America's Closest Ally.

**Shamus** · 25 Apr 07, 21:02

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Not that I don't blame you for cheering for your wings, but I just don't see them beating the Sabres or the Sens for that matter, both have far too much scoring talent for the wings to bottle up with their fairly decent defence.

The Sabres do look awfully good,but please,for the time being,leave me alone in my little fantasy world until it comes crashing down.

**execrable** · 26 Apr 07, 10:03

Originally Posted by Bluesman

So the Brits are sacrificing and actually doing the heavy lifting in the War on Terror right alongside of us - but the grumble and ***** the whole way. Aussies aren't making as much of a contribution, but I have a sense they don't resent what they are doing, and wouldn't mind all that much if they were asked to do even more.

Hi Bluesman, please don't take this the wrong way but I would have thought being out there in significant numbers dying and fighting every day alongside American troops was proof enough.

We don't actually have to like being there do we?

What I really don't understand is those who see Israel (the state and NOT the people) as an "ally?" I would have thought Israels ties to the U.S. were more to do with the huge Jewish lobby that argues and pushes for funds to Israel. I don't think Canada, U.K. or Australia get anything back financially from the States. (I know the U.K. benefitted hugely from Lend Lease during WW2)

Being an ally to the richest and most powerful nation has its problems - financial indebtedness (apart from Australia - AU$00000 foreign or government debt owed I believe?) means that all the U.S. relationships with all its allies has far more to it than meets the eye.

**Ray** · 26 Apr 07, 18:03

Bluesman,

One has to also see the numbers one is deploying.

The UK has deployed more than others (except US) and so the probability of getting killed is greater. Hence, the intent to seriously pursue the Iraq War should not be taken lightly.

One could deploy less but be high on rhetoric.

I think having boots on the ground is more important that aggressive public support.

It is not that Australia and others are not doing their bit. They are.

Yet, it does not mean that the UK has not done more than her share also!

**Druze** · 26 Apr 07, 18:50

I realize people say "well we give Israel money so of course they are our friend" but if you polled people on the street in all the above mentioned countries you'd get probably a 95% favorable rating in Israel no matter what the US is into. In Israel they think Bush is not the brightest bulb in the box but they still support the US.

I don't think you'd get that level of support in other countries. Israel is never critical of America.

**Ray** · 26 Apr 07, 19:36

Political compulsion and survival necessity dictates foreign policy as also public statements.

I am sure with the support that the US has given Israel, there should be no grounds for Israel to complain!

**execrable** · 27 Apr 07, 09:34

Originally Posted by Druze

I don't think you'd get that level of support in other countries. Israel is never critical of America.

Druze, please don't think I'm anti Israeli people here but to me there's a BIG difference in an ally that is prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder in battle (even if we complain because we're not all convinced of the reasons for the war) and in real numbers than being an ally who really really likes you.

While there may be problems if Israel deployed troops alongside the U.S. and U.K. in the ME, it shouldn't stop them doing so in other parts of the world.

As Ray puts it - "having boots on the ground is more important that aggressive public support."

**Druze** · 27 Apr 07, 20:27

Originally Posted by execrable

Druze, please don't think I'm anti Israeli people here but to me there's a BIG difference in an ally that is prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder in battle (even if we complain because we're not all convinced of the reasons for the war) and in real numbers than being an ally who really really likes you.

While there may be problems if Israel deployed troops alongside the U.S. and U.K. in the ME, it shouldn't stop them doing so in other parts of the world.

As Ray puts it - "having boots on the ground is more important that aggressive public support."

Surely you know enough about the political situation that bars Israel from fighting alongside American troops. Israel has time and again offered its full support to the US. The problem is as was in Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, is that the First condition to allowing US forces to use those muslim nations as bases is that under no circumstances can Israel be involved

Israel would help the US every time the US asked if it were possible. But obviously Israel can't station 50,000 troops in Pakistan to help in Afghanistan or 50,000 troops in Saudi Arabia to invade Iraq.

You really think Israel refuses to help the US physically by its own accord?

Remember 1991? Israel had Scud missiles launched at it and didn't respond at the US's request. Knowing Israel, you know that Israel doesn't take to kindly to having its nation bombed by another country. How many countries would allow themselves to be bombed and not retaliate at the request of the US?

And if the United States decides to stop being so PC, Israel can put a hell of alot more boots, tanks, and APC's on the ground as well as much more jets in the air then any other close US ally.

**Ray** · 27 Apr 07, 20:40

Druze,

I am sure Israel can put boots on the ground for the US and it is true that Israel cannot be asked to assist in Moslem countries for obvious reason.

There is also another reason why Israel is possibly not asked to assist. if Israel puts 50,000 boots on the ground for the US, then Israel will herself get exposed and play into the hands of the Arabs, who will then attack. Who will be there to defend?

I think if Israel remains a threat in being to the Arabs, it in itself is a great help.

Arabs are just waiting in the wings to Israel weakens itself.

**Druze** · 27 Apr 07, 23:18

Originally Posted by Ray

Druze,

I am sure Israel can put boots on the ground for the US and it is true that Israel cannot be asked to assist in Moslem countries for obvious reason.

