Israel is already a democracy with a mixed population of Jews and Arabs and ‘one person one vote’. Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis share equal rights, to the extent that there are Arab members of the Knesset, an Arab ambassador and even an Arab Supreme Court justice. In terms of political freedoms and multicultural plurality, there isn’t a single country in the entire region which comes close.

Further, the version of the country’s origin that jbritchford is espousing is not entirely accurate. The area called Palestine was, during Ottoman rule up to the 20th century, a low-population piece of land considered unsuitable for most human occupation, which had a roughly equal population of Jews and Arabs, though the Jews were second-class citizens.

From the 1880s onwards, a small number of European Jews began to emigrate to the region as part of the growing Zionist movement. In order to avoid inflaming any tensions, new Jewish immigrants were forced to abide by a rule which stated that any land on which they settled had to be legally bought from the land-owner (who was in most cases an Ottoman Turk). Thus emigration continued for the next few decades, with Arabs starting to immigrate into the region in large numbers from the 1890s onwards as the economy of the region began to revive.

Initially, these immigrants were warmly welcomed. Israel/Palestine was a largely empty land and it was determined that there was space enough for Jews and Arabs to live together in peace. However, this changed with the emergence of a new, far more radical, man as Mufti of Jerusalem. He immediately began to agitate against the Jewish presence, a process which culminated in the Jerusalem Pogrom of 1920. From then on, it was all downhill, as Arabs and Jews began fighting each other in earnest, forming militias like the Irgun to both defend them and carry out retaliatory attacks, while the presence of Britain as the new colonial rulers did little to dampen the tensions. Indeed, the British response was to attempt to cut off Jewish immigration while allowing Arab immigration to continue unchecked, a response which did nothing to ease the underlying tensions that fanned the flames.

Eventually, this became so bad that it was clear that Arabs and Jews could not live together in the same state and still be at peace. So Britain washed its hands of the matter and handed the problem to the newly-formed United Nations in 1947. The UN looked at the situation and crafted a partition plan which split the region in two, based on population figures (majority Jewish areas became Jewish territory, and vice versa). The Jews accepted the outcome of this and declared the State of Israel along the partition lines in 1948. The surrounding Arab states rejected this, despite the fact that it was to have given the Palestinian Arabs their first independent state in their history, and invaded Israel to try and wipe it and its people out. They failed, and in the process many people died unnecessarily and lost their homes, as happens in wartime. Around 600 000 Jews were forcibly ejected from the Arab countries where they lived, while approximately the same number of Arabs were ejected from Israel. Jordan and Egypt gobbled up the land meant for a Palestinian state, and the stage was set for the bloodshed that would follow.

Now that is the story of Israel’s birth. Neither Jews or Arabs can claim either innocence or victimhood in this, nor can it be said that the creation of Israel was a crime committed against the Palestinian people. If anything, the real villains here are those who agitated against peaceful co-existence, such as the Mufti of Jerusalem, and the surrounding Arab countries who refused to accept the possibility of either an independent Jewish state or an independent Palestinian state on their borders. Had they not decided to ignore the UN and invade in 1948, and had they respected the conditions of the partition, it’s likely the region would be at peace today.

Further, Hezbollah has absolutely no legitimacy whatsover for their existence or continued “resistance”. The group is not Palestinian, but Lebanese, and Israel ceased to occupy Lebanon in 2000. Yet Hezbollah continued to attack, continued to kidnap Israeli soldiers, continued to retain its weapons and power so as to be a deadly poison in Lebanese society. Their actions provoked a deadly war, and will likely provoke another one, and all for what? A single convicted murderer sitting in an Israeli jail, who was put there for shooting an innocent man in the head before clubbing his infant daughter to death.

No. I refuse to back Israel in everything it does, and I think its actions here in buzzing French and German forces are silly and counterproductive, but I believe above all in balance. And I believe it is groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, led only by a religiously-motivated narcissism and backed by the most illiberal of regimes, are the real cancers of the Middle East. While they still exist, peace will forever remain out of reach.

Sens, fair enough. In defending ACIG, I was using an imperfect example and as you’ve pointed out even they are incorrect at times. I will freely admit that my knowledge on this type of research (and its practitioners) is sketchy, which is why I seldom get involved in the discussions themselves. The only area I can reasonably claim to have any relevant knowledge in this thread is in human nature, and I still believe I’m correct about everything else I wrote in my previous post.

And I feel this shows the inherently different approach between Flogger and guys like you. Whereas Flogger is loath to believe his sources could ever be wrong and wishes them to be correct, you acknowledge ACIG’s successes while also being aware of, and warning others about, its errors and flaws. It’s the removal of one’s emotion and biases from one’s research; the desire to find the truth regardless of who it makes look bad or good even if it’s your favoured side coming out worse.

