NationStates Jolt Archive

Wow two articles about Russia selling missiles to Syria in the same day, and they are talking about two different missile systems, both SAMs and cruise missiles. Draw your own conclusions from this, but it seems to me that Syria is getting pretty worried about an American Invasion. Maybe they have spies in the Pentagon who know something which we don't-- That america is about to continue its WMD hunt elsewhere in the middle east. Also maybe this is Russia's payback for that whole Ukraine fiasco.
---------------------------------------------------------

Israel Seeks to Stop Syria Missile Deal
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: January 12, 2005

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel is trying to halt a weapons deal under which Russia agreed to supply advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, fearing the missiles could fall into the hands of Lebanese guerrillas, Israeli officials said Wednesday.

The issue has clouded Israeli-Russian relations, which had been steadily improving since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Israeli officials said the deal for the sale of the Igla SA-18s from Russia to Syria was signed several days ago. They worry the missiles could be used by Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas, who have repeated attacked Israel's northern border. The United States also could be concerned the missiles could be obtained by Iraqi insurgents.

--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/526031.html

U.S. demands Russia cancel proposed missiles sale to Syria

By Haaretz Service

The United States is demanding Russia cancel its proposed sale of missiles to Syria, warning that it will consider imposing sanctions against Moscow should the deal go ahead, Israel Radio reported Wednesday.

A State Department spokesperson made the administration's stance public a short time before Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that the administration is opposed to weapons sales to Damascus, and that its position was well known to Moscow.

Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov visited Israel on Wednesday and discussed with government officials a recent crisis between Moscow and Jerusalem over reported Russian plans to sell Syria missiles capable of striking targets within Israel.

The details of the crisis were reported Wednesday in the Moscow daily Kommersant.

Saltanov, who arrived in Israel on Tuesday, met with Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, Vice Premier Shimon Peres and senior Foreign Ministry officials.

According to the report, the Iskander-E missile has a target radius capable of reaching nearly all of Israel, including the nuclear reactor site outside Dimona.

Only the southern Negev and Eilat would be out of range.

Israeli military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have expressed concern that the missiles would get into the hands of Hezbollah and disrupt the military balance in the Middle East.

Nice title, I thought someone was getting braces

Interesting...
Thing is why don't many American newspapers have it? There are only two.
I sense there is something more there.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388843
Maybe there is.

Interesting...
Thing is why don't many American newspapers have it? There are only two.
I sense there is something more there.

The first one was from the NY Times website but it wasn't very prominently displayed. I didn't provide a link because you need a log in. Of course you can just type in "crimethinc" for the username and password the adress is:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Russia.html

I find it really weird though that it wasn't a bigger news story in the US too. Russia is planning on selling long range missiles to a sworn enemy of the US, and the US is threatening sanctions against Russia, and we don't hear hardly anything unless we read the international press? It is all very odd.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388843
Maybe there is.

Doh' didn't see that thread. Oddly though, that thread was talking about anti tank missiles from russia. My thread is talking about cruise missiles and anti aircraft missiles from Russia. Damn Syria sure loves those russian missiles.

The first one was from the NY Times website but it wasn't very prominently displayed. I didn't provide a link because you need a log in. Of course you can just type in "crimethinc" for the username and password the adress is:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Russia.html

I find it really weird though that it wasn't a bigger news story in the US too. Russia is planning on selling long range missiles to a sworn enemy of the US, and the US is threatening sanctions against Russia, and we don't hear hardly anything unless we read the international press? It is all very odd.
because russia is supposed to be good guys and putin and bush are big buddies, watch the debates? if we suggest russia is bad that means bush is friends with bad guys which means oh no, people lose faith in our imperious leader!

A while back, just after the Iraq war, I had bets on Syria being the next US target. So it doesn't surprise me too much, although I've since... um... 'unbet'? Is that a word? Bah, it is now.

This is surprising why? The russian government is at least an order of magnitude more corrupt than the US.

This is surprising why? The russian government is at least an order of magnitude more corrupt than the US.

Why blame this on corruption? It is not like some sneaky general somewhere in the remote reaches of Russia is selling these weapons. The sale of these arms are approved by Putin and are national policy.

Despite Russia's otherwise sh!tty economy they makes some pretty decent weapons too. These Iskander-E missiles will probably do some damage if the Syria ever gets invaded, there are pictures of them if you click on the link to the article, they are pretty massive looking. Also if a bunch of planes starting getting shot down in Iraq it won't be hard to figure out why.

Russia's likes to keep its new little pet Syria well protected, so that the US doesn't end up totally controlling the middle east.

Why blame this on corruption? It is not like some sneaky general somewhere in the remote reaches of Russia is selling these weapons. The sale of these arms are approved by Putin and are national policy.

Despite Russia's otherwise sh!tty economy they makes some pretty decent weapons too. These Iskander-E missiles will probably do some damage if the Syria ever gets invaded, there are pictures of them if you click on the link to the article, they are pretty massive looking. Also if a bunch of planes starting getting shot down in Iraq it won't be hard to figure out why.

