Hamas: We won't negotiate peace with Israel

[S2]

bigross86 Reply

"S-2, could you possibly conceive a situation where Israel would be given carte blanche for total war?"

Only a scenario where Israel's survival is at stake by a host of accumulated enemies. Even then I'm unsure.

The question is whether Israel has the independant means to conduct war as they see necessary. I don't believe so. So long as they're reliant upon America for a portion of their defense requirements and to provide political cover, Israel will likely be vulnerable to some level of American leverage.

[Parihaka]

Businesses in US have hired contractors in Pakistan, and given them access to systems and information that can cause trouble if it abused. When I work with these contractors I get the distinct impression that they do not like the American people at all, and they dislike Israeli contractors even more - even when the contractors are working for an Israeli company and aren't Israelis themselves. When someone on my team acts this way, I am concerned about their access to critical systems which could impact the company or the customers.

SA - Systems Administrators --IT professionals who have full access to the systems they support.

I'm astonished that any company beyond owner/operator allowed anyone outside the company root permissions let alone foreign contractors.

[USSWisconsin]

"When someone on my team acts this way, I am concerned about their access to critical systems which could impact the company or the customers."

I understand. Does your employer understand the risk? If not, is the management leadership approachable or would you jeopardize your position bringing such a concern before them?

Your perception of Pakistanis is astute. It's an unusual Pakistani who hasn't bought into our supposed perfidy. It's my sense that they'd very much like to see us suffer grievously.

Further, virtually all Pakistanis view the PRC as their "all-weather" friend. Now, the tangible evidence of such hasn't nor isn't there yet it's a perception the Chinese are happy to promote. In point of fact I suspect the Pakistanis would view any challenger to American dominance as a potential saviour.

My employer understands, the customer company has hired these contractors - and my company is expected to and does cooperate with them to support the customer company. I work with a lot of Indian, Israeli and American people, who have mentioned similar concerns. It is a delicate line to straddle when the idea of racism or nationalism is hanging in the foreground in a PC conscious environment. A negative attitude is often hard to document or prove, and the excuse of language barriers can always be used - "oh they didn't understand you..." So for now I have spoken about it to the people above me, and need to be quiet now.

[USSWisconsin]

I'm astonished that any company beyond owner/operator allowed anyone outside the company root permissions let alone foreign contractors.

Me too

[S2]

USSWisconsin Reply

"It is a delicate line to straddle when the idea of racism or nationalism is hanging in the foreground in a PC conscious environment. A negative attitude is often hard to document or prove, and the excuse of language barriers can always be used - "oh they didn't understand you..." So for now I have spoken about it to the people above me, and need to be quiet now."

Understand completely. Thanks.

[omon]

Businesses in US have hired contractors in Pakistan, and given them access to systems and information that can cause trouble if it is abused. When I work with these contractors I get the distinct impression that they do not like the American people at all, and they dislike Israeli contractors even more - even when the contractors are working for an Israeli company and aren't Israelis themselves. When someone on my team acts this way, I am concerned about their access to critical systems which could impact the company or the customers.

SA - Systems Administrators --IT professionals who have full access to the systems they support.

a crazy idea, the company's true purpose, is let Pakistani see exactly what "they" want them to see, making it look like 100% legit company, even to its employees.

[S2]

Omon Reply

"a crazy idea, the company's true purpose, is let Pakistani see exactly what "they" want them to see..."

Omon, it is crazy. Companies operate under the premise of showing their share-holders (if publically held) or owners a profit. Net present value must drive investment criteria.

Companies also operate under tremendous pressures to find and attract capital investment. Controlling costs is a major consideration to both NPV and attracting capital investment. Few companies in this tight (or, frankly, any) operating environment can afford to create shell companies whose purpose is leaving false trails.

[Officer of Engineers]

S-2, could you possibly conceive a situation where Israel would be given carte blanche for total war?

Ben,

You know as well as anyone. Israel cannot do total war, even with nukes. She doesn't have the numbers, especially with nukes.

Do you think Syria is no longer under Moscow's nuclear umbrella?

Israel has to win fast, she has to win hard, and she has to win bold. Not one of these definitions is total war.

[S2]

OoE Reply

Colonel,

"Israel has to win fast, she has to win hard, and she has to win bold. Not one of these definition is total war."

Are you suggesting that prosecution of total war is slow, soft and hesitant? My impression is that the aggressors in our last total war, W.W. II, acted with alacrity when making the decision to go to war and employed their entire available war-making potential as seen necessary.

[Officer of Engineers]

Colonel,

"Israel has to win fast, she has to win hard, and she has to win bold. Not one of these definition is total war."

