# How good is the Israeli military?



## Jank (Jul 31, 2006)

I, like probably most people, have always thought that the quality of the Israeli military is quite superb, pound for pound maybe even better than the U.S.

I was talking to two officers, one a U.S. Marine and the other, a Navy SEAL, who have been active in the Mid East and both of them said that the Israeli forces are not really any better than those of any of the Western European countries and that they just seem to be superior because they have been repeatedly tested against the inept, incompetent and impotent forces of the Arab states. 

Basically, these guys were saying that it isn't that the Israelis are so good but that their opponents are so lousy.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject?


----------



## Glider (Aug 1, 2006)

I really cannot speak from experience but have always believed that their Airforce and armoured forces are as good as anyone's, with at times a lack of discipline being an Achilles Heal that can strike at any time. 
However their infantry I think are behind the best.

This tends to be bourne out by the latest developments.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2006)

Well these two US military personal said that the Israeli military was not better than any Western European militaries. Might I add that there are many fine militaries in Western Europe.

England and Germany have two of the best trained militaries in the world and are supplied by some of the finest military equipment there is out there. 

The training is excellent, I can tell you that. Most US units statoined over here use German training facilities with German instructors such as the German Mountain Warfare School (reported to be the best of its kind) and what not.

England and Germany are equipped with some of the most state of the art aircraft ie. Typhoon, Tiger, etc., 2 of the worlds best tanks in the Challenger and the Leopard II's.

The G-36 is a great weapon and Germany is supplied with US artillary pieces and AA weapons.

I am not up to date on the British infantry weapons.

Either way England and Germany have 2 of the finest militaries in the world, so if they are comparing the Israeli military to western europes then it has to be good.

The one advantage the Israeli military has is this: They are combat seasoned because they practically live in combat since the 1960s.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2006)

The British military is currently equipped with the Lee Enfield SA-80 Mk.II which is poor. But we're are ordering , or have ordered, the G-36. The British Army is one of the best armies in the world. Our Royal Air Force and Royal Navy have some of the best pilots in the world. While our Royal Marines and RAF Regiment are world known as being one of, if not, the best standard infantry combat units. 

Britain has also known counter-insurgency warfare since 1921 when Northern Ireland was created. The major decades were the 60s and 70s. We're not novices at war, or counter-insurgency. The British forces train in every terrain, and have fought in every terrain. 

Just look at how precise we march! That's discipline.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 1, 2006)

They are an average military with an abundance of equipment one thing that they have an advantage on is the short supply lines they have to maintain .The cupboard is getting bare and already the US is resupplying the IDF I wonder who is paying for that
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news...gory=news&itemid=NOED01 Aug 2006 08:25:12:543


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2006)

That article is a joke. The U.S and U.K have an agreement that the US bases are practically US soil, and as said in the article, the British government doesn't need to know what's going through there. It's not Britain's fault if the U.S is supplying Israel.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 1, 2006)

It wasn't a comment on the use of UK airports or such it was simply an an article to indicate that the resupply was ongoing they are probably using Canadian airspace and aerodromes as well to resupply the IDF


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2006)

Oh, don't mistake my rant. It wasn't directed at you. I know why you posted it. I was just saying the people in the article are dumb.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Aug 1, 2006)

I live in a country which uses F-5s as the main fighter, with very few missiles for the whole air force and an army hardened with counter-inurgency

i don't know, but their AF way better than ours


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2006)

plan_D said:


> That article is a joke. The U.S and U.K have an agreement that the US bases are practically US soil, and as said in the article, the British government doesn't need to know what's going through there. It's not Britain's fault if the U.S is supplying Israel.



Same as the US bases here in Germany.


----------



## Twitch (Aug 1, 2006)

The IDF has never been beaten in combat since the inception of the country in 1948. No combined force even though it outnumbered the Israelis many times over in manpower, weapons and equipment has done jack against them. In the air their competition is simply a sad joke.

Proves one thing-arabs can't fight.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 1, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The G-36 is a great weapon and Germany is supplied with US artillary pieces and AA weapons.


Agreed. I wish the U.S. Army and Marines would start using the G-36.



DerAlderIstGelandet said:


> The one advantage the Israeli military has is this: They are combat seasoned because they practically live in combat since the 1960s.


Experiance is always the great weapon in a soldier. Alot of those guys fighting now saw combat in the 1990's along with their leaders.