Russia's likes to keep its new little pet Syria well protected, so that the US doesn't end up totally controlling the middle east.

You may have a point there. Russia has a relationship with Syria as long as the relationship of the US with Israel.

You can see a real three way split developing. China is Arming the Shia of Iran, Russia is arming the oil disenfranchised Sunni of Syria, and America is arming and protecting the rest of the Persian Gulf.

All is fair in the arms trade. It's not like the US is clean in this regard. Who cares.

ooh ooh lets all stand around and chant "World War! World War!"

ooh ooh lets all stand around and chant "World War! World War!"

Summon the evil anti-hippies!

Why should only Israel get weapons capable of real defense? Does not Syria have the right to assure the safety and security of her people as well?


The USA backs Israel, but screams when other powers try to back nations Israel doesn't like.


Hey, if the USA is so big on capitalism, Russia is just taking advantage of a business opportunity.

I dont get what the fuss is- US sells weapons to Israel, Ussr//russians sold weapons to the arabs. Arabs get heads handed to them time and time again by the israelis- maybe Russian weapons just aint up to the same standards as the stuff the US sells to Israel?

Or maybe because russia keeps it to a strict matter of business, and doesn't give anything for free. I don't see the problem, russia has a right to make and sell arms, to deny it any less would be to deny its sovereignty.

the israelis have been doing flyovers on syria without syria being able to retaliate.

syria has acquired a small quanitity of decent SSMs, medium range SAMs and shoulder launched SAMs.

the israeli airforce is a technological generation ahead of the syrian, two generations ahead of lebanon, egypt and fourgenerations ahead of palastinians.

Israel will find it harder to fly over syria with impunity, but syria still will not have the military wherewithal to retaliate if Israeli sends its airforce on masse to attack syrian missile bases.

syria might radar lock a few fighters to suggest they aren't the soft targets they have been for 20 years, but I seriously doubt syria will shoot down an israel jet (although israel hasn't respected the airspace of its neighbours for 50 odd years, and they haven't been nice to israel either).

this in not a political statement, or favouring sides, its just a statement of reality.

the israelis have been doing flyovers on syria without syria being able to retaliate.

syria has acquired a small quanitity of decent SSMs, medium range SAMs and shoulder launched SAMs.

the israeli airforce is a technological generation ahead of the syrian, two generations ahead of lebanon, egypt and fourgenerations ahead of palastinians.

Israel will find it harder to fly over syria with impunity, but syria still will not have the military wherewithal to retaliate if Israeli sends its airforce on masse to attack syrian missile bases.

syria might radar lock a few fighters to suggest they aren't the soft targets they have been for 20 years, but I seriously doubt syria will shoot down an israel jet (although israel hasn't respected the airspace of its neighbours for 50 odd years, and they haven't been nice to israel either).

this in not a political statement, or favouring sides, its just a statement of reality.

Yeah, also there is the whole Israel Syria thing. Syria is still pissed that Israel took over part of its territory in 1967, and won't give it back. Whenever Syria wants to go into negotiations with Israel, Israel is like great, we give up a nice piece of land, and in exchange we get normalized relations with Syria and a building in Tel Aviv with a Syrian flag over it with a few ambassadors inside. What a crappy deal.

Maybe Syria figures if they aim enough missiles at Jereuselum they will take them more seriously. Unfortunately for Syria their missiles only have conventional warheads unlike Israel's. Most likely if they ever get these missiles and they ever use them it will just be a random barage into israel, as the Americans are taking over, like Saddam did in the first gulf war.

As for the technology gap Russia has been selling Syria Mig-29s and Su-27s which are as good as anything Israel has and if they get enough of them they could make it a pretty even air battle, but of course Syria would never be crazy to attack seeing as how they lack nuclear weapons.

yes, but then comes the question of willingness. All the weapons in the world wont help you if your oponent isn't willing to use them. Israel may feel that, though they would win an engagement, the losses for them would be dire, and thus worth avoiding.

Yeah, also there is the whole Israel Syria thing. Syria is still pissed that Israel took over part of its territory in 1967, and won't give it back. Whenever Syria wants to go into negotiations with Israel, Israel is like great, we give up a nice piece of land, and in exchange we get normalized relations with Syria and a building in Tel Aviv with a Syrian flag over it with a few ambassadors inside. What a crappy deal.

Maybe Syria figures if they aim enough missiles at Jereuselum they will take them more seriously. Unfortunately for Syria their missiles only have conventional warheads unlike Israel's. Most likely if they ever get these missiles and they ever use them it will just be a random barage into israel, as the Americans are taking over, like Saddam did in the first gulf war.

As for the technology gap Russia has been selling Syria Mig-29s and Su-27s which are as good as anything Israel has and if they get enough of them they could make it a pretty even air battle, but of course Syria would never be crazy to attack seeing as how they lack nuclear weapons.