As I already pointed out, nobody will be dying here.. Pure and simple.

I think we’d all hope not. But the question here is rather what will happen if people do start dying. My contention is that the EU is obliged to turn off Galileo if it’s being used to target US forces or the US has the right to destroy or disable the system. Naturally it’d be better for us all if we don’t ever reach a point where that decision needs to be made.

As you wish. But then don’t come whining to me with *how can you support our enemy, then?*

Nobody’s complaining about Europe’s trade with China. As I’ve pointed out, increased trade will likely prevent war, and in addition there does seem to be a linkage between increased economic freedoms and increased political freedoms. What I object to is your desire to sell China the latest and best military equipment while removing any constraints that exist on Chinese power at the very same time you’re trying to limit American power. That’s quite different from mere trade.

In fact I thought you were not. But you often use *we* in these debates, so I honestly get somewhat mixed up about your origin.

That’s a poor excuse and it’s not my fault you don’t pay attention. I have used “we” when speaking about issues that affect my country as well or refer to my side in a debate. I have never used “we” when referring to the United States only.

Yes, I am no enemy of the US. And yes, I actively support measures to get them under control, weaken them and constrain them in an appropriate way. I follow our interests, not American ones, what else did you expect? Finally, what else do Americans to us? I am playing their game.

So you’re no ally then either. Yet I find it curious that of all the paths to increased influence and wealth, Europeans such as yourself insist on following the one that involves weakening the US. How odd, eh?

LOL. Just read your own statements about how good is it to pour billions of dollars into Chinese economy. Do you think that weakens them? 😉

Not at all, but it likely makes them more responsible, less militaristic and possibly more democratic in the long-run. That’s opposed to supplying them with weaponry and giving them their way with Taiwan, which has the exact opposite long-term effect.

Honestly, are you schizonfrenic? Part of you obviously desires to destroy China, but the other one wants to invest another billion there.. 😉 Never seen anything like that before.

Not at all. I don’t want a war with China and I regard economic trade as the best possible way to prevent that outcome. What’s schizophrenic about that?

I have no idea where do you come from, but I am an European and can absolutely honestly confirm, that the amplitude of antiamerican mood in Europe prior to OIF was several magnitudes lower than it is today.

Then you’ve been willfully blind. I visited numerous European capitals before 2000 and anti-Americanism was rife and unapologetic. All that’s happened in the intervening years is that it has become more open, moving from the living room to mainstream television.

Say what you want, but Bill was a very popular president here in Europe.

Except when he was, you know, looking out for America’s interests.

Yeah, call them corrupt, but at least we did not supply them with chemical warfare..

Actually, the majority of the chemical weapons components, know-how and equipment that didn’t come from the USSR was sourced from Germany. While the US wasn’t exactly innocent in that whole mess, the components supplied by the US were medical-grade samples and didn’t include any banned substances. As opposed to the stuff coming out of Europe…

Funny, but you somewhat seem to overlook the ton of harsh statements issued by USA just to point at the few EU has issued. Objectivity ain’t your strong point, is it?

True to form, you missed the point entirely.

Care to read a bit more carefully next time? I justify Europe’s allowance of Galileo to be used as a preemptive measure against the US. No word about actual combat.

Yet you must accept that Galileo would become a military asset to a user in a time of war. The big question here is, will you turn it off if one of its users is engaged in a war with the United States?

If you are not an American, then who is *we*?

The people on this forum.

ROTFLMAO. USA has been enforcing a policy to keep Europe weaker than themselves since late 40s. And they were very successful, ten years ago European states had almost no global reach anymore. Whay do you think Euros have united? (well, at least politically) To become a serious counterweight to the US and a global player to count with and not to be f**ked with. And I strongly support such policy, even if that means weakening US position.

Man, those tears of impotent rage just keep coming.

That Europe no longer has any global reach is no fault of the US. It’s the fault of successive European governments who used the protective security envelope provided by the United States through NATO to underspend on their militaries so they could pay for all those welfare programs you guys are so proud of. What forces Western Europe did pay for were invariably defensive-only, consisting of large and relatively immobile armies and almost totally reliant on American airlift. Yet you have the temerity to blame the US for this? What did it do, threaten Europe’s governments with: “You spend money on welfare instead of defence, or else…” Not to mention the greatest irony here; that the US wanted a stronger Europe during the Cold War because it would’ve freed up US forces for deployment elsewhere in the world.

Look, if USAF buys a hundred of Typhoons as a counterbalance to pushing F-35 sales in Europe, we shall be friends again. Simple..

You’re kidding right? You actually want the US to apologise for selling its aircraft to European countries by buying European aircraft it doesn’t want or need?