----------



## Jank (Aug 1, 2006)

Our special forces are now being issued the new SCAR (SOF Combat Assault Rifle).

This is a much better gun than the G-36. The accuracy is rep0orted to be 1 MOA or better which is *amazing* for most any rifle let alone a combat rifle.

Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 1, 2006)

Jank said:


> Our special forces are now being issued the new SCAR (SOF Combat Assault Rifle).
> 
> This is a much better gun than the G-36. The accuracy is rep0orted to be 1 MOA or better which is *amazing* for most any rifle let alone a combat rifle.
> 
> Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle



Good god! That is one awesome Assault Rifle!!!


----------



## Glider (Aug 1, 2006)

Good article. Does anyone know just how big a 500m point target is or a 600m area target?

Just trying to get an understanding as to what we are talking about.

PS don't underestimate the latest version of the SA80. I work both a TA Para Captain and TA infantry Major. Both are convinced that they wouldn't have any any other weapon and both have served in Iraq, with the Para also having done a stint in Afganistan. 
They both admit the earlier versions were close to useless.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2006)

A former Teammate of mine has test fired the SCAR H and loved it, saying that it and the L overall are far superior to the M4A1... The problem he saw is the retraining of Operators who have used the same weapon for years....

I myself find the weapon too bulky, and probably heavier, and the one thing a SpecWar Operator hates is extra weight...


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 1, 2006)

The rifle from what Les posted seems very good. But to be honest, if I were some Navy SEAL, Green Beret, etc. I would prefer the G-36 anyday especially you go on those long dangerous missions where you have to carry heavy equipment.


----------



## R988 (Aug 2, 2006)

Israeli pilots supposedly get more flying hours which is the main difference between them and say the USAF. The NATO minimum standard of flying hours isn't actually that much I think. Their enemies probably get even less. 

OTOH they have whipped some RAF butt on at least one occaision, and in similar aircraft as well.



> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/operate1.htm
> By the end of 1948 the tide had turned in the War of Independence and Israeli forces were pushing the invading Arab armies beyond the borders of mandatory Palestine. In a final bid to rout the Egyptian army, Israel launched operation "Horev", in which five Israeli brigades pushed into the Sinai desert in an attempt to encircle the retreating Egyptians. After five days of fighting, beginning on December 22nd 1948, Israeli victory was within sight. It was then however, that under an agreement with Egypt, Britain intervened and threatened Israel with retaliation should Israeli forces arrive in the Suez canal zone. Faced with such a warning Israeli plans changed and following the encirclement of the Egyptian forces in the Gaza strip, a ceasefire agreement was reached on January 6th 1949, due to go into effect on the afternoon of the 7th.
> 
> In order to further validate its warning, British presence in the air above the region was increased. At first a passive observer, the RAF based in Egypt started taking a more active role, intervening with IAF operations against the retreating Egyptian army. *On the morning of January 7th 1949, a few hours before the ceasefire was due to come into effect, four RAF 208th Squadron Spitfire F.22s took off from Faid to observe Israeli operations in the Sinai. Once over Israeli forces, however, the four aircraft came under attack from Israeli anti aircraft fire. The formation's no. 2, Frank Close, took a direct hit to his engine and was forced to bail his stricken aircraft. Soon, two Israeli Spitfires of the 101st "First Fighter" Squadron, were also on the scene. The Israeli pilots, Chalmers Goodlin and John McElroy, volunteers from the US and Canada, spotted the Spitfires and engaged them. McElroy scored his first kill against a Spitfire flown by Ron Sayers, while Goodlin went after the RAF flight leader, Geoff Cooper, and shot him down after a short dogfight. McElroy, meanwhile, had spotted the fourth RAF Spitfire circling the wreckage of Close's aircraft. The last British Spitfire went down as well, its pilot, Tim McElhaw, bailing out before the aircraft hit the sand dunes of the Sinai.* Ron Sayers was killed in the encounter, Close and McElhaw were captured by Israeli forces, while Cooper managed to evade capture and made it back to Egypt. The two captured pilots were released within a few days.
> ...



The General reputation of Israel being great is from the hard fought wars up until the late 1980s when they began getting decent stuff like F-15s and F-16s and made mince meat of their poorly equppied neighbours. By that stage they had virtually topline US aircraft with battle hardened and experienced pilots, it was a cakewalk against the Soviet supplied crap which wasn't that all great to start with and generally downgraded export versions as well. In the past they were fighting against a more even foe, even fighting against the odds in many cases. These days it's the opposite, they haven't have a hard fought war against a strong conventional enemy in many years and so their combat experience isn't all that better than anyone else, experienced pilots are long gone from most flying positions. I dare say the US probably has more 'combat' experienced pilots these days, certainly more than any other airforce recently even if they haven't had much aerial opposition.