It'll be a long time before the Syrian air force is on the same quantity and quality of Israel's. It's not enough to have planes and qualified pilots, they have to be good and that takes years and a lot of money, fuel, spare parts, and maintenance. Lacking that they would have to have a massive numbers advantage like 2 or 3 to 1.

Syria would also need the latest in ARAM missiles. To counter Israel's ARAM attack they would have to be able to control their own skies and Israel's. That's just to keep and use their SAMs.

It'll be a long time before the Syrian air force is on the same quantity and quality of Israel's. It's not enough to have planes and qualified pilots, they have to be good and that takes years and a lot of money, fuel, spare parts, and maintenance. Lacking that they would have to have a massive numbers advantage like 2 or 3 to 1.

Syria would also need the latest in ARAM missiles. To counter Israel's ARAM attack they would have to be able to control their own skies and Israel's. That's just to keep and use their SAMs.

too true.

saudi has a top line in jets, but their pilots don't get an air time.

similarly at their most impressive the USSR had about 600 major surface combat vessels to the USA's 300, but the USSR ships were ported about 80% of the time (effective sea going fleet 120) the USA managed to keep their ships at sea 50% of the time (effective sea going fleet 150).

add that to the quality of the USAs ships, plus the soviets had ships with a multitude of missiles and gun systems but the ammunition canisters were usually 3/4 empty (same as brit ships at hte same time), while the US ships were generally well equipped and more seaworthy and battleworthy.

I would say the Israeli's are in a constant state of readiness, many of their pilots have gone to USA finishing schools and are highly trained combat pilots AS well as superior tacticians and better equiped.

numerically the nations may be superior to israelis but in a tactical war the israelis would win.

a long drawn out strategic war, WITHOUT external influence, sheer numbers on arab sides would see israel eventually lose, but with the backing of europe and the USA, Israel will win any conflict that takes less than a month.

that is without nukes...

israel's IDF is probably on par with british marines in battle training and state of readiness.

their nasho's probably equal to say standard western armies (aus, brit, us) with US quality equipment.

I would say 1 IDF infantry = 2 any other army, and the arabs know it.

better training, better equipment, better state of readiness.

(ie britain invaded falklands with 30k troops with the argentinians having about 40k troops stationed there, if the argentinians were say the Americans, the british would have needed at least 100k troops to stage a counter attack. the Argentinians had modern destroyers, (ex US and brit stock), french and US fighters and etc, but their training, equipment deployed and ammunition were not up to the standard of the brits.

therefore in summary merely having the equipment doesn't make you a good army.

I would say the Aus army while less equiped than the US army, would easily be up to the standard of the british marines in quality, temperement, fighting ability, and survivability, esp. the RAR, SAS, guys. and for bush training, you can't go past the NORFORCE, FNQR, and some of the other boys from the west.

How much good did all that Russian weaponry, French radar, and Chinese fiber optic network infrastructure help Iraq when the Americans showed up and started taking their official military apart?

IIRC, the US was sending emails and reading all traffic on the Iraqi defense networks before the bombing started. The French radars were blind, and the Russian weaponry, in large part, turned out to be rather expensive collections of targets.

You can't possibly fight the US with a large scale, traditional, conventional military, and hope to do anything but be slaughtered wholesale.

There were two divisions of Russian-made armor that exited Baghdad to meet US forces shortly before the US reached the city. They were on two roads bound to meet the US forces when 16 B-52 bombers using smart cluster munitions made a single pass overhead.

Two-thirds of the men in two divisions became instant casualties - wounded or dead, and nearly 90 percent of the vehicles were destroyed. When cluster bombs contain individual bomblets that seek out vehicles, and you're dropping 75,000 pounds of them in each plane, you're as good as dead if the US knows you're coming (and with JSTARS, you're not going to hide).

Hopefully the Russians get their money up front, because no one's going to keep making payments on destroyed equipment.

If the Russians didn't sell the Syrians weapons the Chinese would have. Russia needs the cash and they sell weapons to everybody. Better the Russians than some western nation. At least we know we can defeat Russian weapons technology.

some one is going to get the clue and start bombing israel soon as they are invaded by the blitzkrieg

Syria attacked Israeli unprovokly in wars, 4 times.. though the 4th time is a matter of discussion.
They also bombarded northern Israeli cities for atleast a dozen years, they support terrorist orginizations like Hamas, they main Hamas HQ is located in the Syrian capital, they are also directly incharge of a giant modern terrorisrt orginization called Hozballah, which is the only terrorist orginization with armored brigades and over 100,000 trained soldiers.
The only time Israel made a 'debatable' attack on Syria (On a empty warehouse) was when a terrorist that was trained in Syria and actually came from Syria killed many Israeli civilians.
Now even if you dont like Israel because of the entire conflict with the Palestinians, you cant ignore those facts about Syria.
I perfectly understand Israel's fear, Syria is a terrorist supporting state and until they prove otherwise they are still a violent dictatorship and no violent dictatorship should be armed.

Syria attacked Israeli unprovokly in wars, 4 times.. though the 4th time is a matter of discussion.
They also bombarded northern Israeli cities for atleast a dozen years, they support terrorist orginizations like Hamas, they main Hamas HQ is located in the Syrian capital, they are also directly incharge of a giant modern terrorisrt orginization called Hozballah, which is the only terrorist orginization with armored brigades and over 100,000 trained soldiers.
The only time Israel made a 'debatable' attack on Syria (On a empty warehouse) was when a terrorist that was trained in Syria and actually came from Syria killed many Israeli civilians.
Now even if you dont like Israel because of the entire conflict with the Palestinians, you cant ignore those facts about Syria.
I perfectly understand Israel's fear, Syria is a terrorist supporting state and until they prove otherwise they are still a violent dictatorship and no violent dictatorship should be armed.
hell, no government is stable and just enough to be armed, but they all are anyway, doesnt mean we can go around invading nations solely for the purpose of "disarming the evil bastards"
but when the us decides it is going to be able to invade nations with the actual ability to fight back with its already straining military forces, shit is gonna hit the fan somewhere or other

ISrael won't be invaded while it is wholeheartedly backed by the US.

the democraps and republicoils both support israel, as such even if the ME military were able to defeat israel the reprisals from the uS would be staggering.

a better way to defeat the israeli's would be to deny the US the oil they need, hardly a likely scenario given that the suadi's and kuwaiti royals depend on the US to protect them from their own people and the US now has iraq as a vassal dominion backed by 150k troops.

even between GW 1 and GW 2 the US bought up iraqi oil through french and russian agents.

Syria attacked Israeli unprovokly in wars, 4 times.. though the 4th time is a matter of discussion.
They also bombarded northern Israeli cities for atleast a dozen years, they support terrorist orginizations like Hamas, they main Hamas HQ is located in the Syrian capital, they are also directly incharge of a giant modern terrorisrt orginization called Hozballah, which is the only terrorist orginization with armored brigades and over 100,000 trained soldiers.
The only time Israel made a 'debatable' attack on Syria (On a empty warehouse) was when a terrorist that was trained in Syria and actually came from Syria killed many Israeli civilians.
Now even if you dont like Israel because of the entire conflict with the Palestinians, you cant ignore those facts about Syria.
I perfectly understand Israel's fear, Syria is a terrorist supporting state and until they prove otherwise they are still a violent dictatorship and no violent dictatorship should be armed.

the US supported marcos, suharto, pinochet and other violent dictatorships.

israeli agents kidnapped illegally the Mordacai Vanunu who revealed their illegal nuclear weapons program.

etc.

syria is no angel state, but neither is the US, israel, or any country for that matter.

you can list a stack of crimes against just about any reasonable sized nation in the world.

even Australia has had a dark past, the US, the russians, the brits, french, dutch etc all have had dubious actions even last century.

ISrael won't be invaded while it is wholeheartedly backed by the US.Thats why other 911s are very likely.

Thats why other 911s are very likely.

Do you ever read anything Bin Laden puts out? 911 had NOTHING to do with Israel.

ISrael won't be invaded while it is wholeheartedly backed by the US.

the democraps and republicoils both support israel, as such even if the ME military were able to defeat israel the reprisals from the uS would be staggering.

a better way to defeat the israeli's would be to...To make Washington pay...and the best way to do that is to create other Al_Quaedas.

Do you ever read anything Bin Laden puts out? 911 had NOTHING to do with Israel.I do, do you?

To make Washington pay...and the best way to do that is to create other Al_Quaedas.

You aren't familiar with how al-Q was created, either, are you? Most of its original members and trainers were recruited and trained by.... the US.

After the Soviets left Afghanistan, these trained and hostile men were looking for a new leader and a new reason and place to fight.

Bin Laden then raised the idea of a new organization - one that would fight for a purer form of Islam - and a restoration of the Caliphate.

The first offense they ever talked about and talk about at length, was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War - a presence that was invited by the Saudi royal family.

This was considered religiously offensive - in a way far more offensive than any Israeli existence. In fact, Bin Laden never mentions Israel or Palestinians until AFTER we invaded Iraq this time around.

So they want to take over their part of the world. Regardless of whether we support Israel or not, we're the enemy. They want to rule their part of the world. And WE created them by recruiting and training them - not by some act that offended them.

hell, everyone is the enemy in the middle east

hell, everyone is the enemy in the middle east

except Israel. and except Egypt, who gets over a billion in free arms every year from the US.

Make friends with the US - buy stuff from them with money they give you, and they won't crush your government and bomb your country.

It's great how Israel can sell advanced military technology to china, possess nuclear weapons, and have the pick of all of the new US military technology, but will not tolerate her neighbors buying ordnance for their militaries.

except Israel. and except Egypt, who gets over a billion in free arms every year from the US.

Make friends with the US - buy stuff from them with money they give you, and they won't crush your government and bomb your country.
no, israel is an eenmy too, and egypt is the secret enemy

no, israel is an eenmy too, and egypt is the secret enemy

ah, I see, and sometimes even Americans are enemies of the Americans? hence Ruby Ridge and Waco? Or police bombing and burning a city block in Philadelphia?

the US supported marcos, suharto, pinochet and other violent dictatorships.
israeli agents kidnapped illegally the Mordacai Vanunu who revealed their illegal nuclear weapons program.
etc.
syria is no angel state, but neither is the US, israel, or any country for that matter.
you can list a stack of crimes against just about any reasonable sized nation in the world.
even Australia has had a dark past, the US, the russians, the brits, french, dutch etc all have had dubious actions even last century.

Israel is surrounded by its enemies, enemies that tried to destroy Israel many times and failed, secrecy about almost anything that has to do with weaponery is compulsry, Vanunu has broken the law in Israel and his 'words' were a threat to Israeli national security.
But lets not make it a Vanunu debate now.
Back to the topic:
Israel never attacked another country unprovokly, Israel never started a war, Israel doesnt support any terrorist orginizations, Israel doesnt pose a threat to international security and I cant say the same about Syria.
Israel is a western democracy, Syria is a violent dictatorship.
I wouldnt mind countries like France, England, Japan, etc.. to have whatever weapons they want, but I would mind countries that are controlled by a single man, countries that have proven themselves violent beyond belief, countries that have more then a single army(or militia), countries with no civil rights to posses those weapons.

In 1967, didn't Israel attack Egypt first?

In 1967, didn't Israel attack Egypt first?

The first shot was fired by the Israelis, yes.. but after the signing of the ceasefire after 1956, there were a few issues no country was to break, and if they do.. the other country would see it as a declaration of war.
one of them is to send your entire army to the half-island of Sinai, a place that was declared 'demilitarized zone' by the UN.
Guess which side broke it.

The first shot was fired by the Israelis, yes.. but after the signing of the ceasefire after 1956, there were a few issues no country was to break, and if they do.. the other country would see it as a declaration of war.
one of them is to send your entire army to the half-island of Sinai, a place that was declared 'demilitarized zone' by the UN.
Guess which side broke it.
any side with an army?

hell, no government is stable and just enough to be armed, but they all are anyway, doesnt mean we can go around invading nations solely for the purpose of "disarming the evil bastards"
but when the us decides it is going to be able to invade nations with the actual ability to fight back with its already straining military forces, shit is gonna hit the fan somewhere or other
There's some evidence that they're training people and sending them into Iraq, which very well is an act of war. For that, we could attack.

Addendum - The evidence we have is not conclusive enough to make that declaration, but it's getting there.

You aren't familiar with how al-Q was created, either, are you? Most of its original members and trainers were recruited and trained by.... the US.Al-Queada was created by the US? Yes or no

quit spinning and give a simple answer.

Al-Queada was created by the US? :confused:

Bin Laden, and nearly all of his jihadi buddies, were recruited and trained in the 1980s to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Ironic, no?

Bin Laden, and nearly all of his jihadi buddies, were recruited and trained in the 1980s to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Ironic, no?
Al-Queada was created by the US? Yes or no

quit spinning and give a simple answer.

Al-Queada was created by the US? Yes or no

quit spinning and give a simple answer.

No, it was created by Bin Laden (as an organization). But yes, all the originals were grouped together and trained by the US.

No spin there.

They finished in Afghanistan (a problem created by the Soviets, as you will recall). Proud of their success, and free of their employer (the CIA), they went in search of new victories.

So they turned on the US because the US had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, and they declared war on the Saudi royal family for allowing that to happen.

So it had nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians. And problems in Palestine aren't creating new Al-Qaedas. You have to train people to do that sort of thing. It's expensive, and time consuming.

Nowadays, the only place a young jihadi can go for experience (through combat, not training like they did in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan) is Iraq. That presupposes that you survive.

Right now, combat deaths between insurgents and US forces seems to be around 20 to 40 insurgents dead for every American killed or wounded.

Depending on the breaks, of course. At that rate, you're going to run out of insurgents pretty quickly.

If you read your history, you'll find that VC attacks subsided substantially after the Tet Offensive (when Cronkite held forth that the war was unwinnable). The South fell only after a) the US left, and b) the North brought its own army south. The VC were not capable of winning a victory on the ground.

There isn't a comparable military force on the side of the insurgents in Iraq. Nor does the US seem to be of a mind that the war is unwinnable at this point. It may be noted that most people think the war on Iraq was not being run properly - but Bush was re-elected. If you consider that Kerry's plan was to retreat at once, people must have thought that was the wrong idea as well.

I think the American people want the war to be far more violent to the insurgents. Hence, the change in tactics where we surround Fallujah, and instead of talking and retreating, we kill a lot of people.

Under circumstances like that, an insurgency may very well fail. Especially without substantial aid from the outside (as the VC received) and a major army on their side (like the North Vietnamese Army).