There is also another reason why Israel is possibly not asked to assist. if Israel puts 50,000 boots on the ground for the US, then Israel will herself get exposed and play into the hands of the Arabs, who will then attack. Who will be there to defend?

I think if Israel remains a threat in being to the Arabs, it in itself is a great help.

Arabs are just waiting in the wings to Israel weakens itself.

Israel can activate some reserves for a specific mission. Also Israel has no major threat bordering it anymore. Israel can withstand three entire Syrian divisions with its airforce.

Also Israel sending 50,000 troops to help out in Iraq you have to remember that Israel isn't exactly 3,000 miles away from Iraq. Its around the corner. They could drive back to defend Israel if needed.

Israel has over 4,500 tanks, 550 combat jets, 130,000 Active troops and about 600,000 reserves. They also have one of the largest field artillery capacities of any nation. It is arguably the world's third or fourth most powerful nation. And minus nuclear weapons they are probably the third most powerful army.

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Apr 07, 00:02

There is no question that Israel is more than capable of supporting the US. However, the willingness is another matter altogether. I would've loved to see Israeli soldiers in Yugoslavia, East Timor, Rwanda, just about any place where blue berets are wanted.

**Ray** · 28 Apr 07, 07:35

Druze,

War is not a video game.

One must understand the Principle of War - Selection and Maintenance of Aim. You cannot switch as if it were pushing a button to light a bulb and then pushing it again to switch it off.

Also slot the following Principles of War:

Britain and the Commonwealth armies uses 10 principles of war.

Selection and Maintenance of the Aim
Define the end state and ensure that all strategy is directed toward achieving it.

Concentration of Force
Make the best use of military power to achieve the commander's aims by overwhelming the enemy's military capacity.

Economy of Effort
Make efficient use of forces, conserving energy and materiel to prevent unnecessary depletion. Or over ensuring.

Maintenance of Morale
Prevent one's own forces from losing the will to fight.

Offensive Action
Maintain operational tempo by attacking the enemy.

Flexibility
Be able to respond to unexpected changes or attacks and be able to modify one's plans accordingly.

Co-Operation
Ensure that the maritime, land and air components work in unison to achieve the end state.

Security
Prevent the enemy from benefiting from lapses in [operational security at all stages of the military process.

Surprise
Seize the initiative by attacking the enemy when, where and how he least expects it.

Sustainability
Support, fuel and guide forces to maintain operational capability.

Are you aware of the Logistics maze that is required to move troops or even switching troops from one axis to another? Do a staff check. Moving 50,000 or even only a Brigade with combat support and combat service support elements is not as easy as it appears on a forum.

Rumsfeld maybe blamed for sending in a smaller force than what some feel would be required. People forget that it had to be organised and executed before international pressure could build up. And even moving that was a huge logistic nightmare.

Read "The Lifeblood of War (Logistics in Armed Conflict)" authored by Thompson (Brassey Publications).

**beka** · 28 Apr 07, 14:32

Originally Posted by Amled

Should be Canada, is UK by a landslide.

Not necessarily.. There is some feeling by Canadians that the US tends to believe that her interests (American) interests should be Canadian interests....

**Shinsengumi** · 03 May 07, 19:46

Shouldn't South Korea also be up there? Granted they aren't THE closest, but they still are a commendable ally.

**execrable** · 04 May 07, 10:17

Originally Posted by Druze

You really think Israel refuses to help the US physically by its own accord?

Remember 1991? Israel had Scud missiles launched at it and didn't respond at the US's request. Knowing Israel, you know that Israel doesn't take to kindly to having its nation bombed by another country. How many countries would allow themselves to be bombed and not retaliate at the request of the US?

Druze, what Israel did was truly admirable under the circumstances. I think I was saying exactly the same thing as you regarding the Muslim reaction if Israel had forces on the ground in any ME conflict (but thank you for saying it far more eloquently!)

Originally Posted by Druze

And if the United States decides to stop being so PC, Israel can put a hell of alot more boots, tanks, and APC's on the ground as well as much more jets in the air then any other close US ally.

If we're now talking about other theatres of operation (i.e. outside Muslim influence) then I fail to see how Israel might have been put off by U.S. request alone in U.N. operations as listed by Officer of Engineers.

Truth of the matter is whoever is seen as the U.S. closest ally, what does that really mean at the end of the day? We are all merely vassal states to the most powerful Nation (currently) in the world and how much can the leaders of Canada, Australia or the U.K really influence U.S. policy?

To me an ally is more than a "yes-man" (in terms of Nations relating to each other). The thread laughed at suggestions it may be France (check the title out for poll options) and I'd put Germany in there alongside France - they probably have more say over how the U.S. makes foreign policy (by their "refusnik" and obstructionist stance on most things) than those Nations who step side by side with the U.S.

**Ray** · 04 May 07, 19:04

Drize,

Friends that we may be of Israel.

And I have close relatives who are Jews (as Ira knows).

But it will not cloak my appraisal of the events. I would also not be satisfied even with my country not coming up to the mark.

It is only a friend who can be critical, because he cares!

It is time to pull up the socks and there can be no sugar coating about that!

I am sure you will understand.

View Poll Results: Who is the US's closest ally

Thread: America's Closest Ally.

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

America's New Ally, Jacques

Musharraf not a long-term ally of America

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions