kazak

bigross - "America and England fought hard in WWII. Do the Battle of Britian and Normandy ring any bells" - battle of britain was a series of air-battles with something like few thousand casualties if that. Normandy was a small scale fighting as compared to the eastern front, like everything else that was going on in that time. 95% of all fighting in the WW2 was in the eastern front, and 95% of the casualties were there. The fact that you and the officer and ther rest of the bunch here are brainwashed by the US is not my prob. If you dont admit that WW2 was won by Russia, you're not objective, sorry. "America and Britain fought hard"? Oh, right... right.... how funny.

bigross86

Israel pulled out of Lebanon so Barak could try and win the elctions.

As for wars, there are 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1981-82, 1982, 1989, 2000. Independance, Suez, Six-Day, Yom-Kippur, Attrition, Lebanon, Intifadas I, II. That's more than 5 wars right there. Now let's add all the campaings against terrorists and insurgents. Do you think the number will reach over 12?

The Arabs planned to attack in 1967, as many official sources will show. Israel attacked first with decapitation strikes because it was seen as the only way to actually win the war.

Althought now I'm pretty sure we could use the Sinai, back then we returned it for peace. Isn't that what everybody's in it for? The peace?

__________________
You're a naughty girl, go to my room!

Officer of Engineers

Goodbye.

__________________
Chimo

Officer of Engineers

You can't call the Attrition, and Intifadas wars. Attrition was a series of raids with no knock out punch (pitch battle) to decide anything. Intifadas were uprisings and hence, more police action than military (more riots than battle).

ZFBoxcar

Kazak, Canada lost 42,042 soldiers in WWII, the US lost 291,557 in WWII. Canada's casualties were greater than Israeli casualties in all of Israel's wars put togethor. You can talk about percentage of population but lives are lives and Canada only had 12 million people during WWII. You might want to think a little before you talk of "only a few thousands" when Israel has lost "only a few thousand (and FEWER thousands)" in all its wars put togethor. Stop acting like a troll, if you want the definition of a troll, here is is:

You are arguing for the sake of arguing, you whine that other people are dissing your country (which they barely were, grow some thicker skin, bigross and OOE are cool with eachother despite disagreeing) yet you ceaslessly insult other nations in the same area, only worse. So you don't seem to care about hurting other people online. You do not seem to be bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility (you can blame OOE for starting it but he stopped and explained himself and is not being rude). Juts cool it.

kazak

Boxsar -

Was I ever talking about Israel when i posted what i posted about WW2 and the American "role" in it? I was only talking about the casualties and the fighting in the eastern front as compared to the casualties and the fighting in the western front. So why are you getting into this? Who talked about israel?? Is it me or people on this forum are mighty short on paying attention and getting the point? And, I talked about "few thousands" in the *BATTLE OF BRITAIN*. OMG, are you even reading or what? What the mighty omniscient GOD are you talking about? BTW, the USSR losses are about 30+ million as compared to USA 291.000 thousand. That kind of puts you in a prespective, doesnt it? Oh, no, sorry, you're an american (or canadian or whatever), so nothing can put you in a prespective or make you less arrogant or self-righteous, or stop you from yelling patriotic slogans for a while.
Okay, done with the facts. Now to your little philosophical theory in virtual-socilogy. I'm arquing not for the sake of arguing, but because officer of engineers spoke with such childish confidence, with such evident lack of knowledge in Israel's wars, and with such non-professional style, that it amazed me, and got me writing.
I came up with real and valid arguments, which he still havent answered. This is typical. And of course he doesnt plan to answer either. He doesnt let the facts get in his way. And i did it because the things he babbled about were important to me. Yes, i also spoke my mind about what goes on with some americans, and also on this forum. So, that answers your "arguing just for the sake of it".
It is very funny that you should say "yet you ceaslessly insult other nations in the same area, only worse", because i dont remember doing this at all, and even if, just, maybe, as sort of an innocent joke or something, but I WAS NOT trying to disguise my pride and my patriotism as pseudo-professional analysis and pass it for an objective gudgement, like officer of engineers did. And this is what made me so angry.
You say that I "don't seem to care about hurting other people online", but I already explained why I acted like i did, and i didnt hurt anyone without him deserving it, i was just reacting to some sick reasoning and sick attitude.
You add that "you do not seem to be bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility". No, actually i do, but that doesnt say i cant react when i see a disgusting behavior.
You even admit that it is okay to blame the "OOE for starting it". Good, well, if you admit that, why are you blaming me in such a manner like you did? You say "but he stopped and explained himself and is not being rude". He didnt, he didnt explain, and didnt correct himself, i already stressed that. All he did is saying the same things again, in the same crude, rude, self-confident and inflamatory way. With the addition of some more statements of the same sort. He isnt paying attention. This is just his style, no matter what you might want to say, really.
About your scientific definition of "trolls" - you might want to check whether Officer of engineers fits it, or you might refrain from doing so, if you dont want to end up realizing you have a troll for a buddy.
Okay, and now to the most important topic. This forum is full of prejudice, non-objectiveness, of bigotry against the former soviet-block countries, of the familiar good old american pride and hurray-patriotism, of patronizing, of ridiculing, and of haughtiness. If you are preffering or saying something in favor or some non-american system, weapon, or tradition, you get strong and immediate replies that are ment to "get you straight" and show you your grave mistake. These are the rules of the game and these are the standards. And of course small kidds as well as former-officers are playing according to those rules, and no one feels bad about it. When someone tries to direct people's attention to all of this, he is automatically an outsider, an intruder, and is warned. Indeed, americans dont realize they behave in such a way, and when they are told they do, they get mad.
Yes, some people (expecially non-americans) may be used to this attitude and this enveiroment, may indeed develop "thicker skin", as you put it, and are able to put up with this. They are constantly on the defence, and are trying to express and explain themselves, constantly getting the same attitude back (see bigross86 case). Some might also be masochists, or i dont know what.

This forum is an american forum, and americans (along with the canadians) can do whatever they want, but they at least have to stop pretending they are objective and impartial. But they won't, because they themselves dont realize this is what they are doing. So, when someone notices and feels this attitude on his own skin, and then tries to say something about it, he is perceived as a trouble maker, and a "troll", someone that is starting a commotion without a reason. And, of course, the matter doesnt end here. My, what a stir, My, what a commotion! Every one that isn't lazy or at work gets his shot! "He is attacking us without a reason!", "he is trolling", "he is being rude", "he is hurting other people, oh no", "he is dissing and insulting us", "he is a bigot", "he is not socially responsible"! Of course, the realizing of the fact that they are themselves all of this is as far away from them as Alpha Centauri.
This forum is also, apparently, full of friends that "stood firm together shoulder to shoulder against the forces of the Evil Empire" or something and are ready to die and to help each other no matter what one of them is saying or how he behaves himself. Yep, hard to overcome. When this type of arrogance, pride, primeval patriotism and stubbornness won you the Cold War, of course you wont give it up just to make some forum look better.
I visited many forums of many countries, and this one looked as a serious one to me, but i have to say that it didnt take me long to see that it is troubled and infected with many problems in a much more serious way than most of the forums i have seen.
Okay, i will refrain from calling you or the officer names such as "trolls". Or else you will say i'm cursing. I will also refrain from a deeper and more serious social and psychological analysis (which you happen to like very much) of Officer of engineers, and of others here.
Now, I have many more things to say, but i think this is enough for you guys to work on and start developing some complicated ways of demonizing me. Personally, i dont think i will visit this forum anymore, just dont feel like it, for some strange reason.

troung

“The Arabs planned to attack in 1967, as many official sources will show. Israel attacked first with decapitation strikes because it was seen as the only way to actually win the war.”

No it was brinkmanship. And the fact you have to write the word many and not all goes to show your point of view is far from the only one.

And really since 1948 they have fought large scale border wars and not nation ending wars. The Arabs had no plan in 1973 to move on the capital of Israel just to retake some ground kill some guys and then negotiate.

“As for wars, there are 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1981-82, 1982, 1989, 2000. Independance, Suez, Six-Day, Yom-Kippur, Attrition, Lebanon, Intifadas I, II.”