This is a good thing. Anything to keep our government from expanding our ground presence in the middle east.

This is a good thing. Anything to keep our government from expanding our ground presence in the middle east.

The problem Vittos, is that it might take 50 years.

Do you ever read anything Bin Laden puts out? 911 had NOTHING to do with Israel.maybe I should link transcrips of his Blockbuster Video.

No, it was created by Bin Laden (as an organization). But yes, all the originals were grouped together and trained by the US.

No spin there.
Not Bin Laden, for one...

I GTG,

BTW... debating VS JohnnyBrowni is kinda...refreshing, he has a lot of knowledge(for a NeoCon:)) and good debating skills.

cYa all later...

No, it was created by Bin Laden (as an organization). But yes, all the originals were grouped together and trained by the US.

No spin there.

They finished in Afghanistan (a problem created by the Soviets, as you will recall). Proud of their success, and free of their employer (the CIA), they went in search of new victories.

So they turned on the US because the US had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, and they declared war on the Saudi royal family for allowing that to happen.

So it had nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians. And problems in Palestine aren't creating new Al-Qaedas. You have to train people to do that sort of thing. It's expensive, and time consuming.

Nowadays, the only place a young jihadi can go for experience (through combat, not training like they did in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan) is Iraq. That presupposes that you survive.

Right now, combat deaths between insurgents and US forces seems to be around 20 to 40 insurgents dead for every American killed or wounded.

Depending on the breaks, of course. At that rate, you're going to run out of insurgents pretty quickly.

If you read your history, you'll find that VC attacks subsided substantially after the Tet Offensive (when Cronkite held forth that the war was unwinnable). The South fell only after a) the US left, and b) the North brought its own army south. The VC were not capable of winning a victory on the ground.

There isn't a comparable military force on the side of the insurgents in Iraq. Nor does the US seem to be of a mind that the war is unwinnable at this point. It may be noted that most people think the war on Iraq was not being run properly - but Bush was re-elected. If you consider that Kerry's plan was to retreat at once, people must have thought that was the wrong idea as well.

I think the American people want the war to be far more violent to the insurgents. Hence, the change in tactics where we surround Fallujah, and instead of talking and retreating, we kill a lot of people.

Under circumstances like that, an insurgency may very well fail. Especially without substantial aid from the outside (as the VC received) and a major army on their side (like the North Vietnamese Army).

I've got no Idea what you are talking about saying that Osama isn't pissed about Israel, he is always talking about liberating Jeruselum. Hamas doesn't let Al-Quaeda into the occupied territories becasue it is their policy to only launch attacks against Israeli targets, and has no interest in a global Jihad against the West. Sure he hates the Saudi's but he doesn't exactly take a neutral stance with respect to Israel

I am quite sceptical of your claim that 20-40 insurgents are killed for every american killed or wounded. Look at the stats, there are 1,500 dead coalition troops and 10,000 wounded (http://icasualties.org/oif/) that would mean a minimum of 200,000 dead insurgents?

Most of the casualties seem to be inflicted by setting off bombs remotely rather than massive swarms of fighters attacking in waves or anything like that. And Iraq's society is extremely young, with a huge pecentage of its population under 20 which means plenty of replacements for the fallen insurgents.

Israel is surrounded by its enemies, enemies that tried to destroy Israel many times and failed, secrecy about almost anything that has to do with weaponery is compulsry, Vanunu has broken the law in Israel and his 'words' were a threat to Israeli national security.
But lets not make it a Vanunu debate now.
Back to the topic:
Israel never attacked another country unprovokly, Israel never started a war, Israel doesnt support any terrorist orginizations, Israel doesnt pose a threat to international security and I cant say the same about Syria.
Israel is a western democracy, Syria is a violent dictatorship.
I wouldnt mind countries like France, England, Japan, etc.. to have whatever weapons they want, but I would mind countries that are controlled by a single man, countries that have proven themselves violent beyond belief, countries that have more then a single army(or militia), countries with no civil rights to posses those weapons.


FFS israel didn't exist for about 2,000 years until the UN created to assauge its guilt of the crimes of the nazi scum after ww2.

the early jews in the palastinian state were basically terrorists such as the Stern Gang who committed atrocities.

etc etc.

I am not going to list the crimes of israel, any more than I am going to list the crimes of the palastinians.

I would rather Israel was never created, but since it has been I believe the israelis have a right to be there, and that they should treat the palastinians with respect and end their intrustions, assassinations and crimes against the palastinian people, similarly I believe the palastinians should stop their terror attacks and end their crimes against the jewish people.

we aren't going to see that for a few years or even generations, both sides are acting and have acted deplorably.

if you either a person who believes the jews should be wiped out or that the palastinians should be wiped then I have no time for you.

