Alright so 'Israel has a right to defend itself'. Fine. What if they LOSE?

[matcom]

it's a war. fine.

what if they lose? what if they push it too far and are taken over by the Arabs and occupied? forced to surrender to their new leaders?

TOTALLY hypothetical (and i realize 'Murica would intervene long before then; with WHAT i have no idea thanks to Iraq) but you see where i'm going here.

they lose the war. the country has Arab leaders. will you accept it as a loss? accept their downfall? afterall, SOMEONE has to "lose" on the field no?

[KingFlorez]

1. Good question

[leftchick]

2. it will never happen

the nukes would come out way before that ever happens. Both US and Israeli nukes.

:nuke:

[Ian David]

12. What if Israel is bluffing about having nukes?

What if Israel's "nuclear missiles" are just "Davidka Mortars" to keep their enemies too frightened to go all-out against them?

Did you ever see the movie, "Cast a Giant Shadow?"




See:

<snip>

DAVIDKA MORTAR
http://www.davidpride.com/Israel/Givati_07.htm

The Davidka mortar is obviously not an airplane dropping a bottle, but
my point here is that Israel was defintely open to creating at least
one weapon that cause more fear that it did harm - much like the
bottle tactic you are talking about.

There is no definitive proof that the Israeli’s dropped bottles on the
enemy to simulate the whistle of falling bombs, but true or not the
legendary tactic has been discussed a bit for many years. Usually
among those who, like yourself, only heard the story but don’t know if
it really happened either.

PHILIPPINE DEFENSE FORUM (cached)
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:3ueem7023h4J:timawa.net/forum/viewtopic.php%3Ft%3D383%26sid%3D7cf659a2517290aee76ad1f48e2958a9+israel+%22dropped+bottles%22&hl=en


Did something happen to make people think the tactic actually took
place? Yes indeed. As best I can tell, the legend of the falling
bottles can be traced to the source of many of life’s mysteries –
Hollywood.

The story dates back to a movie entitled ‘CAST A GIANT SHADOW’ (1966)
starring Kirk Douglas, Yul Brynner, John Wayne, Frank Sinatra, and
directed by Melville Shavelson. In the movie Israel barely survives
thanks only to the sheer ingenuity of its handful of pilots. At one
point the meager three-Cessna air force is reduced to throwing large
seltzer bottles as bombs to make the enemy believe it still had some
ammunition.

JEWISH MOVIES
http://www.cinerhama.com/jewish/jm01.html

INTERNET MOVIE DATABASE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060218/

What we appear to have here is a case of art imitating life rather
than historical fact.

More:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=528522

[leftchick]

22. then the US will nuke for them

I have no doubt they will with this neo-freak crew in charge.

[Ian David]

25. Nukes will contaminate their precious oil. n/t

Welcome to my ignore list.



The little Hammas kids... they blow-up-- I mean, GROW-up-- so fast!


Baby bomber picture sparks new war of words
By Inigo Gilmore in Jerusalem
(Filed: 29/06/2002)

A furious row has erupted between the Israelis and Palestinians over the release by the Israeli army of a startling photograph showing a Palestinian five-month-old child dressed up as a suicide bomber.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/06/29/wmid29.xml

[Critters2]

3. Thanks to your tax dollars,

Israel has FAR more military might than its neighbors combined. No way Israel will lose.

[matcom]

6. right

no WAY political assinations would EVER take place, spinning the gov't out of control, destroying their financial infastructure, etc...etc...etc...

i trained with the Israelies and agree they are 100000% capable but blow up their gov't infastructure, cripple their financial markets and ANY country can 'lose'

[Eureka]

42. There is no way they would loose

I mean, they're so much better advanced than their enemies!

If it were possible for the poorly equipped Arab states to beat well equipped Isreal. If that were possible, we would have seen it occur in history.

(in lieu of sarcasm icon)
The British got belted in Afghanistan
The Russians got belted in Afghanistan
The Korean War is still not over
The Vietnam conflict didn't turn out so well either
The Taliban still holds towns in Afghanistan
Iraq?
Chechnya?

So IMHO no matter which side of the fence you are on, there is a possibility that the Matcom Theory could come true. Just being militarily superior at the start isn't enough. Assuming there is no way you (not Matcom) can loose is a great way to prove yourself (not Matcom) wrong.

[Bobbieo]

14. 'Sposin both Israel and America lose?

It can happen!!!!

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Then we will get to see the Holocaust 2.

I am sure it will get the same reaction it got the first time.