Lebanon would be one war after 1979 and the Intifadas are not wars but police actions. The war of Attrition was not really a war but some border flare ups. And when you think of it that’s a pretty unimpressive list of wars judging by the duration and length and the troops fighting and dying.

Of course it is more then obvious why you would list Israel as some global super power.

Blademaster

What about the 1st Moscow Crack Army? I thought you were mighty impressed by them.

Can you tell me why you think the USA 11th Armoured Calvary Regiment is the best tank force in the world?

Kazak, please don't answer. I couldn't read your posts or even finish reading your first post. It was just gibberish.

Officer of Engineers

I still am but this is apples to oranges comparison. 1MCA is a corps. 11ACR is a bde.

Unbelievable amount of training days and no regards to ammunition usage. When you get to play in the dirt everyday, you're bound to be better than me when I have to sit behind a desk three days of the week.

Anon

The US 11th ACR is the OPFOR at Fort Irwin, NTC.

There is no more well trained, experienced, or motivated mechanized force anywhere in the world.

After facing OPFOR on 3 seperate occasions(before the 11th was assigned to the role, can't remember the old OPFOR unit for the life of me), i can testify firsthand to the ability of the NTC OPFOR to make any unit look extremely foolish.

In 9 tries my unit beat them 4 times(There were 3 engagements per NTC cycle back then- not sure how many there are per cycle nowadays), 3 of those times by the skin of our teeth. The last of the 4 times we kicked their ass because we caught their recon element in a nasty prepared fire ambush and cut it to ribbons.
We won the recon battle big in that one, and the rest of the battle was easy after that. Hit them hard in their flanks with our reinforced tank plt, HW Plt(ITOWs) and 2 Mechanized Companys, line abreast. Being blind they didn't have time to re-orient into a proper defensive posture, and got caught hard on their right flank. Two of their line companies were overrun, as was their HHC and Bn CP.

It was sweet. I had a nice overwatch view for that battle, and really enjoyed the show between calling in simulated Requests for Fire.
From my teams elevated position i was able to determine what direction they'd attempt to break contact, and had a 8 digit grid 30rd 155mm HEQ FFE waiting for them. We called for northward walking fire after that and used the guns to keep them under fire until they finally managed to break contact.

Then the Apaches got the survivors...

In my 9 engagements vs NTC OPFOR my team was personally 'killed' 5 times. My team still maintained an overall NTC kill ratio of about 15:1 though.

There was an incident where we got REAL close to an OPFOR FARP and shot the **** out of their helo pilots and support troops. That skewed our all time overall NTC kill ratio big time. That was the only time in my whole career i actually emptied an entire magazine from my M-21 in one engagement.

Ray

While its OK for discussions sake that which is the best, yet one must understand that the parametres are not the same for each war fought. There are so many inputs that have to be considered, it would be wrong to say A is better than B.

Recently, the USAF and the InAF had an exercise and the US Air Force admitted that the skill of the In AF was better. Yet, I wonder what will happen if you take the sustaining power to fight a war. The Indians may never match that of the US in resources and technology. Therefore, all this is just to give a feel good feeling even if the skills of the InAF is superior.

In 1965, Pakistan had the best tank in the world - the Patton vs Indian Centurions (British) and T 55s. Yet, they left behind tank graveyards!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

bigross86

First of all, wars aren't supposed to be impressive. Second of all, even without the War of Attrition and the Intifadas, that still leaves a large amount of international wars, which proportionally is alot more than most countries have ever had.

And I don't think for the life of me that they are a global superpower, but they are THE Regional Superpower.

Officer of Engineers

BR,

Most countries on earth saw twice as many wars as Israel did. You forget that a hell of alot of countries are over 300 years old and you fight alot of wars in that time.

However, I do agree that Israel is the dominant regional power though superpower is overstating it. Superpowerdom implies you can stop the US in your region.

bigross86

Fighting twice as many wars in six times the amount of time you've been around means that proportionally, Israel still has fought more.

According to www.Dictionary.com, the defintion of Superpower is as follows:

su·per·pow·er

1: A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc.

2: A state powerful enough to influence events throughout the world.

I think both definitions fit, even though The second fits better then the first

Praxus

The US has a special title, "HYPER-POWER"

lol