As for Nuclear weapons, Pakistan has nukes, the white apartheid RSA govt had nukes, the israelis have nukes, the georgians have nukes, the russians have nukes, the indians have nukes, the chinese have nukes, none of the countries are or have been particularly savoury.

the fact is the first country to abuse nuclear weapons will have the other 199 o 198 nations of the world vap them.

that includes the US. the first nation to abuse nuclear weapons, will have the combined weight of the nations against them.

i syria, iraq, iran, israel, pakistan deployed a nuke or anyone else, then the weight of the world will anhilate them.

similarly the hunt for OBL is the terror networks has slipped in world priorities, but if OBL got a nuke or deployed a nuke, then he would be history, he would be hunted without mercy across the world to his utter demise.

At the moment there is sympathy of OBL and for the iraqi resistance and others from various quarters, the coalition of the willing is half hearted at best, and morale amongst brit and US troops is average to poor (though not as critical as say vietnam), if OBL got a nuke or if syriya deployed a Nuke against israel or anyone else, then they would face 1 or 2 million troops as china, russia, the USA, france, germany, japan and the UK would hunt them without mercy.

so i don't really care if syria gets a nuke (not that it has the capacity to do so),

North Korea has maybe three to six devises but if it used one, consider North Korea anhilated.

FFS israel didn't ...Good stuff, all of it.

you should be hired as an Gov adviser.

better than the morons they have these days.

I've got no Idea what you are talking about saying that Osama isn't pissed about Israel, he is always talking about liberating Jeruselum. Hamas doesn't let Al-Quaeda into the occupied territories becasue it is there policy to only launch attacks against Israeli targets, and has no interest in a global Jihad against the West. Sure he hates the Saudi's but he doesn't exactly take a neutral stance with respect to Israel

I am quite sceptical of your claim that 20-40 insurgents are killed for every american killed or wounded. Look at the stats, there are 15000 dead coalition troops and 10,000 wounded (http://icasualties.org/oif/) that would mean a minimum of 200,000 dead insurgents?

Most of the casualties seem to be inflicted by setting off bombs remotely rather than massive swarms of fighters attacking in waves or anything like that. And Iraq's society is extremely young, with a huge pecentage of its population under 20 which means plenty of replacements for the fallen insurgents.


they tried open conflict on at least 3 occassions.

the original iraq army was anhilated bu the USAF, including the use off (estimated on three occassionas?) the big blue or the daisy cutter which it is estimated to have wiped out somewhere in the vicinty of a brigade strength unit at each occassion.

the uprising of the mehdi army being about 20k to 40k mainly shi'ites. THis was crushed in several cities with the US army suffering minimal losses and the mehdi army losing several thousand troops. Guys with ak47's and RPGs and no armour and minimal training against marines, and regular army with armour was never going to succeed. the mehdi army is still there, and committing acts of subversion against the US army and occupying forces, but cannot compete with the technology of the US forces. They may hate the US forces, but are totally outclassed and outgunned.

the fallujah uprising by mainly sunni resistance fighters was crushed again by superior technology. there was nothing they could do against helicopter gunships 155mm howitzers and tank fire.

they may have gunned a few troops down, but they suffered losses in the thousands.

the problem with the long term viability of al qaeda is many of those joining al qaeda have no moral or religious support for their ideals however much like anti fascist movemetns in spain against Franco, they are joining as a method of fighting the occupying forces.

so while al qaeda may number in the thousands atm and other anti US forces may total in the hundreds of thousands, they are as much at loggerheads with each as they are with the US.

shi'tes don't trust sunnis, the various ayatollahs don't trust each other, the al qaeda guys are disliked by the sunni's and the shi'ites to a large degree etc.

(Ie guys were joining the communist part to fight franco and hitler, but were idealogicaly against communism).

I suspect if the iraqi's ever win freedom from US occupation the alqaeda movement will suffer massive losses in numbers, support, backing and will go back to being a scumbag borderline psychotic bunch of freaks at the edge of society, rather than a semi maintstreem terrorist organisations.

its interesting that the CIA predicted this would happen if the US invaded iraq.

Bin Laden and Al Qeada are fundamentally in tune to all the demands of fundamentalist Islam, there are a lot if issues in that chest.

On Iraq, it'll get worse. You all may have noticed the long string of wrong predictions coming from our neocon brethren concerning Iraq, and I can assure them they are just as wrong now.

The insurgency has grown from a few battalions of Fedayeen Saddam into a major guerilla army the size of the occupational forces. What's worse Bush actually let them have a few hundred metric tons of nuclear weapons grade high explosives. Not to mention thousand of tons of high explosive munitions. It was all allowed to slip into the hands of the insurgency because US forces were only concerned with finding WMDs to justify the war.

So there we are today facing a massive army mining and bobby trapping the crap out if us and any Iraqi we get to help us. All the while they watch us and our tactics and improvise new attacks. Yes we took Fallujah to loose other areas, and as soon as we pull out of Fallujah we will loose it again.

The comparison with Vietnam has been made, but it is false. At least somebody actually liked us in Vietnam. Everybody in Iraq wants us gone, some just a little more and sooner than others.

