border - for them I have one suggestion: wake up and smell the latkas! It's time to accept that we can't and we shouldn't want to control 3+ million Palestinians, particularly when not creating this fence causes the deaths of dozens inside Israel.

As someone who has many friends and family in Tel-Aviv, Netanya, Jerusalem and Haifa, I think that any positive step in stopping the Palestinian murderers should be implemented.

In addition we should continue fighting the Islamic Jihad, the Hamas, and Arafat's terrorist groups (Tanzim, Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade, etc...) - we don't have to stop just because the fence is built.

Build a wall, now!

takeo

05-02-2002, 09:40 PM

actually this discussion is madness.

first this:
"But of course, the most secure solution for Israel would be to take a lesson from your own country, alm0nd, which knew very well how to deal with the Palestinian danger. The Kuwaitis simply deported hundreds-of-thousands of Palestinian enemies after the Gulf War. If Israel would follow suit, no more fences would be needed, just one-way tickets to Jordan.

Then, there could be real peace in the Middle East and many innocent lives would be saved, while the Palestinians get to live independently in their own state of Jordan."

This call for etnic cleansing will fortunately never be executed, because even the right-wing knows well enough what would be the consequences of this, a war without the support of the US . against the total muslim world, possibly with Europe and China. It's clear the uS will never allow this to israel, because it would provoke much protest from the US, but more because it would put them in an unfortunate position, choosing to be in a cold war with a great part of the world or defending israel. It would cut them from most of the oil reserves, and annihilate their world position, and particularly their strong position in the Arab and Islamic world, all islam-countries would turn against the uS.

I don't think the Arab and Islamic world will face israel militarily, they have bad experience with it, unless of course israel would commit a genocide or another extremist measure proposed by Newsguy, who thinks in his fascist ideology that israel and the occupied territories should be purified of non-jews.
In any case the support of the US is crucial for israel, without the US providing them weapons, israel will soon loose its military superiority, and even today israel can not match pakistan and Iran combined with some other Islamic states (Turkey for example has one of the biggest armies in Europe).
In 1973 they were just attacked by some Arab neighbours, a total attack including Iran and pakistan is something very different. Of course israel, despite of years of lying against the international community and in clear violation to international laws, has plenty of nuclear warheads (and here no weapons inspections needed, apparently, maybe you are right the UN is not treating countries with the same standard...) but i doubt they can match pakistan, Iran in combination with Saoudi Arabia, Irak, Egypt, etc. (with improoving chinese or russian weapons)
Also it is not excluded, that in case of an israeli extremist action, the Arab and islamic world will get help from Europe (France has the 4th army and nuclear capacity in the world) and from China or even Russia. In this light it would also be very unwise of israel to attack European or Chinese allies in "first strike".
I agree the military superiority of the us after the cold war is unmatched (in the 80's Gorbatchov was fooled that BOTH sides would disarm...) but still Russia and China have the capacity to destroy most of the US, and the chinese weapon industries are modernising quickly, so a total war would destroy everyone and is not desired by nobody.

But i think the Arab world will not respond to israel in a military way, instead they will possibly push israel economically, by for example imposing an embargo on oil against countries trading with israel, and of course EU-arab-Muslim-asian-african-trade sanctions would virtually destroy the israeli economy as well. Also some other oil-producers as nigeria and venezuela would possibly join.
The US can never military treaten or occupy all these countries at the same time, if it even had such a hard time of defeating little Serbia or Iraq...

anyway about the wall: it's an idea but it will only be effective if israel completely retreats from all occupied territories, because otherwise there will always be palestinians left INSIDE the wall, especially in eastern jerusalem (and you will have to exclude most settlements...) . By the way some suicide bombers came from gaza so the wall there seems not to be very effective.
But no wall can be good enough to stop everyone, for sure because so many israeli palestinians live inside israel who are sympatic to the palestinian cause.
I think, as long as you didn't made peace with the palestinians and didn't gave them aLL of the occupied territories in a negociation, those territories will remain a hotbed for terrorism, and no wall will stop international condamnation, rockets, bullets or even suicide-killers. A wall would make the palestinian feel even more that they live in big concentration camps.
I think the only solution would be to cut the terrorists in the area where they are coming from, and this can only happen with support of the majority of palestinians, and this support you will only have if you face their legitimate demands. The US could have never eradicated taliban-rule in afghanistan without the support of the Afghan people and the Northern alliance...
you can ask Germans (or us-soldiers in Vietnam) how difficult it is to keep a hostile population under controll. They will hide terrorists and support them, that's why israel is not able to eradicate it. For every new one captured, 5 new join them.
The only thing israel can do is to cut mainstream palestinians (= PA) from extremists who want to destroy israel. For this it will have to sacriface the occupied territories and do some concessions on the refugee-question. THAT's why the israeli right-wing rather preferes a WALL...