[Balbus]

8. And on a much larger scale.

And when I say larger scale, I mean the holocaust. The reaction would be about the same if that.

[Truthiness Inspector]

13. Exactly

And no one here has to take our word for it either. Hezbollah, Hamas, Ahmadinejad, etc have said so themselves.

[burythehatchet]

18. It is when I see comments such as this

***Message deleted because it simply isn't worth it***

[Just Me]

28. Hmmm,....do all genocides qualify as holocausts?

Just curious?

[Behind the Aegis]

29. I don't know.

Since that word is "problematic," how about we'd see "the Jewish Genocide 2." Better?

[Just Me]

31. No. Answer my question. On second thought, answer this:

Is any genocidal activities more important than others? If so, why?

[Behind the Aegis]

32. I did answer your question!

No. Why, do you think so? Do think it is diminishing one to claim it is not the only one?

[Just Me]

36. Yes. Perhaps, you did,...showing preference of value of,...

,...human life.

My mistake for missing that,...preference.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. What in the Hell are you talking about?!

[Posteritatis]

41. I think he thinks Israel's currently commiting genocide or something. (nt)

[Behind the Aegis]

44. Gotcha!

I appreciate the "translation," because he wasn't making a lick of sense.

[Just Me]

45. In REVENGE for three kidnapped soldiers, total destruction,...

,...of a nation on one side,...of people on the other.

Somehow, you CONCEIVE Israel's actions as, what? What?

"Defense"? WTF is your perception of justice?

It's fucking MADNESS!!!!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. NOT just three soldiers! 1000 bombs were lobbed over the blue line.

and in Gaza! Damn. I wonder if the US would wait to see what happens after 1000 bombs were dropped over the Mexican or Canadian border??! Geezus. It IS FUCKING MADNESS!!!!! Hezbollah and Hamas need to stop with the damn terrorism!

[Just Me]

51. You deny the comparative casualties and the deaths, COMPLETELY!

Why? You deny the facts. Why?

You tell me what "terrorism" means to you? Have you looked at our government's own definition? Both Israel and the U.S. fall squarely within our own government's definition of terrorism: killing innocent citizens for a political purpose/agenda.

Hell, per our own definition,...we are the greatest terrorists on the face of the earth!!!

[Just Me]

64. Why do you assume "Just Me" is a "he"?

Just curious.

[Posteritatis]

75. Don't bitch at me about the English language's limitations. (nt)

[Just Me]

76. ROTFLMAO!!!!

:rofl:

[Just Me]

30. Second question: why not give Israelis Texas and New Mexico?

They'd be far safer there, wouldn't they?

Just,...free-flowing thoughts about how to bring about peace. No need to answer.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Why not do the same for the Palestinians?

:eyes:

[Just Me]

37. Because we don't GIVE them billions in support.

I figure, economically speaking, we'd save a LOT of money giving the Israelis saafe haven, HERE.

Yes?

[Behind the Aegis]

40. But if we relocate the Palestinians...

...we won't have to give the Israelis as much money.

[Just Me]

47. I believe it's obvious that, justice isn't equal in your "world".

It appears from your posts that you are so LOYAL to one set of people that the rest of us really don't matter,....worse, we are "enemies" just because we think in terms of ALL people rather than the ones to whom you commit.

See. THAT kind of loyalty is precisely what takes "peace" and tears it into pieces. But, maybe, that's what some people want,....to tear peace into pieces because it ALWAYS leads to profits to the profiteers.

[Behind the Aegis]

67. And it's obvious, justice has no place in your "world."

If it did, you'd never suggested the ethnic cleansing of Jews.

[Just Me]

69. Since I never suggested that, you are waging a lie against me.

Will you go to hell for bearing such false witness?

[Behind the Aegis]

70. Hell....if I believed in one....

Just Me (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-18-06 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
30. Second question: why not give Israelis Texas and New Mexico?
They'd be far safer there, wouldn't they?

Just,...free-flowing thoughts about how to bring about peace. No need to answer.


Sounds like ethnic cleansing to me.

[JerseygirlCT]

55. Sad, but perhaps true. nt

[liberalpragmatist]

5. Define a loss

Israel isn't going anywhere; it has an army that is more powerful than every Arab army combined.

But it could lose by making the situation on its northern borders, on the Syrian border, and in the Palestinian territories even worse. Moderates have been completely sidelined in Gaza and the West Bank; Hezbollah might well emerge the most powerful faction in Lebanon. If they dare attack Syria, and Assad falls, what comes next? They could well find the neighborhood even WORSE.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. The deck has been stacked so that this could never happen

A very thought provoking question, however.