Are you suggesting that prosecution of total war is slow, soft and hesitant? My impression is that the aggressors in our last total war, W.W. II, acted with alacrity when making the decision to go to war and employed their entire available war-making potential as seen necessary.

I am suggesting that Israel has no clue to Total War. She never fought one. The Canadian Action at Juno Beach and its subsequent penetration dwarfed the entire Israeli military history. Even after Juno Beach and our subsequent victories, we had no illusions that our war was won. Israel has never had to stare in 3 more years of war AFTER a decisive victory.

Total War is Slaughter. Israel neither have the stomach nor the experience to go through with it.

[Doktor]

...
Israel has never had to stare in 3 more years of war AFTER a decisive victory.

Total War is Slaughter. Israel neither have the stomach nor the experience to go through with it.

To be fair Israel enemies except Iran don't have it either. IMO, what Israel should be more worried about is that recently they don't have Moshe Dayan type of leader in the IDF.

IDF turned into PR oriented organization.

[S2]

OoE Reply

Colonel,

"Israel neither have the stomach nor the experience to go through with it."

I beg to differ sir. The Golan Heights battles in October 1973 were for Israel's nat'l survival. That aspect of the Yom Kippur War offered no latitude for recovery from any early defeat. They showed plenty of guts and I'd suggest that experience sufficiently meets the minimum for experience.

In sum total, the Israelis lost between 2520 and 2800 KIA and another 7250-8800 WIA over a two week period. These are not inconsiderable numbers by any definition, much less a nation whose sum total was 3,278,000.

You're rightfully proud of Canada's achievements at Juno sir. However, Canada didn't fight alone on those beaches that day. Many soldiers from nations around the world shared those beaches with her...and died attempting to accomplish the same objectives.

Israel fought alone and against overwhelming odds by any measure. That should factor into your calculus a bit more IMV than you seem prepared to allow.

[Parihaka]

I don't believe the blitzkrieg was total war, but the defence of the Reich was. I believe Israel has the capabilities irrespective of it's nukes to bring down merry hell on it's enemies in a defensive war, but it will be a last stand.

[Officer of Engineers]

Israel fought alone and against overwhelming odds by any measure. That should factor into your calculus a bit more IMV than you seem prepared to allow.

No, Israel did NOT fought alone. They were bingo ammo and bingo intel. The US came through with relief ... AND that should ALSO BE IN THE CALCULUS.

The Golan Heights was a MILITARY CLUSTERF_CK! It's a wonder that it succeeded. The Israeli reserves, without orders and without planning simply drove their tanks to the point of engagement.

If this was NATO, it would be on par with a Canadian reserved brigade spearheading straight into the VII Corp's point of contact.

But be that as it day, Israel to this day has NEVER fought a MEATGRINDER. And the truth is, they CANNOT AFFORD A MEATGRINDER.

I will ask Ben this, what happens to Israeli military strength when they lose 5000 men in one single battle even if that battle is a victory?

[S2]

OoE Reply

"No, Israel did NOT fought alone."

Colonel,

America didn't airlift any ammunition before Oct. 14, 1973. This was fully eight days after combat ensued. It was Oct.10, 1973 before America authorized El Al to lift air-to-air missiles and bombs for the IAF. Our conditions for any resupply at all had been delivered prior to the conflict and included the caveat that no pre-emptive measures be taken by Israel.

Operation Nickel Grass-Airpower Journal Spring 1989

Colonel, by Oct. 10th the Israelis had already ejected the Syrians across the Purple line. Our help certainly assisted their offensives towards the canal and Damascus but Israel saved itself without our assistance.

"The Golan Heights was a MILITARY CLUSTERF_CK! It's a wonder that it succeeded. The Israeli reserves, without orders and without planning simply drove their tanks to the point of engagement."

Better that they marched to the sound of the guns than away. Moreover, this is irrelevant to the nature of the battles fought on the Golan's slopes. Most observers viewed those battles as indicative of what NATO might expect had the Warsaw Pact invaded western Europe. It was high-intensity armor combat of the first order IMHO. There was no margin for defeat.

"But be that as it day, Israel to this day has NEVER fought a MEATGRINDER. And the truth is, they CANNOT AFFORD A MEATGRINDER."

I disagree. Golan was every bit a meatgrinder during its duration. Two brigades went toe-to-toe with five Syrian divisions. As to what they can't afford, most Israelis would probably tell you any price in blood to avoid cataclysmic defeat was acceptable. Again, Israel's casualties weren't inconsiderable. I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge the high cost paid by their forces?

"I will ask Ben this, what happens to Israeli military strength when they lose 5000 men in one single battle even if that battle is a victory?"

They survive? Colonel, Israel suffered no less than 9750 and as high as 11,600 troops killed and wounded over two weeks of combat. The intensity of that conflict was real enough.