thrud

05-02-2002, 11:35 PM

A wall is good... but only in the short term

I like the idea of a wall around the boarders of Israel for the ability it will give Israel to control its boarders. I do not think they need a big wall, just one that will keep the Palestinians separate and at arms lenghth.

The wall should also come in the shape of a tight immigration policy. I am 100% in favor of free movement between countries, but a nation not only has the right to control the influx of people into its boarders, but the responsiblity to protect its citizens from possible attackers. A nation has the rght to search people as well. I think these points are safe and no one should argue them as all nations reserve the right to control immigration and to search immigrants and visitors.

The problem comes after the wall...

Originally posted by takeo

In any case the support of the US is crucial for israel, without the US providing them weapons, israel will soon loose its military superiority, and even today israel can not match pakistan and Iran combined with some other Islamic states (Turkey for example has one of the biggest armies in Europe)...

...Also it is not excluded, that in case of an israeli extremist action, the Arab and islamic world will get help from Europe (France has the 4th army and nuclear capacity in the world) and from China or even Russia. In this light it would also be very unwise of israel to attack European or Chinese allies in "first strike

Beyond his normal silliness, takeo brings up a very good point -- the big picture and what will come next. I do not want to address every propaganda laced topic he raises, but I do want to examine three core issues.

1) US support

2) European support and Islamic Nations (not just the Arab ones).

3) China

Lets do China first. I love China, but recognize China has a lot of problems. The first is that it is falling apart internally and its boarders will not remain static for long. Many of the factions with in China are likely to explode causing the Middle Kingdom (Chinese Characters for 'China' imply that it is "The Central Kingdom" or the Kingdom the world revolves around) to implode. I hope this never happens, but when it does that will cause the world to become very distracted.

When this happens, there are two possiblities (either or both might occur). The first is that the Korean Pennisula explodes. Either the North or the South invades. When this happens China (or factions of what is the current China) will be drawn into the conflict. I don't want either -- I live here. The second is that the Tiawon Straits explode with either China or Tiawon invading. In either case the US will become militarily involved with an enemy much more powerful than Iraq could hope to be in its grandest wet dream.

Both (the first and second situations) could happen very easily, forcing China to defend/attack on two fronts facing modern militaries that combined could take apart China; especially with US support.

IF this happens, the US will not be in a position to support Israel. The idea to fight on two fronts is a pipe dream especially against China.

Israel does not even have to piss off the US and suddenly its best ally will be gone.

So what about Europe. England will be involved with what ever happens with China. England has an even longer and far darker history with China and would not hesitate to fight allong side its American ally (the Aussies will be in it too, because like it or not; they are a part of Asia. Canada too -- Pacific Rim stability). Russia still has hopes of a warm water Pacific port and who knows, they might make a grab for one on the Korean Peninsula or in Northern China; they will not be left out especially since between them and the US (who is becoming closer to Russia with each passing day) they have nearly encircled China (another hotpoint) and that they would love just to piss them off. Turkey, if it feels enough pressure, will side with the combined force of Islam and desert Europe. The rest of Europe will be stupidly neutral or fighting in Asia and either not willing to assist Israel, or too overextended.

The Islamic Nations of the world are also starting to organize themselves and Israel is becoming an even bigger issue than before. Indonesia is the world's largest Islamic nation and is becoming more and more fundementalist as time goes on and many of its people are unsettled by their government's official neutral stace towards Israel and even its limited assistance to the US in its war against terror. Pakestan will not do anything in support of an invasion of Israel, unless India becomes neutralized somehow. Between the moderates and the crazies in the Islamic world, if the US and pro-Israeli Europe (not many of there) become embroiled in Asia with a self-destructing China they will not hesitate to jump all over Israel in a way Israel can not currently deal with effectively.

