still one of what? sparrows? aircraft? pilot? :confused:

I think he meant to say won, not one.

@ Sens

You are living in a fantasy world….it’s no “claim”, it’s plain for all to see.

Are you serious?

They won’t stop firing rockets because it’s the only way they have to hit back. Israel has to go in on the ground and destroy them.

If the same tactics were used by an Army that is not an ally of the US, you would all be screaming bloody murder…..your hypocrisy is nauseating!

They’re not firing rockets at military targets though. They’re intentionally firing them at civilians. They intentionally blow up car bombs around civilians. They intentionally use suicide bombers, to kill civilians. You speak of Israeli cowardice, yet these groups prefer to engage civilians than the IDF. I wonder why that is.

Bizaar why? What significant capability upgrade does the EF offer over the RAAF’s updated AGP-73 + AMRAAM equipped F-18s? What additional capability does it offer over those Harpoon equipped F-18s for maritime strike for example?

More range, payload, situational awareness, survivability, but other than that, not too much.

There is a lot of blame to go around here and I agree with the “…violence begets violence…” theses of other posts in this thread. Way too many of us here, and for that matter throughout the world, spend too much time trying to apportion historical blame and use moral relativism to try and justify the killing of one side at the expense of the other.

This does not work. Rockets lobbed into Israel will see an israeli response. LGB strikes can never be neat and tidy, they create more hatred and the cycle continues. Innocents will also die even if the Israelis are the most accurate they can be.

Furthermore I hope the West sees the hypocricy of slagging Hamas at every turn and how that angers the Arab world. The West supports dictators like Mubarak in Egypt, who repress their populace and hold power through illegitimate means and then choose to not acknowledge in any form a democratically elected government when that is the very thing the West demands.

And where are the Egyptians in this? They condemn the violence yet do nothing to curb it. They have the power to open their borders and alleviate the human suffering going on in Gaza…they do nothing. They can offer their services as a mediator to try and bring this senseless conflict to an end, and again they do nothing.

And for those that do not remember, Israel pulled out of the Gaza completely in 2005, it is not being occupied.

The reason none of the other Arab neighbors open their arms to the Palestinians, is that they serve a useful purpose in a proxy war with Israel. Aside from that, they don’t want them in their country.

Well defenders Israeli desires, what will you see if that Hamas has an absolute air superiority and all means of destruction possessed by Israel now has and done what Israel is doing. Is your opinion would be the same?

Israel is ugly aggression on Gaza, forcing the region to more extremism and militancy, such as al-Qaeda and supporters of
Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad .

So I see you don’t hold Hamas and Hezbollah to the same standards of Israel, nor do you hold them responsible for the violence they commit.

It’s not a matter of being a defender of Israeli desires. It’s a belief that Israel has a right to exist, and it has a right to self defense. I have no sympathy for organizations/groups/causes, that feel that deliberate targetting of non-combatants is in any way justified to achieve their goals.

In September, Bush spoke at the United Nations. No cause could justify the deliberate taking of human life, he said. Yet the US has killed thousands of civilians in airstrikes on populated areas. When you drop bombs on populated areas knowing there will be some “collateral” civilian damage, but accepting it as worth it, then it is deliberate. When you impose sanctions, as the US did on Saddam era Iraq, that kill hundreds of thousands, and then say their deaths were worth it, as secretary of state Albright did, then you are deliberately killing people for a political goal. When you seek to “shock and awe”, as president Bush did, when he bombed Iraq, you are engaging in terrorism.

-Can you cite one example in the history of warfare, where there has been Zero collateral damage?

-There’s a big distinction between deliberately targetting non-combatants, and engaging targets where non-combatants may be in the vicinity. I suggest you do a little more research on the Laws of Warfare, to understand how military necessity is balanced against the risk of collateral damage. Even if the US(or Israel for that matter) adopted a policy where no collateral damage was acceptable, do you think that Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc…would also agree to those limitations? It’d be great if our foes lined up neatly on some barren piece of real estate, so that no civilians would be injured or killed(and there’d be no property damage). The fact is that is completely unrealistic, and the authors of the various Conventions on Warfare knew this.
Their belief(and intent) was that since war was so terrible, there needed to be ways of conducting it to minimize suffering. In order to do this, it meant that things that would shorten the war(and in doing so, shorten the suffering), were preferrable. There are reasons why it’s against the Conventions, to hide among civilians, in religious sites, hospitals, schools, etc..and under the conventions, these sites lose their protected status if they’re being used to conduct combat operations. When choosing courses of action you have to look at what will most likely produce the desired results(mission accomplishment w/ minimal friendly casualties) vs. the collateral damage that will result, and pick the choice that best meets that criteria. Dragging out hostilities causes far more suffering in the long run.

The US(and yes even Israel), take great care to mitigate risks of collateral damage. There have been many targets that we didn’t attack because the civilian risk was too high. It’s complete and utter BS though to say that non-combatants are deliberately targetted, or that precautions weren’t taken, or that there’s a zero tolerance for any unintended damage.

it is not america you want on your side , its there technology. and if they dont want to share it with there closest allies, then get stuffed. For years I’VE ARGUED WITH PEOPLE WHO CALLED AMERICA SELFISH AND A BULLY! but if you cant even share with a friend, then we shouldn’t be friends. all that is being accomplished with JSF is Americas friends being asked to pay for its shiny new plane. you americans need to have a lesson in friendship. now I finally understand why my supeiors have been buying european. we can get what we want on negotiated terms, unlike america dictating the terms…….

I used to think of america and australia as friends, but your government sure has a strange way of treating its friends. I hope you can change for your sake.and ours

What technology isn’t being shared?

Its probably true that history may vindicate Bush, after all its written by the winners but its still theft anyway you put it and im not so sure the Middle East is as promising as new allies when the U.S is a) of a different religion and b) stealing the resouces of the area, C) supporting most Arabs hated enemy, Israel.

Could you elaborate on all of the resources that are being “stolen?” I assume you believe oil companies showed up, and started pumping oil for free, without regard to any Iraqi considerations?