[Just Me]

9. Practically speaking, they are already losing,....

,...the support (eg "hearts and minds") of the world, just like us. We are increasingly viewed as a scorch on the earth.

We're not being helpful, preventive, diplomatic, fair, just or anything like that. We are being bullies, misusing our strength over the weak to profit, to get what we please.

We are being immoral, unethical, criminal.

[Master Mahon]

10. What is lebanon and palestine

going to beat them silly with their fallafels??

Isreal and America, even with their military might, are sealing their own fate. The US will collapse like the USSR from War spending into complete bankruptcy. When that happens, we'll no longer be able to arm Israel and she'll be on her own.

[don954]

11. well, if Israel gets too backed into a corner

they have nukes..

[matcom]

16. your government claims so do the 'Terraists'

yes i realize the irony

[Master Mahon]

19. The 'Massada Complex'

If Israel is ever 'backed into a corner' where they lose their statehood,
They'll blow themselves up (Nukes) and take everyone else with them.

I heard this explained by Menachim Begin (sp) years back.

[tocqueville]

27. the historical reality of Massada is dubious.

Even if it happened it was a separate history with a local sect and not very representative. The Jewish nation in a modern sense didn't exist. The central Jewish Kingdoms had already been eradicated or coerced.

[The Stranger]

15. Try to stay with us here -- in reality. Or somewhere close.

George W. Bush would like to join Mensa, I'm sure. But we live here in reality.

Got it?

[matcom]

17. you completely miss the point

but that's typical

[tocqueville]

20. Israel is bound to lose in the long run

unless they settle land for peace through real negotiations with their neighbours.

Nukes aren't a solution, they maybe were in the past decades : the surrounding countries will adapt their military strength and get their own nukes. For example the growing Shiite power has already changed the balance of power and we will see that in the future Iraq.

Besides America and Europe will abandon the hangar carrier Israel when the Saudi wells turn dry.

The only chance for Israel is to go to the negotiation table. And the West should push them in that direction to avoid a major Hezbollah victory in the Arab world.

Right now they have started to dig their own grave. The attack on Lebanon to split out the Hezbollah out of the rest of the Lebanese poulation is a serious miscaculation. This time not even the Christians will back them up.

Times have changed, and the Arab street is too angry and humiliated. They are driven into a "nothing to lose" situation and that is extremely dangerous.

And Israel was at war with Lebanon previously. What happened ? they ended up into an Iraq situation. They packed and went home. And most Israeli know that. You cannot win a war only with an air war, only cause damage. It didn't work in Vietnam, not in Iraq. It worked in Kosovo, because Milosevic was completely isolated and because the Russians stopped to back him politically. It is an exception.

[LaurenG]

21. I think if it got to that point

The nukes would fly and then we'd all lose.

*I no likey the thought*:shrug: :cry:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laotra]

46. I support Hezbollah and Hamas

I support their social work, building hospitals, schools, feeding the hungry, etc. I support every step they take towards peace, however small, I support their demands when I consider them just, I support people's right to elect them, just like I support Israeli peoples right to elect their own war criminals like Sharon and Olmert, right or wrong. I support democracy.

I don't support violence and oppression and fear mongering, even though I can understand the reasons for it, on all sides, without getting hysterical about the way of the world. I support peace and dialogue, between all sides. I support Geneva Accord and Arab Peace Initiative and giving people chance to vote over them in referendum.

I don't support black and white thinking and over-simplification.

[Just Me]

49. Must be specific about support of their humanitarian service,...

,...otherwise, you are a "terrorist supporter" per the pro-western activists for destruction and violence.

If you're being real, you'd state, "Hezbollah and Hamas have fought for the people being oppressed."

Otherwise, you're just throwing in a Rove-like wedge into what could be a democratic discussion about what is REALLY happening.

DO FACTS. FUCK RHETORIC!!!

Get it? Got it?

[Laotra]

56. I'm not real

I'm a philosopher! :) - and a terrorist supporter, of course! :evilfrown: :hippie:

But since you ask, OK:
Hezbollah and Hamas have fought for the people being oppressed!!!

Even though the syntax jams my hermeneutical machine.

"what is REALLY happening"

Yes? What? Since that is the title of one of my favourite poetry collections from the 60's, I must unswer with another one: "I'm looking over Stalin's head".

>>>Get it? Got it?<<<

Ummm... nope?

[Just Me]

68. No. I,...don't "get it". Please, share your worldliness.

OH!!! *blush* You were being an,...you were expressing bullshit, just for the hell of it.