The isolation of Israel is all to easy with the implosion of China. China is far too important for the world to ignore, and the Islamic nations (those with oil) will not mind pumping oil to the West if they turn the other way regarding Israel.

The US loves Israel, but the murder-bombers can not compare the outright carnage that will take place if something stupid in China happens (without the help of war in the Taiwon Straits or on the Korean Peninsula) and China is no simple adversary that will allow the US the luxery of opening a second or third front against another, very distant enemy. Europe is either indifferent to or actively hates Israel and either likes oil more than Jews or have interests in the "Democratization" (economic re-colinization is more like it) of China. Between the Islamic nations of Africa, the Middle-east, and Asia; there are enough fundamentalist psychos outthere who would like to put Israel on the ceremonial chopping block whether or not they have an official national army (or armies) to enlist in. I think Osama and his ideas have inspired many Muslems to unite unofficially without the support of a nationstate and so diplomatic solutions will be hard to come by.

It gets ugly quick and the hotspots of the world are getting so hot that Israel may not have the assistance they really need.

I believe this is the big picture for Israel (I hope I am imagining things). Israel needs to look at defending herself in the case she has no allies.

Mediocrates

05-03-2002, 05:32 AM

off your meds?

takeo

05-03-2002, 06:53 PM

I don't support your theory, it's a typical worst case scenario that will never happen because not realitic (fortunately...)
China will not fall into peaces, history has shown that China, when it is faced with foreign danger, will unite. By the way there are no indications that China is currently falling apart, even in Sinkiang or Tibet the Chinese autority is very strong, and there is no real force inside China treatening the communist party (Falung Gong, give me a break please...). More it is extremely unlikely the north of korea will invade the south or vice-versa. Both have too much to loose and both hated the "axis of evil"-speech of Bush. The north will ever invad because in that case China won't save it, the south will never invade because it would badly hurt Korean economy AND because in that case it would have to face its tirth tradepartner...China. Taiwan invading China... give me a break... there is a possibility of china invading Taiwan, i agree, but again, the Chinese are too focused on economy and the region facing Taiwan is the most wealthy, while taiwanese are big investors in China. besides i don't believe China will risk everything to oppose the US militarily and without allies. about Russia: Russia is still closer to China in most issues than to the US and sino-russian relations have never been better. Mostly in the un-security council, concerning iraq, nuclear shield, yougoslavia etc. ... they always act as friends. Russia and China also have similar views concerning the middle-east and terrorism and they both strongly hate us-unilateralism, neo-colonialism and have conflicting economical interests.
I think the only real danger comes from the US, if it would attack Chinese allies as North-Korea. But a war with China will definately be a nuclear war, unless both the US and china limit themselves to Korea (as happened in the Korean war). the moment the US attacks China propper, nuclear war begins and total destruction of both China and the US within hours...
For war we don't have to look far east but middle east...
Pakistan has a very militant population, maybe the most anti-american and anti-israeli in the world, and quite islamist, they will for sure join in any war against israel or the regime will not survive, India, which is not an allie of israel and mostly support anti-israeli resolutions in the un, will probably not be involved in this war, as this would mean big trouble with the ally of both Pakistan and iran (both not good friends but they have common anti-israeli views and they both have very good relations with China), China. The US would be involved, but i'm sure they us would first, before engaging in a massive war against their main oil-suppliers, who have Chinese, Russian or French material support (in the case israel would have launched the war or did etnic cleansing that would lead to such a massive coalition), try to find a cease-fire, forsing israel to withdraw according to the pre-1967 borders, this would probably split or even stop the coaltion against israel. The us has no interest in a massive war in that region against the whole world.
About Europe i think Europe (or at least France) would not support any war against israel unless israel attacks first or unless israel launched some actions that would cause massive indignation. this would justify French cooperation in a war against israel. But i'm sure the French nor the Americans will never let it come so far to have direct military confrontation between the two, they will both pressure their Israeli and Muslim allies to stop the war and do concessions.