Bin Laden, and nearly all of his jihadi buddies, were recruited and trained in the 1980s to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Ironic, no?
I missed this one.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/07/wbin07.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/10/07/ixhome.html


Q: The CIA says there was a relationship with you during the Afghan-Soviet war.
[OBL talks about the previous question]
Q: Going back to the previous question of you and the CIA and American support for the war against the Soviets . . .

OBL : This is misinformation by the Americans. Every Muslim the minute he can start differentiating, carries hate towards Americans, Jews and Christians, this is part of our ideology.

Ever since I can recall I felt at war with the Americans and had feelings of animosity and hate towards them. So what they say happened between them and myself is out of the question.

It is only because the Americans were occupying the region that they threatened to use military force should the Soviets conduct such an intervention. So the Americans would be lying if they claim they had supported us. We challenge them to provide evidence supporting such claims.

They were a burden on us and on the mujahideen in Afghanistan, for we were performing our obligations in protecting Islam in Afghanistan even though this obligation of ours was at times serving, though without our consent, interests of America.

When the interests of two sides coincide at times, this does not amount to co-operation. We regard them with animosity and there are statements going far back with us calling for a boycott of American products, and even the necessity to attack American forces and America's economy. This goes back for over 12 years now.

they tried open conflict on at least 3 occassions.

the original iraq army was anhilated bu the USAF, including the use off (estimated on three occassionas?) the big blue or the daisy cutter which it is estimated to have wiped out somewhere in the vicinty of a brigade strength unit at each occassion.

the uprising of the mehdi army being about 20k to 40k mainly shi'ites. THis was crushed in several cities with the US army suffering minimal losses and the mehdi army losing several thousand troops. Guys with ak47's and RPGs and no armour and minimal training against marines, and regular army with armour was never going to succeed. the mehdi army is still there, and committing acts of subversion against the US army and occupying forces, but cannot compete with the technology of the US forces. They may hate the US forces, but are totally outclassed and outgunned.

the fallujah uprising by mainly sunni resistance fighters was crushed again by superior technology. there was nothing they could do against helicopter gunships 155mm howitzers and tank fire.

they may have gunned a few troops down, but they suffered losses in the thousands.

the problem with the long term viability of al qaeda is many of those joining al qaeda have no moral or religious support for their ideals however much like anti fascist movemetns in spain against Franco, they are joining as a method of fighting the occupying forces.

so while al qaeda may number in the thousands atm and other anti US forces may total in the hundreds of thousands, they are as much at loggerheads with each as they are with the US.

shi'tes don't trust sunnis, the various ayatollahs don't trust each other, the al qaeda guys are disliked by the sunni's and the shi'ites to a large degree etc.

(Ie guys were joining the communist part to fight franco and hitler, but were idealogicaly against communism).

I suspect if the iraqi's ever win freedom from US occupation the alqaeda movement will suffer massive losses in numbers, support, backing and will go back to being a scumbag borderline psychotic bunch of freaks at the edge of society, rather than a semi maintstreem terrorist organisations.

its interesting that the CIA predicted this would happen if the US invaded iraq.

I still don’t know if I believe you on Iraqi casualties here. It was my impression that the US was trying to avoid massive casualties in Iraq, unlike its treatment of the Taliban. Lots of news coverage showed Iraqi army member just discarding their weapons and standing by doing nothing while the US army raced towards Baghdad. The regular army for the most part were just regular guys who would grab an Ak-47 off the shelf and would show up for duty when they were called out. While crazy ol’ Sadam put his “elite” republican guard around Baghdad to get annihilated, the rest of the army was pretty much left alone. I even read some reports that Iraqi commanders were telling their men to leave their tanks and vehicles so they wouldn’t be killed when they were eventually bombed. Maybe your reports of America Daisycuttering Iraqi troop formations is correct, I don’t know.

While Muqtada al-Sadr and his Shi’ite fanatics seem to get pretty badly crushed every time they have an uprising, the Sunnis nationalists seem to know what they are doing. When the US “liberated” Falluja this past November, they claimed to have killed like 1,600 or 1,700 insurgents but in that month alone the US suffered 137 servicemen killed and well over 1,000 wounded, the bulk of which were lost in or around Falluja. Furthermore, it seems like most of the insurgents simply left Falluja before the whole invasion even began, as shown by the chaos that erupted in Mosul in the days following the liberation. Even Baghdad is pretty crazy these days, in the past few days alone, the Governor of Baghdad and the chief of police have been assassinated. It doesn’t seem as if the insurgency is in any danger of dying out.

As for the Shi’ites despite their crappy fighting skills and the hype about them joining in the elections, all of them simply haven’t accepted US invasion. Sadr City with its 3 million or so Shi’ites has apparently become largely a “liberated zone” as in free from Americans, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA12Ak02.html

Furthermore it looks now like a lot of parties and groups are boycotting the elections, so far 53 parties are refusing to participate, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-01/13/content_2454796.htm so it doesn’t look as if the insurgency will die out the moment that an election occurs.