I feel sooooo embarassed.

Well, not really.

[Laotra]

74. Bullshit is your interpretation

which I don't share. I genuinely didn't understand what you intended to communicate, but tried to answer anyway.

[cali]

66. Remember Afghanistan

under the Taliban. (And I hope you've actually read what the Taleban instituted in that country). Now imagine Lebanon under H'zbollah. It's not a pretty picture.

[Laotra]

72. You have wrong info

Hizbollah is not Taleban. If Hizbollah is destroyed, the replacement might be. But how is this related to anything I said?

If Lebaneze wan't to elect Hizbollah and follow their leadership, let them. I would not vote them.

[cali]

77. No. you're the one who hasn't

a clue. I've read H'zbollah's charter; that's a primary source. I've also read analysis. H'zbollah is very similar in its goals to the Taleban.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Poll_Blind]

24. Israel would rather launch every single nuclear weapon they have...

...than lose a war like that. And everyone: every American, every Syrian, every Iranian, and certainly every Palestinian knows it. And the Israelis know it too.

The Israelis would launch their nukes rather than lose a conventional war. Because they believe their country has been destroyed if their country does not have a Jewish majority.

PB

[tocqueville]

34. Aimed at what ?

Invading armies on their own territory or att some major Arab capitals ? or both ? In both cases it's suicidal.
Besides the Israeli projection capability is relatively limited. They don't have long range missiles and would depend on US support to allow planes to fly as long as to Teheran. I doubt the US would allow them to nuke Saudi Arabia for example. And Pakistan would have plenty of nukes in reserve for them. Israel cannot sustain a nuclear war, it's just to little.

[bemildred]

38. An excellent question.

Arabs nuking Israel would raise related issues, as half the population there is Arab, and the potential shooters would be downwind. Nukes are not good for much, other then deterring attacks with WMD.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. I Can Provide Links If You Want.

Israel has a nuclear arsenal rumored to be as high as four hundred nuclear weapons.

They have cruise missiles capable of traveling distances of nine hundred thirty miles.

They have submarines that are can be equipped with nuclear weapons.

They own the skies. They would turn the M E into glass...

Oh, you are right Israel's small size guarantees it's destruction in a nuclear exchange but they take a lot of people with them;i.e. the Sampson Option. Like the Biblical Sampson Israel would take a lot of people with them:

SAMSON OPTION"
Seymour M. Hersh, the reporter who broke the story of the U.S. soldiers massacring villagers at Mai Lai in Vietnam, published in 1991 the controversial book The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy. The Biblical Samson, of course, brought down a temple that killed himself and his enemies. According to the namebase.org "The title of Hersh's book comes from Israel's notion that once they have the Bomb, they are in a position to bring it all down on everyone if ever they feel cornered. It's the ultimate in Israeli security as a nation-state, if not for the security of humankind. Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Kissinger and Nixon to airlift supplies during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. .

[tocqueville]

59. see my post below

I still believe that the Israeli nuclear capacity is overrated. Even if they launched everything they had (and could launch) which is not likely the ME would survive despite a horrendous toll. But 5 nukes of let say 150 kt would obliterate Israel forever. Because Israel is a small country with 80% of its population concentrated in few areas. A country like Iran under a mad ayatollah could take the risk of losing one third of its population to achieve the destruction of Israel.

So the Samson option is a myth, but of course it is the kind of myth that Israel want to be kept alive.

[Totallybushed]

26. If they lose, they lose.

They won't, and thank God (or Goddess, if that is your preference). But nobody will go to war to restore them.

That's why they can't afford to lose, and the Palestinians can.

[Beelzebud]

35. I just wonder how many civilians will be murdered before

Israel decides it has "defended" itself enough.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. The Israelis Have Four Hundred Nuclear Warheads

They have missiles that can go 3,000 miles. They have subs that are believed to be equipped with nuclear missiles. They could literally turn the M E into a wasteland before they go down.

I think cooler minds realize this and will work for a peaceful resolution before it gets to that point.

God willing.

[tocqueville]

53. they have more likely 200

A Jericho Missile couldn't reach Teheran. The submarine capacity allows probably only small warheads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Nuclear weapons could be used against major troop concentrations, strategic sites like bases or industries but probably not against urban centers (if not in retaliation for a similar attack).

Nukes are only useful as a deterrent.

And most of the ME is wasteland anyway.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Estimates Are From 200-400 Nuclear Weapons.

"they more likely have 200"

closer to 400

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm



"A Jericho Missile couldn't reach Teheran."