Good article on a brief history of the IAF here
Israel Air Force Flight Journal - Find Articles


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 2, 2006)

Awesome report there.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Aug 3, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Agreed. I wish the U.S. Army and Marines would start using the G-36.



Alot of SWAT Teams in the U.S. and special forces units use the G-36, and I would imagine the U.S. has probably been experimenting with it, but if they were to use it they would probably replace the M4 with it which I see never happening


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 4, 2006)

Dont get me wrong but the M-4 is a great rifle. I love the rifle. Especially when you have all that equipment on it, it becomes an even more deadly weapon. But I like the G-36 alot better. It seems like a very good rifle. I even have an airsoft G-36C.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Dont get me wrong but the M-4 is a great rifle. I love the rifle. Especially when you have all that equipment on it, it becomes an even more deadly weapon. But I like the G-36 alot better. It seems like a very good rifle. I even have an airsoft G-36C.




Have you ever actually fired them? Just curious.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 6, 2006)

No. But I want to.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2006)

Okay was just checking.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Aug 7, 2006)

I have, it kicked me into a wall cause i was 9... it was a blank


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 7, 2006)

Kicked you into a wall?


----------



## Jank (Aug 7, 2006)

The M-4 has very little recoil. You can literally fire it with the butt against your chin without undue pain.

It has slightly more recoil than standard sized AR style rifles because of the reduced weight of the shorter barrel length.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Aug 8, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Kicked you into a wall?


ok, I'm thinking of something sick or maybe i got the wrong idea

I was 9, I'm ****in underweight and the guy didnt brace me for recoil


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> ok, I'm thinking of something sick or maybe i got the wrong idea
> 
> I was 9, I'm ****in underweight and the guy didnt brace me for recoil



Um looma, I dont care how underweight you are. There is no recoil from blank rounds. Okay there is slight jolt (very ever so slight) from the action of the bolt but there is no recoil from blank rounds. How the hell it through you into a wall has really got me confused.

Trust me there is no recoil even for an AK-47 from blank rounds.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2006)

Jank said:


> The M-4 has very little recoil. You can literally fire it with the butt against your chin without undue pain.
> 
> It has slightly more recoil than standard sized AR style rifles because of the reduced weight of the shorter barrel length.



There is actually not much of a difference between the M-4 and the M-16 in regards to recoil. Maybe a slight difference but not much. We used to carry the M-16s in our Aircraft incase we got shot down in Iraq and we switched over to M-4s as soon as we got them. I did not notice any difference at all, and the recoil was basically none for both.

There is slight recoil but not much.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 8, 2006)

Jank said:


> The M-4 has very little recoil. You can literally fire it with the butt against your chin without undue pain.



Have you tried that?


----------



## Jank (Aug 8, 2006)

No, I have not tried it but I have fired a 16" barreled Bushmaster AR rifle many times and the recoil is very slight.

I have read of people firing them in full auto mode from their chins and given my experience, believe it.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 8, 2006)

Jank said:


> The M-4 has very little recoil. You can literally fire it with the butt against your chin without undue pain.
> 
> It has slightly more recoil than standard sized AR style rifles because of the reduced weight of the shorter barrel length.



Ugh. Assuming you have actually shot a rilfe. That I'd like to see.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Aug 8, 2006)

Jank said:


> No, I have not tried it but I have fired a 16" barreled Bushmaster AR rifle many times and the recoil is very slight.
> 
> I have read of people firing them in full auto mode from their chins and given my experience, believe it.



That was with the originall m-16 when the furniture was mainly fiberglass, with the M16a2's and C7A1's that have the stainless steel barrels and "guts" you can surely cause some sever head trauma or even kill yourself, I shake my head everytime I hear the stories of people doing that.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 9, 2006)

What are we talking here, a few bursts? We do it every few months at the range. No head trauma.

At least none that I'm aware of...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 9, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet, did you ever shoot someone in Iraq?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 9, 2006)

Not a question to be asking someone, Soundbreaker. Be a bit more tactful, and thoughtful of people's emotions. I, nor anyone else, would expect Adler to answer that question so you shouldn't either.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 9, 2006)

Agreed. That is an insensitive question to ask _any _vet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2006)

I will say that I have fired my M-60D door gun from my Blackhawk helicopter to protect my aircraft, my crew and my passengers, I have conducted 6 combat air assaults, and I have been shot at....