So as a conclusion: all nations have to loose in a military solution, especially Israel. so i don't think it will ever happen, (unless an american attack on Korea or an american administration completely dominated by the pro-israeli lobby, both however seem unlikely as it would seriously damage us economic interests, the main sponser of American politics...).
I think the war will be fought by economic measures, as is happening between Cuba and the US for example.

about iraq i think russia nor China will defend iraq militarily but they will (or are already) providing it with lots of weapons to defend themselves. it would also mean a new cold war alliance between China, and Russia (as almost happened in the kosovo-war) and the Muslim world against the US. Europe would be divided. Probably nobody will come to the rescue of Iraq, but it would mean a strong anti-us coalition in asia shared by even us-friends in the Arab world who strongly oppose such an action. and the us will have a hard time to defeat saddam without internal or external friends available and without the support of neighbouring countries. iraq could provoke a cold war (unless iraq succeeds in dragging israel into the conflict...) , while Korea or israel could provoke a hot war, but not very likely.

gregg

05-03-2002, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by takeo
I don't support your theory, it's a typical worst case scenario that will never happen because not realitic (fortunately...)
China will not fall into peaces, history has shown that China, when it is faced with foreign danger, will unite. By the way there are no indications that China is currently falling apart, even in Sinkiang or Tibet the Chinese autority is very strong, and there is no real force inside China treatening the communist party (Falung Gong, give me a break please...). More it is extremely unlikely the north of korea will invade the south or vice-versa. Both have too much to loose and both hated the "axis of evil"-speech of Bush. The north will ever invad because in that case China won't save it, the south will never invade because it would badly hurt Korean economy AND because in that case it would have to face its tirth tradepartner...China. Taiwan invading China... give me a break... there is a possibility of china invading Taiwan, i agree, but again, the Chinese are too focused on economy and the region facing Taiwan is the most wealthy, while taiwanese are big investors in China. besides i don't believe China will risk everything to oppose the US militarily and without allies. about Russia: Russia is still closer to China in most issues than to the US and sino-russian relations have never been better. Mostly in the un-security council, concerning iraq, nuclear shield, yougoslavia etc. ... they always act as friends. Russia and China also have similar views concerning the middle-east and terrorism and they both strongly hate us-unilateralism, neo-colonialism and have conflicting economical interests.
I think the only real danger comes from the US, if it would attack Chinese allies as North-Korea. But a war with China will definately be a nuclear war, unless both the US and china limit themselves to Korea (as happened in the Korean war). the moment the US attacks China propper, nuclear war begins and total destruction of both China and the US within hours...
For war we don't have to look far east but middle east...
Pakistan has a very militant population, maybe the most anti-american and anti-israeli in the world, and quite islamist, they will for sure join in any war against israel or the regime will not survive, India, which is not an allie of israel and mostly support anti-israeli resolutions in the un, will probably not be involved in this war, as this would mean big trouble with the ally of both Pakistan and iran (both not good friends but they have common anti-israeli views and they both have very good relations with China), China. The US would be involved, but i'm sure they us would first, before engaging in a massive war against their main oil-suppliers, who have Chinese, Russian or French material support (in the case israel would have launched the war or did etnic cleansing that would lead to such a massive coalition), try to find a cease-fire, forsing israel to withdraw according to the pre-1967 borders, this would probably split or even stop the coaltion against israel. The us has no interest in a massive war in that region against the whole world.
About Europe i think Europe (or at least France) would not support any war against israel unless israel attacks first or unless israel launched some actions that would cause massive indignation. this would justify French cooperation in a war against israel. But i'm sure the French nor the Americans will never let it come so far to have direct military confrontation between the two, they will both pressure their Israeli and Muslim allies to stop the war and do concessions.

So as a conclusion: all nations have to loose in a military solution, especially Israel. so i don't think it will ever happen, (unless an american attack on Korea or an american administration completely dominated by the pro-israeli lobby, both however seem unlikely as it would seriously damage us economic interests, the main sponser of American politics...).
I think the war will be fought by economic measures, as is happening between Cuba and the US for example.

about iraq i think russia nor China will defend iraq militarily but they will (or are already) providing it with lots of weapons to defend themselves. it would also mean a new cold war alliance between China, and Russia (as almost happened in the kosovo-war) and the Muslim world against the US. Europe would be divided. Probably nobody will come to the rescue of Iraq, but it would mean a strong anti-us coalition in asia shared by even us-friends in the Arab world who strongly oppose such an action. and the us will have a hard time to defeat saddam without internal or external friends available and without the support of neighbouring countries. iraq could provoke a cold war (unless iraq succeeds in dragging israel into the conflict...) , while Korea or israel could provoke a hot war, but not very likely.

But yet this has nothing to do with Israel building a war to protect itself from terrorists.

