Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hamas: We won't negotiate peace with Israel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mirko R
    replied
    I think Israel and Palestine both need new representation both sides are too jaded and dug in, they will not compromise and what they want conflicts with what the other wants. It is a shitty situation, but ultimatums will not solve it. What will is the people seeing each other as fellow humans and not the enemy. Both people's have been wronged tremendously throughout history, but not all of that can be made right in one second, its time to accept the situation for what it is and try to make it better. Hamas is only half the problem, and the lesser half, considering how much Israel is responsible for almost every aspect of life in the occupied territories.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    "Perhaps I've got the definition of total war wrong..."

    Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think, though, we may be arguing at cross purposes. Some likely suggest that total war doesn't ensue until or unless an entire population and economy is mobilized. Fair enough.

    I'd contend, though, that it's possible to prosecute total war thoroughly and rapidly before such is possible or even perceived necessary. I'd also argue that destroying the war-making potential of a nation by utterly decapitating its military arm neuters the need to proceed with dismantling the entire society.

    For Israel, that might entail the complete destruction of the Syrian army and air force. Whether a subsequent occupation might be necessary is difficult to determine. Sometimes a population (such as the Russians) simply don't know when they've been beaten-or so Franz Halder might suggest.;)

    Should resistance continue despite the total destruction of a nation's armed forces then that's another matter.

    What's important from my perspective is whether a nation applies all of its existing war-making potential from the outset to achieve the strategic dismemberment of its adversary(ies). I'm not sure whether that includes weapons of mass destruction or not. It may.
    Steve, I'm going to do this in open forum because that is where we both happen to be and also because that is my natural inclination. One of my heroes is Sir James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin. I hesitate to mention him because doing so causes pain to our ethnic Chinese and Chinese members because of the summer palace, though I regard that as one of his greatest works, despite the pain it caused both him and modern day Chinese. That action is the finest example I have yet found of the dilemma of, in the words of Patrick O'Brians fictional character Jack Aubrey, the "lesser of two weevils".

    I am not a military man, I have not nor will ever face the dilemma of combat nor the decisions thereof. I have faced hard decisions which have lead to the deaths of other people but only by accident, not design.

    What I am is an oral historian, not by profession but by choice, and in another world a diplomat: unfortunately in this place and in this time such attributes are regarded as passť.
    As such I can not see the world as black and white, I must judge each person as the sum of their actions and my knowledge thereof.

    For these reasons I see your argument for the quick and surgical destruction of an enemy without the destruction of their support base as valid but unlikely: "Sometimes a population (such as the Russians) simply don't know when they've been beaten".
    Much more likely is that each individual member of that society must be treated with individually, armies defeated and cities occupied be damned.

    Also I see your arguments in our other matter as valid and just, but find myself unable to execute: I will not commit in this case to total warfare. Your ultimatum I will ignore, I value you too much to remove your skills and the powers thereof; whether, when and if you choose to utilize them is your choice.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    Parihaka Reply

    "Perhaps I've got the definition of total war wrong..."

    Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think, though, we may be arguing at cross purposes. Some likely suggest that total war doesn't ensue until or unless an entire population and economy is mobilized. Fair enough.

    I'd contend, though, that it's possible to prosecute total war thoroughly and rapidly before such is possible or even perceived necessary. I'd also argue that destroying the war-making potential of a nation by utterly decapitating its military arm neuters the need to proceed with dismantling the entire society.

    For Israel, that might entail the complete destruction of the Syrian army and air force. Whether a subsequent occupation might be necessary is difficult to determine. Sometimes a population (such as the Russians) simply don't know when they've been beaten-or so Franz Halder might suggest.;)

    Should resistance continue despite the total destruction of a nation's armed forces then that's another matter.

    What's important from my perspective is whether a nation applies all of its existing war-making potential from the outset to achieve the strategic dismemberment of its adversary(ies). I'm not sure whether that includes weapons of mass destruction or not. It may.
    Last edited by S2; 30 Apr 11,, 08:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    "I don't believe the blitzkrieg was total war, but the defence of the Reich was."

    The French, Dutch, Russians and Poles might argue otherwise.
    Their cities weren't burnt-out shells, their armies were defeated but the officers of the conquering armies could dine out, drink the best wine and watch a movie of their conquests at the cinema in Paris, Amsterdam and Warsaw.
    By the time of the invasion of Germany, germanies cities were in the main simply piles of rubble. Perhaps I've got the definition of total war wrong, but I don't really consider that to have begun in the WTO until Stalingrad, with a nod to the London docks.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    Parihaka Reply

    "I don't believe the blitzkrieg was total war, but the defence of the Reich was."

    The French, Dutch, Russians and Poles might argue otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by S2; 30 Apr 11,, 05:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    ...
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 30 Apr 11,, 03:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • omon
    replied
    Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X