...will leave it at that.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 9, 2006)

I apologize. It was insensitive to Adler, and also insensitive, especially in Wartime, to ask for Military Information from a Military Personnel without any reason except to satisfy curiosity. 


Thanks Adler for telling what you have done.....and leave it at that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2006)

No problem.


----------



## Jank (Aug 10, 2006)

Matt, why the sarcastic tone? I own a Bushy with a 20" barrel and an SA58.

I have shot hundreds of rounds out of the 16" barreled Bushmaster carbine belonging to my brother. If you have fired a rifle chambered in .223, you would understand that the recoil is quite minimal.

Any of you guys with military service can attest to this.

I'm not sure what your video is supposed to prove.


----------



## Jaws (Aug 11, 2006)

I read an article somewhere few years ago about some war games between IAF and US Navy. The article said US navy fliers got spanked something like 80+ to 4.
Don't remember exactly the numbers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2006)

I believe you are talking about the Indian Airforce not the Isreali Airforce.

FBJ will probably post his info about it and you will understand...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2006)

Cool siggy by the way!


----------



## Jaws (Aug 11, 2006)

Thank you Sir.  

The war games with Indian Air force was just last year. I know the details, was one to three for the Indians and there was no AIM 120's on the F-15's and no AWACS. It is highly unlikely you would meet the USAF in combat in those conditions. 

The one I'm talking about was 4-6 years ago. Maybe more. I know there were F-18's involved on the US Navy side.


----------



## Jaws (Aug 11, 2006)

Here is something i found that mentions this:

: Sep. 22, 2003 | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


: "Israeli air force pilots handily beat their German counterparts in "dogfights" in the first ever air force exercise between the two countries, an Israeli military official said Monday. 
The Israeli F-15 pilots, aided by special technology that Israel does not share or sell to other countries, beat the Germans by more than 100 "hits," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 
In the past, Israel has beaten American air force pilots by similar margins, the officials added. 
: Israel purchases U.S. warplanes without battle technology, installing its own locally made systems into the aircraft. 
The exercise was conducted over the past two weeks in the skies of Sardinia in Italy."


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Cool siggy by the way!



Agreed!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 12, 2006)

Oh yeah, funny video Matt! Alot of fire power in those .50 caliber pistols.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2006)

Jaws said:


> Here is something i found that mentions this:
> 
> : Sep. 22, 2003 | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> 
> ...



Hmm intersting did not know that. Its know wonder though that they beat the Luftwaffe pilots because they are using Tornados. Would love to see that same battle with the new Luftwaffe Typhoons and then the US F-22s instead of F-18s.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 12, 2006)

Once the F-22s get involve, I think those Israeli pilots will have a run for their money.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 12, 2006)

Well however good they are they are getting spanked by the Hezbollah losing armour, naval and air assets I believe the only reason the UN was successful with the cease fire was that Israel was caught between a rock and a hard place in Lebanon casualties were becoming high plus the expense of the war left the Israelis in a no win situation so what better then to have the UN come in and pay for there defense. Yes they could've cruised on to Beruit but the rear areas would've been hard to maintain. Believe it or not the IDF has sustained far more casualties then the Israeli public .


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 12, 2006)

Hold on on second. I think Hezbollah are the ones getting spanked. And the only reason they wanted a cease-fire is because the UN is weak. They go against Israel and I believe Israel has a right to defend themselves from these bastards.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 12, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Hold on on second. I think Hezbollah are the ones getting spanked. And the only reason they wanted a cease-fire is because the UN is weak. They go against Israel and I believe Israel has a right to defend themselves from these bastards.


Yes Israel has the right to recover its prisoners but Israel is taking much heavier military casualties then they anticipated they have lost an Apache and a least 5 Merkeva Tanks not including thin skinned vehicles they are finding it tougher sledding then planned


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2006)

Israel lost 19 soldiers today...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2006)

Jaws said:


> I read an article somewhere few years ago about some war games between IAF and US Navy. The article said US navy fliers got spanked something like 80+ to 4.
> Don't remember exactly the numbers.





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I believe you are talking about the Indian Airforce not the Isreali Airforce.
> 
> FBJ will probably post his info about it and you will understand...



