Originally posted by Victor
Actually, the Pentagon agrees with me… err… I agree with them. Why do you think that the US is going after Iraq and A’stan? So that AQ doesn’t have any place to re-establish themselves.

I hate to bring this but it’s also recently in the news that the US is presuring Pakistan to act against AQ remnants. Why? So that AQ is on the run and doesn’t have a place to set up shop. Sure, AQ was not destroyed by the A’stan invasion but they are on the run which is exactly what one of the aims of the “War on Terror” is. To put terrorists on the defensive and take the initiate away from them.

Here we go! It was only a matter of time…. 🙁

Al Quada will always be a threat until OBL is captured, have you not figured that out yet!?

Originally posted by Victor
Well, Israel doesn’t exactly have the resources to invade countries around the world now do they? Also, an equivalent strike on Israel of the nature of 9/11 would put the Israeli nation’s existance at stake. I don’t blame them for not letting something like that occur.

Yes, they did… in Sudan and other countries and those countries were forced to kick out AQ but A’stan (Talibs) obliged AQ. Which goes to show that terror orgs are nothing without backing from state actors. The nukes are there not to deter the terror orgs but the state actors behind the terror orgs.

So Victor, you are implying AQ cannot operate without state backing!? Seems like the entire Pentagon would disagree with you on that front mate………

Viper
I am anti-Israeli, I hate Israels policies at the momment, it does not mean I want Isreal wiped out! I would also say I hated teh atitude of aparthid south africa, that does not mean I wanted to see South Africa wiped out does it! I should warn you on equating the two………

Originally posted by Victor
Yes, I do. As I have mentioned before, the terrorists are nothing but fronts for the Arab govts. Sure, nukes won’t prevent the bus bombings but if the Israelis didn’t have a strategic detterent what is to prevent an Arab govt from slipping a terror org a chem-bio WMD terror weapon? What prevents it is the certainty of Israeli nukes landing on top of Sheik Jabooti’s throne room.

So, yes, I agree nukes don’t deter conventional terrorists but it does make them think twice about moving on to the next level of attacks.

Maybe the “terrorists” would stop if their homeland was not occupied! Radical idea! But maybe Israels long term security lies in withdrawing from the occupied territories and a two state solution rather then in 200 nukes…….

Both India and Pakistan having nukes has not made South Asia safer has it!?

Originally posted by Victor
Why should the Israelis de-nuke? USSR is gone but the Arabs are still there. The Saudis, the Syrians, the terrorists (who are funded by the Arab oil money and are nothing but proxies for the Arab govt) are still there.

Israeli nukes are not destabilizing to the region. They are not bartering their nukes for oil, or for missiles, or for cash. The Israeli nukes are for self-defense.

Think about it, if the Syrians had 200 nukes would the middle East exist today? If the Iraqis had 200 nukes, would they have held off on using it?

Victor
For someone who has “Your next Kim Jong Il” as his tag , your posts are remarkably hypocritical! Israel Invaded Lebannon in 1982, and has recently bombeds territory in two neighboring countries!
Israels nukes are a MAJOR reason why countries such as Syria, Libya and Iran are pursuing WMD…..

It is very short sighted to think the Arabs will just sit on their hands and never aqquire Nukes if Israel will always retain the capacity to destroy Arab civilisation…….

Better everyone disarms at teh same time…..INCLUDING ISRAEL!

Victor
I think we can lay the myth of Arab military superiority over Israel to bed now……

Israel can easily defeat its neighbours, it does not need nukes!

If the day comes when Libya, Syria and Iran all give up pursuit of WMDs, Isreal, by default, will be seen as the biggest threat to peace in the region……

Originally posted by Wolverine
LMAO. even if this is true it means jack. you have to fly the aircraft you fight with if you want to be good at it. there is little point in flying a chanmeap chinese built clone and then expecting your pilots to be ace at an F16. there is a reason why the world’s best AFs make their pilots fly the same aircraft and not a different one. every thing from handling properties to tactics to cockpit instrumentation is different. so flying 70hrs a year on an F16 means exactly that. 70 hrs a year. even if you log 200 hrs on some other type.

🙂
“there is a reason why the world’s best AFs make their pilots fly the same aircraft and not a different one”

So so little knowledge….so much talk!

“

Haha!

“Bradly”…..he must be a nice guy!