Subsequently, Israel developed the Jericho II, which has some similarities to the U.S. Pershing II. In May 1987 Israel tested an improved version of the Jericho II that flew 800 kilometers. A second test was conducted in September 1988, and a third Jericho II tested in September 1989 reportedly flew 1,300 kilometers. In 1989, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency gave the maximum range of the improved Jericho II as 1,450 kilometers--long enough to reach the southern border of the Soviet Union. Israel vigorously pursued technologies for the missile in the United States and elsewhere, including a terminal guidance system using radar imaging. It is thought that the range has been increased to 1,800 kilometers.



http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=so02norris


The idea that the Israeli Air Force being unable to hit their targets isn't supported by the facts.
The last time Israel had a dogfight with an Arab Air Force they knocked out fifty Syrian MIGS and didn't lose one F-16.

One can infer from that they literally own the skies.


They could literally take the whole Middle East with them and could create a nuclear winter that would be felt for hundreds if not thousands of miles.


You are correct that is not a "deterrent" in the classical sense but it does give the Israelis the ability to take lots of people with them.

[tocqueville]

63. Teheran is at maximum range

and dogfight isn't an answer. The Israeli couldn't reach Iran with bombers without refueling over enemy territory and even less make it back. Their best asset is the submarines, but even their submarines haven't the stealth capacity of nuclear submarines.

My point is that Israel has a THEORETICAL capacity of wasting Arab capitals in its vicinity, but the political win would be zero. This would create a situation where Israel would lose all support, even from traditional allies. And when the nuclear card is played, then you are pretty by yourself. I think that at least a part of the Israeli leadership (both civil and military) is aware of that. So my point is that the main purpose of the Israeli nuclear capacity is to deterr WMDS (there are others) more than to be used as a preemptive weapon or ven a last resort one. Because to arrive to the situation when it is a last resort, a different situation regarding conventional military might must arise in the ME. And Iran (and others) will probably get nukes before that.

[fujiyama]

52. In many ways Israel has already lost

Personally, I feel sympathy for the nation its people because of its short and tortured existence (note, this isn't to say I don't feel sympathy for Palestinian refugees). It has been viewed as a sort of pariah state, and I can only hope that at some point the hatred it receives from the Muslim world will cease. The nation has many virtues and is much freeer than any state surrounding it.

This will require putting behind the bloody partition of the land in the past (and yes, some DUers have to as well - what happened will not be reversed and people must atleast recognize the nation's existence).

But this also requires the Israelis to understand that they will never be the true democracy they claim unless they admit their wrongdoings in the past (they did use terror tactics to drive many Palestinians out) and the right of an independant Palestinian state to exist. As long as the occupations exists, there will be no chance of peace. Sharon's withdrawal of Gaza was a start, but it was not nearly enough.

Now, granted that does nothing to really quiet religious fanatics like Hezbollah, and that's where I go back to my earlier point. Unless the respective surrounding nations stop supporting groups like Hebollah more and more will die. Israel will always do what it feels it needs to defend itself. Its military IS more powerful, capable, and skilled than all those around it.

Until people learn to live in the present, shedding discredited concepts of fanaticism, no peace will be achieved.

[mainegreen]

54. The American Crusade?

Sponsored by the Apocalyptic Right?

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Dude, they've been fighting for their survival for 60 years.

These eventualities have occurred to them before now. If they had lost in '67, there would have been no "occupation" by the other side of Israel proper, like the Israelis occupied the West Bank and Gaza. The Jews would have gone into the sea, or into mass graves. Period.

[Just Me]

65. Are you talking about humanity as a whole or certain sections,....

,...that seek to seperate from humanity, as a "special" lot?

Just curious.

Seriously, this is interesting stuff about how a section of humanity clings to a clan/cult/religion/whatnot in order to FEEL more important than the rest of the lot of human beings. Maybe, the worst weakness of the one race, the human race, among all living beings. Also, CLEARLY, the most destructive lot of living beings.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. Personally, I reject labels. I don't even identify with myself, sometimes.

I'd go by "Earthling", but frankly I think it carries a bad connotation.

But if you want to make a point about the specific subject at hand, I would suggest you stop dancing around the edges and come right out and say what it is you're trying to say.

[Codeine]

58. The Arab forces have lost

time after time after time and they still keep stepping up to bat, why do you think it would be any different for Israel?

[tocqueville]

61. in regular wars yes

but the Israeli haven't solved the Palestinian problem in 60 years.

[ShortnFiery]

62. In WAR, everybody loses. eom

[JackNewtown]

78. America must always protect Israel's existence IMO nm