Cope India - http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/cope-india-2004-a-2673.html?highlight=cope+india


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2006)

pbfoot Hezbollah are not the poor victims here as you make them out to be. They instigated it and they deserve what they are getting. As for the civilians in Lebanon, yes I think that is tragic however the Lebanese government has ties to Hezbollah and the Lebanese people support Hezbollah, therefore they are a part of Hezbollah in my opinion. Lebanon could have kicked Hezbollah out. By allowing Hezbollah to fire missiles at Israeli civilians (yes Isreali civilians are getting killed as well. Are Isreali civilians not worth the same as Lebanese civilians, because that is how you make it sound with your pro hezbollah talk), Lebanon supports Hezbollah and must be shut down as well...


----------



## Pisis (Aug 13, 2006)

The great advantage of IDF is their morale - it is a citizen army, they have no other choice thanm fight, with all those _"friendly neighbours"_...

And Alder, they¨re in combat since 1948, not the 60's...


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 13, 2006)

Please I'm not pro Hezbollah ( but do believe the Palestians are the victims)particularly since the source of their weaponary is Iran and any civvy killed is sad I am simply stating that the IDF is have a much tougher go then they anticipated .


----------



## evangilder (Aug 13, 2006)

I only partly agree that the Lebanese are being victimized here. Yes, Syria and Iran are using Lebanon for their proxy war, BUT, the UN resolutions called for the Syrian Army to be at the border in the first place, which they were not. If they had been, they could have stopped the incursion and the rockets. By turning a blind eye and not following UN resolutions, the government of Lebanon has been at least an accessory to Hezbollah. Civilians on both sides are being killed.


----------



## Pisis (Aug 13, 2006)

The UN always turns "blind eye" on the terrorism against Israel, the only ally of the Jewish state is USA - God Bless!

I'm bored to sing still the same song, as we say here if one repeats all the time the same fact... The whole cronny UN is under a big infulence of Arabs...

I agree with pbfoot that Palestinians are the victims, but not by Israel's fault. And Israeli victims simply don't count? The Palestini have been given Gaza and what is the result? Even more rockets fired towards Israeli citizens. By the way, pbfoot, there is about 800,000 Arabi people living under Israeli citizenship and they are not the victims, they live fairly nice lives.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> pbfoot Hezbollah are not the poor victims here as you make them out to be. They instigated it and they deserve what they are getting. As for the civilians in Lebanon, yes I think that is tragic however the Lebanese government has ties to Hezbollah and the Lebanese people support Hezbollah, therefore they are a part of Hezbollah in my opinion. Lebanon could have kicked Hezbollah out. By allowing Hezbollah to fire missiles at Israeli civilians (yes Isreali civilians are getting killed as well. Are Isreali civilians not worth the same as Lebanese civilians, because that is how you make it sound with your pro hezbollah talk), Lebanon supports Hezbollah and must be shut down as well...



Hooah Alder. Its like what Oliver North said 2 weeks ago, 



> Where are all the young men in these crowds of so called civilians? Their fighting the Israelis side-by-side with Hezbollah...



In my opinion, if you aid the enemy, you are the enemy. Haul *** out of there, or prepare for the bombs to fall...


----------



## Erich (Aug 13, 2006)

well just got a note from the mid-east awhile ago, seems that Israeli gun ships and recon drones spotted at least 30 Syrian/Soviet tanks headinhg up to Lebanons border while the Israelis pull out along with Syrian AT missiles. That maybe AA missiles. Even so Syria if indeed is going to plan a raid sure has not learned anything from 1967. hezballoh planned the rocket attacks and not very good by the way for over 10 years and then to build up world sympathy for their cause whatever it is ....

an uneasy peace come early on the morrow .......... watch it as nothing may change except to piss Israel off even further. Been waiting for a Syria/Israel shoot-out for over 25 years so will be interested to see what develops if anything .......


----------



## Pisis (Aug 13, 2006)

You saw action in Syria?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> Please I'm not pro Hezbollah ( but do believe the Palestians are the victims)particularly since the source of their weaponary is Iran and any civvy killed is sad I am simply stating that the IDF is have a much tougher go then they anticipated .



Sorry that was a bit harsh. That is not really what I meant to say and I apologize if I offended you but what I meant is this: You allways talk about the innocent lebonese civilians and palestinian civilians, but do you ever condemn hezbollah or the palestinians for the killing of innocent israelis? Hezbollah was killing Israelis before Israel decided to move into Lebanon. Did that bother or concern you?