JustPat

05-03-2002, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by gregg But yet this has nothing to do with Israel building a war to protect itself from terrorists. Welcome to takeo's world.

takeo

05-03-2002, 08:56 PM

:D
i just answered to the discussions here... i can't help the subject shifted...

JustPat

05-03-2002, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by takeo
:D
i just answered to the discussions here... i can't help the subject shifted... No accusation ... just an observation. :D

Mediocrates

05-04-2002, 06:31 AM

can the admins limit the quote length?

JustPat

05-10-2002, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
can the admins limit the quote length? PLEASE!

NewsGuy

05-10-2002, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
can the admins limit the quote length?
There's no automatic limit, but all members can limit the length of the quotes very easily by simply highlighting and deleting portions of the quotes when replying.

Vic

05-10-2002, 03:29 PM

Umm...
What was the topic?
;-)

JustPat

05-10-2002, 06:51 PM

Something about a wall ...

I was watching footage from the Palestinians released to Gaza and noted the corridor they used to enter. Is there a literal "wall" around Gaza? If there is, how effective is it? How is the perimeter enforced?

Somehow I don't think that such a wall would work for the West Bank. It reminds me of arguments I hear bantered about for our illegal immigration problem with Mexico. At least our infiltrators are not blowing themselves up in San Diego, Pheonix, or El Paso.

Vic

05-11-2002, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by JustPat
Something about a wall ...
Ah yes...

Here is an article that makes several interesting points:

It ain't over till it's over
Yosef Goell

(March 18) - In the winter of 1963, I went with my Jerusalem Brigade reserve unit to serve two months as a bogus policeman on top of the besieged Mount Scopus compound in Jerusalem.

I write "bogus" and "besieged" because under the 1949 armistice agreement with Jordan, Israel was permitted to keep only 120 "policemen" armed with a similar number of antiquated British World War I Enfield rifles in the mountaintop compound.

After my first few days spying on the goings on in the Jordanian part of Jerusalem below us and nights doing guard duty against the surrounding Jordanian army outposts, I discovered that Mt. Scopus was one of the best-armed and fortified Israeli position on any of our borders. It was bristling with heavy machine guns, mortars, and recoilless cannon, and enough ammunition to last for weeks of heavy fighting. All of this had been smuggled up through the Jordanian lines over the years from "mainland" Israeli Jerusalem, less than one kilometer away.

I discovered how this was done while on guard duty one foggy January night.

All of a sudden, the outpost commander, appeared with his retinue. They told me and my buddy to scram, and took up our positions to welcome a mule caravan that emerged out of the fog, led by an Arab and groaning under a load of heavy machine guns, recoilless cannon, and ammunition. This smuggling had been going on over the previous 14 years, whenever the night fog was appropriate.

Had it not, the "policemen" soldiers who were holding Mt. Scopus on the day the Six Day War broke out in June 5, 1967 would have been wiped out by the vastly superior Jordanian forces who surrounded the enclave. In the event, the garrison held out easily until evening, when it was relieved.

Why all this ancient reminiscing today? Firstly, because it is worthwhile recalling there was a time when we were very good at this sort of thing, and our Arab enemies were the heavy-footed and unimaginative side in the conflict. In the light of the terrorist war the Palestinians have been waging against us over the past 18 months, it would seem they have succeeded in stealing some of our old thunder, while the IDF has too often seemed bogged down in the heavy-footedness that bedevils any organized army.

The IDF's massive incursion into the Palestinian "refugee camps" over the past fortnight in search of arms caches, mortar and rocket factories, and "ticking clock" armed Palestinians had all the hallmarks of an impressive operation. But a heavy- footed one, too. It is too early to tell, because we still don't know how many weapons were captured and how many of the Palestinians killed were dangerous gunmen.

What we do know is that the IDF itself admitted many of the wanted gunmen succeeded in escaping from the camps just ahead of its columns.

It may well be that one of the lessons of the past 18 months is that an IDF that has for years been honed to fight major wars against heavily armed Arab armies is not the most suitable framework from which to successfully fight a guerrilla war. Given the certainty that war will continue for some time, it is worth pondering whether it would not be desirable to establish a more flexible parallel army specifically to prosecute that anti-guerrilla war.