LOL, you seem to forget that we don’t have any oil to trade with, we are only consumers. Do you know what you are talking about at all now? I mean, why does not Mongolia open a new comodity exchange for diamonds?

You do not need to be a major oil supplier to run an oil trading exchange. With your immense knowledge on the subject, you should know that.

LOL. You obviously never studied the global market. Saddam has been pushing Euro-based exchange very hard. Now it is Ahmadinejad. According to estimates (Financial Times, Iran losses 15-20% of oil revenues due to exchange rates of weak dollar, compared to what he could have earned in Euro. Iranians hold huge amounts of US-dollar-denominated foreign exchange reserves – now what to do with them? Spending them in the US is almost impossible due to restricted trade. China alone has huge reserves and thus ain’t really interested. Euro goods are good and at least somewhat available, but you have to change your inflated green papers for Euros – and that means HUGE losses.

Saddam pushed his exchange for three years and it was a dismal flop. Ahmadinejad’s will likely be the same, for the reasons I pointed out above. Further, there’s nothing stopping Iran from holding its foreign reserves in Euros and converting to Dollars when necessary, as many other countries do without suffering significant losses. And again, they are not *my* “inflated green papers” as I am not American (surely this should’ve penetrated your skull by now). My money is multicoloured.

And what about Chavez’s barter deals with 12 Latin American countries and Cuba, where commodities are being traded among these countries in exchange for Venezuela’s oil? These measures are cutting the US dollar out of the vital oil transaction currency cycle and help reduce reliance on fiat dollars for all countries involved. Why do you think the corrupt US government attempted to remove Chavez? Due to his leftist policy? Come on!

Right, that’s why the US backed the general who put an end to the coup and reinstated Chavez (they should’ve actually backed the coup, to be honest). And you really shouldn’t get your news from Venpres and Granma.

Besides, Chavez’s barter deals are economically unsustainable in the long-term and are inherently limited to smaller volumes. He’s also going to run into quite a bit of trouble with the continuing reduction in the oil price, especially when both he and his people realise that the government saved none of the windfall money it got from the recent oil price spike. Oops.

So, please, tell me again about no desire to switch to alternate exchanges, LOL. In fact, the world needs badly to create more devaluation pressure on the dollar by removing it from its crucial role in petro-trades. An alternative exchange means a new level of control over what American Federal Bank does with the dollar. US have been keeping it artificially low in order to make their expenditionary wars cheaper and in order to make Euro and Chinese goods less competitive. And you dare to accuse me of weakening the US just like that? Buddy, you cannot see further than where your nose ends!

If there’s a desire, why aren’t we seeing it? A few minor barters and a lot of talk is one thing, but there’s no concrete evidence of any major move away from the petrodollar. With the oil coming out of countries like Norway and the evident demand for it in Europe, there’s a great case for opening a Euro-based exchange in Europe but we’re seeing no moves towards it. Now why is that?

LOL, please, remind me once again about how Saudis are democratic rulers.. 😉 I love that part..

Saudi Arabia does not have an oil exchange, it trades its oil through the NYME and IPPE.

Especially those about how bad Europeans weaken the good US which only altruistically wanted the best for the whole planet.

And so flex pulls Artie McStrawman from the closet and takes him for a dance.

Nobody said the US is entirely altruistic, no country is. What we’ve pointed out is that a good many of its actions (GPS, for example) are in effect altruistic, while arguing that the US is a far more stabilising and benevolent force in the world than a similarly-powerful China or Russia would be. It’s in all our interests for the liberal democratic countries of the world, such as the United States and the EU’s member states, to both remain and be powerful and offer a united front against illiberal and undemocratic countries like China and threats like Iran. But you’re so obsessed with hating the United States and believing it to be the source of all wrong in the world that you’d rather tear it down and allow China to replace it. That’s sad.

Quite right. The initial decision to make the system available to civilian users was taken by Ronald Reagan after the Soviets shot down KAL007 in 1983. The civilian signal was intentionally degraded with Selective Availability until pressure from the FAA (which wanted to begin using GPS for civilian aircraft navigation) convinced Clinton to turn off SA for good. So yes, GPS is provided, free of charge, as a public good for the entire world. Though the system was not created and maintained for that purpose, the fact remains that the US doesn’t actually need to provide the signal to the rest of us for free.

Back on topic, I think the previous analogy of seeing space in the same terms as the open seas is an interesting and practical one. It’s been nice to maintain the fiction that space is all about feel-good international co-operation and whatnot, but only the very foolish believe this could possibly last. Space is just another theatre of human interaction and as such it’s inevitable that earth-based wars will extend out into orbit. What the US is doing is asserting its right to defend its space-based assets and to deter its adversaries from deploying sophisticated attack systems into orbit. This is really little different to the way countries used to limit the capabilities of their adversaries on the high sees, such as the limits on German shipbuilding after WWI.