It goes both ways my friend....


----------



## Erich (Aug 13, 2006)

Pisis no, I do remember in my younger days when Syria attacked in 1967 I was still in high school at the time, but the tactics/offensive by the Syrians (done all wrong) was studied when I was in Israel in the 80's and still is. Seems the Mid-east nations have not learned from their mistakes as I mentioned and it goes around very 10-20 years with a burr up someones butt that someone needs to attack someone else


----------



## Pisis (Aug 13, 2006)

Yes, they are proud and stupid. And when they're starting being defeated, they became cowards, remember Saddam...


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 13, 2006)

no offense taken its just seems like in this particular thread that someone should take the side of the Palestinians otherwise its not gonna teach anyone anything and I feel that their story is neglected . The Iranians who armed the Hezbollah need to be reined in of that there is no doubt but the fact is the Israelis found a much harder nut to crack then they anticipated. Leading to the question will Hamas take a page out of the Hezbollah book and learn how to conduct combat operations rather then random acts of violence if this is the case Israel had better be willing to give the Palestinians a homeland or it does not bode well for a real peace in the middle east


----------



## Pisis (Aug 13, 2006)

Still the same crap pbfoot... They won't give them land unless they get rid off the terorrists. Would you give a room in your house to a serial killer to make him even easier to kill your wife and kids? I'm sure you won't... And that's the same here, the all other neighbouring countries - if not terrorists themselves, are weak against terrorist organizations, so the Israelis have to clean the **** by themselves. And those cronnies from the UN try to make it even harder... It will be painful but until then, no Palestine, I'm very sorry...


----------



## Erich (Aug 13, 2006)

the Palestinians have been a focal point in the mideast for years you know this pb. problem is leadership, you had an inept greedy money hording non-Palestinian in the gift-schwerg Araft. He was given funds and arms to supplant his 6 -7 orgainzations but squandered the monies. As I said what the Gaza strip could of become had it been thought through, one of the most beautiful med areas and much potential just going down the tubes fna flittered away.

Hezballoh was able to infiltrate the Lebanese govt, and the pose of a gun in their faces many years ago and it isn't just Iran that is playing the mind and arms game, Syria has the strongest interests their being on the doorstep literally in land masse. Lebanon is bigger than one thinks, katushas have the potential to travle many miles along with the Iranian F7's and F-8's. We know of course that the hezballoh fighters are not operating these latter systems but Iranians and Syrian tech crews.

but on it goes, the Palestinians in my feeling will just be absorbed by the winning parties in the mideast and will lose their sole identity of whomever they really are.........

M.A. of Iran has been putting the presure on the dictator of Syria to do something and maybe this is his call to put up some Syrian AA rockets and some 30 tanks so far on the border line. Besides M.A. feels he is going to have the 12 Imam in business within 2 years, playing a significant role to clean the world up wqith Islam being the sole religion ........ judgement day


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 13, 2006)

Pisis said:


> Still the same crap pbfoot... They won't give them land unless they get rid off the terorrists. Would you give a room in your house to a serial killer to make him even easier to kill your wife and kids? I'm sure you won't... And that's the same here, the all other neighbouring countries - if not terrorists themselves, are weak against terrorist organizations, so the Israelis have to clean the **** by themselves. And those cronnies from the UN try to make it even harder... It will be painful but until then, no Palestine, I'm very sorry...



Thats right. Unless Israel can defeat Hezbollah, there will be no peace. Even if there is a permanent cease fire, Israel will still be under attack. Israel cant afford to just stop fighting. They have to fight in order to live and survive in the hostile middle east.


----------



## Erich (Aug 13, 2006)

Hezballoh isn't even the main issue, (maybe today but in the future ? ) look back at history and see how many organizations backed by funny regimes, some short lived, have tried to put Israel under their thumb.

It will be regimes backed by big money thinkers like the Russians that will try and make a differene. The Soviets have been eyeing mideast oil for many many years. what type of consessions are being worked on right now under the UN eyes. I really do pity the UN if they think that 15,000 multi's can make a difference in keeping a peace along a shell shattered border that has seen many wars over the eons of time

I won't even try to 2nd quess what may happen by 7 am West coast time over in the desert ........... peace, although hopeful looks doubtful


----------



## evangilder (Aug 13, 2006)

That does not sound good, Erich. Sounds like this could get pretty messy.