Secondly, it is essential that we learn, in the words of the immortal Yogi Berra, "It ain't over till it's over." The more than 300 Israeli victims of the current Palestinian uprising were also the victims of the shocking naivete and shortsightedness of our leaders after Oslo, who turned a blind eye to the massive Palestinian arms stockpiling. Many of us behaved after September 1993 as if peace with the Palestinians was already upon us. But the Yasser Arafat who kept on mouthing his "peace of the brave" slogan is the same Arafat who was responsible for the eight years of major arms smuggling - including the large-scale stealing of weapons from the IDF - in preparation for the current uprising.

It is essential we not repeat that deadly mistake. It may well be that we and the Palestinians will have to cool it somewhat now, until the American plans for the onslaught on Iraq fully unfolds. Even if there is such an imposed false lull, it is essential, just as in the arming of the Mount Scopus garrison in the prolonged lull of 1956-67, that we use the time to prepare ourselves much better than we have, to face the expected renewal of Palestinian terrorism after the lull is over.

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/03/18/Opinion/Opinion.45370.html

Isn't a wall a pretty "heavy-footed" thing too?

christian

05-11-2002, 07:13 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thrud

Lets do China first. I love China, but recognize China has a lot of problems. The first is that it is falling apart internally and its boarders will not remain static for long. Many of the factions with in China are likely to explode causing the Middle Kingdom (Chinese Characters for 'China' [B]imply that it is "The Central Kingdom" or the Kingdom the world revolves around) to implode. I hope this never happens, but when it does that will cause the world to become very distracted.

When this happens, there are two possiblities (either or both might occur). The first is that the Korean Pennisula explodes. Either the North or the South invades. When this happens China (or factions of what is the current China) will be drawn into the conflict. I don't want either -- I live here. The second is that the Tiawon Straits explode with either China or Tiawon invading. In either case the US will become militarily involved with an enemy much more powerful than Iraq could hope to be in its grandest wet dream.

. It is prove, money can buy many problems. (WTO) The communist reports states all the provinces in China should systemically broken down into common wealth countries. A billion population is hard to manange. If China will break into pieces. It will break into common wealth countries. The PRC is quietly supporting this micro management method. Or else, China will be forced to broken down chaotically.

Taiwan won't invade China. China will only invade taiwan, if the current government declares independance. It is unlikely China will invade taiwan.

1) Taiwanese businesses is the biggest investors in eastern coast. It is estimated taiwanese owns 30% productions inside China.

2) Taiwanese are not interested in independance. The reason they elects the current indepandance party, because the election distribution methods. Only 30% supports independance.

3)The 60% of the taiwanese businese activities are conducted in China. Everyone is catching the next economic boom.

4) No one wants a war. The reason 30% votes for the party, because it gives the taiwan more leverage to negotiate with China.

5) The reason Taiwanese move to US. Guess What? Retirement. Spend money for enjoyment. Note: I am also an immigrants to Canada. I can't buy a house like that in Hong Kong. I can buy a big comfortable house with less price in Canada. Why not immigrate to Canada or US? My spending power is greater in US or Canada.

Both (the first and second situations) could happen very easily, forcing China to defend/attack on two fronts facing modern militaries that combined could take apart China; especially with US support.

First of all, the reason China supports the arabs, is the same reason US supports the arabs. Oil. It is not a love relationship.

IF this happens, the US will not be in a position to support Israel. The idea to fight on two fronts is a pipe dream especially against China.

You are kidding. Most of our agricultural methods are transfered by Israel. Our military build up is supported by Israel. The Israelis also gives us the guns and heli copters. Our relationship with Israel is never sour. The US also approves this, because the US wants indirectly influence on China through Israel. In other words, the US contains Soviets by supporting arms selling to China. Currently,the US unilateralism destroys the friendship between China and Israel. Israel weights US friendship more than China. So, naturally, China has to make friends with some one else. In fact, our relationship with Israel is great. The media in US is a false. The reason they portrays this way. Well. The US government don't want American to think US supports communisim.

Israel does not even have to piss off the US and suddenly its best ally will be gone.

You are to pessimistics. The European Jews are very influential in EU as well. The reason US has a hard time to convince everyone China is anti-israel, because China is actually friends with many european jewish businesman and european businesses. Many European businesesman is making money through Hong Kong. Some of them are very powerful jewish businessman.

China Light Power, the boss is a european jews. I can list you many influential busineses partners in China and Europe. They are the european jews.