Finally, I think it’s decidedly odd for Flex to be complaining of the possibility that the US would disable Galileo if it were used by an enemy of the US. If it’s being used to help a country like China kill American soldiers and the EU refuses to turn it off, then it becomes fair game. After all, if European soldiers were providing targeting data to an opponent of the US in a war and the EU refused all requests for them to stop, would the US not be justified in attacking those soldiers? Why is it any different for satellites?

Point is, as sferrin said earlier, Allies don’t f**k each other over. While the EU and US have had their fair share of disagreements over the past few years, I have yet to see one example where the US intentionally assisted in the killing of European soldiers. Yet Flex wants to use these disagreements as justification for the EU intentionally assisting another country in a war against the United States. What gives?

The thing to remember here is that the standard Mi-24 is one of the most heavily-armoured helicopters out there, simply because it is unable to perform NOE flying and is therefore exposed to potential enemy fire for a longer period of time than more agile helicopters like the Rooivalk.

With the Super Hind Mk.V, ATE’s goal is to reduce its weight sufficiently to allow it to conduct NOE flying and use tactics closer to those of Western attack helicopters. Thus it doesn’t require as much armour as standard Hinds, because it is exposed to enemy fire for a shorter period of time and has significantly improved manoeuverability. This alone has resulted in a weight saving of many hundreds of kilograms, as the old armour has been replaced with lighter and more modern (yet slightly less effective) armour.

The new canopy is also reported to offer better situational awareness for both pilots than that of the current Hind, and the cockpits are now decidedly roomier. While it’s true that the WSO’s forward view is obscured somewhat by the pilot, the fact is that the WSO is going to be looking at his displays 99% of the time anyway. With the capabilities of the Goshawk turret sensors, there’s little need for the WSO to be reverting to Mk.1 eyeball (leave that to the pilot). Indeed, the revised nose on the Mk.III/IV blocks off the same amount of forward vision for the WSO anyway, and apparently none of the aircraft’s operators are reporting any problems with that configuration.

But yeah, the overall weight reduction is said to be in the region of 2000kg, which represents a weight reduction of approx 25% compared to the standard Hind. That’s nothing to sneeze at.

What do they need them for? They’ve got half the US military providing security from external threats. The most pressing need for the fledging Iraqi military right now is COIN gear and a lot of surveillance and patrol equipment to keep watch over its borders. Long-term, it might make sense for them to look at emulating Brazil’s SIVAM system in that respect.

Does anybody have any further details on this purchase, specifically the numbers and types involved? There’s no way in hell a single King Air 350 costs $900 million, even with ISR gear fitted…

Who said South Vietnam would not have been independent? Even with continued American assistance, it would have been just as independent as North Vietnam, with its massive amounts of aid from the USSR. It’s not as if South Vietnam was some US vassal state or, worse yet, a colony.

In any case, South Vietnam stood on its own, with comparatively minimal US support, for a number of years after the American withdrawal. There’s no reason why this could not have continued, had Congress not taken the idiotic decision of cutting off all funding and assistance to South Vietnam.

Have you ever stopped to look at it from the other side: That perhaps most of the South, including the hundreds of thousands who joined the ARVN, were actually fighting for their independence, in this case from the soul-destroying totalitarianism that was Communism? That all the people in the South actually wanted was freedom, to live their lives as they wished and not be subject to the whims of some apparatchik, and that’s why the VC never gained widespread support? Have you ever considered, that by invading the South and taking it over, North Vietnam and its Soviet allies actually took away South Vietnam’s independence?

People, we’re heading seriously off-track here. This is not supposed to be yet another discussion of Iraq (we’ve had enough of those), nor is it a discussion of other US actions around the world. Leave those for another thread and another day.

Focusing on Vietnam, I think the main question here is whether the VC had sufficient support amongst the population of South Vietnam to justify a belief that the North would have won anyway. I’m not so sure they did: What support they did have would appear to have been driven mostly by fear (the VC were utterly ruthless) and not any ideological kinship or shared hatred for America.

And when the VC miscalculated hugely in 1968 and prematurely took on US forces in a conventional campaign, they got slaughtered. As a fighting group, the VC were virtually wiped out and their power drastically reduced. They would certainly not have been able to continue the insurgency at the same rate and intensity as before, and villagers were less likely to fear their return in the night to torture them and their families.

Indeed, from that point onwards, the bulk of the fighting was conducted by the NVA and the war took on a more conventional nature. With that in mind, it’s certainly possible that continued commitment from the US might have resulted in victory, and the survival of South Vietnam as an independent state.