----------



## Pisis (Aug 14, 2006)

Yes, Russia is the a big problem there... _Not only _there though...


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 14, 2006)

It is a messy situation. In addition to political manipulation there is a deep hatred seeded in the two population involved, too many people on both sides had too many friends or relatives killed or family economically ruined by the continuing wars. 

Last month I was traveling with a guy who goes often in Israel for work and he summarized the situation like this : 'I am a peaceful guy, but having seen the situation there I think there is no choice: if I was 20 and Israelian I would be a volontary in the Army, if I was 20 and Palestinian I would be a terrorist'


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 14, 2006)

So Russia is a possible threat?


----------



## Erich (Aug 14, 2006)

yes we have known their motives since early 1980 a reason why I was over there in unknown parts ........ the hammer is going to fall and all of you are going to see it in your lifetime


----------



## Chief (Aug 15, 2006)

I'm already seeing it. Vladimir states that he's running a new russia. It's obvious that it's no different than the original russia. You still have your dictator, Vladimir, you still have your Russian secret police FSB.(succesor to the KGB, literally)
I bet you as soon as we get another Clinton in the oval office. They'll gun it for the oil rich middle-east.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 15, 2006)

I dont think they will try will anything like that in the near future. I agree with Erich and you that it is no different and they are definatly a threat in the future but at the present time they can not afford there own military and they can affored to fight us.


----------



## Erich (Aug 15, 2006)

what has been happening and contiues today is the sale of arms for the monies. The Soviets true need to build up their armies secretly if done so and they are looking at the oil rich fields, you can easily imagine what there thoughts are as Vladimir is drooling. that little imp is playing the deceitful quiet fool that he is. BE interesting just how many soldiers he will fork over into the UN peace keeping force, if any at all. He's a shrewd turd and things are going on in Syria with his regimes backing


----------



## Pisis (Aug 15, 2006)

Yes, he's a snake though.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 15, 2006)

The Russians have enough trouble of their own with the Chechens and there southern borders and they will be our allies . Erich is correct though about this being the start of the the 3rd World War we are no different then our forefathers centuries ago with religious and political leaders of all stripes leading us down the path to destruction even the goal hasn't changed its Jerusalem. We have had the childrens crusade now I suggest that we are now entering the Morons crusade .Thank god I'm to old to play


----------



## Pisis (Aug 15, 2006)

Well always it's morons. War is moronic...


----------



## Erich (Aug 15, 2006)

wish I could believe that the Soviets would be allies. In all respect the dictator of that split up screwed over country is just biding his time waiting for the time to strike. Yes they are weak internally but not at all out of the picture, they could take on any mideast country but Israel and sack them if they so desired


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 15, 2006)

as much as I dislike the Israeli treament of the Palestinians the scary thing is they did not win they did not get their hostages released nor achieved a buffer zone from Hezbollah rockets plus they gave such countries as Syria and Iran a moral boost which bodes poorly for the world


----------



## Erich (Aug 15, 2006)

correct on that statement, nobody won but it's not over yet by a long shot. IDF haas only pulled back slightly, it will be interesting to find out if the media has clearance on what IDF drones have found as to Syrian/Hez/Iran slow build up's along the borders were the IDF has moved off from. If Syria and Iran who have been foolish enough to imply in public they have supported the Hez's do make a bold move towards Isreal by land, then the desert will be wreathed in flame ........ it plays into their motives to take action like this in a slow form to remove the eye off what is happening in the UK and elsewhere. you can bet UK is going to try and be ready but how can they, nor ourselves in the US


----------



## plan_D (Aug 16, 2006)

Great Britain won't be ready for another war in years. 

On the question of Russia, Putin described his rule of Russia as a "controlled democracy" - the only other place a rule has been described like that was in the Spanish Civil War when the Communists described their ruling in the Republicans as a "controlled democracy".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 16, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> as much as I dislike the Israeli treament of the Palestinians the scary thing is they did not win they did not get their hostages released nor achieved a buffer zone from Hezbollah rockets plus they gave such countries as Syria and Iran a moral boost which bodes poorly for the world




And for that reason I would not have stopped fighting them until Hezbollah was destroyed where they deserve to be. Hezbollah has no right to any political or moral forum. They are hypocrites and deserve nothing....


----------



## Pisis (Aug 16, 2006)

Tell this Kofi Onan and Jacques Chirac and other stoopid idiots...


----------



## Erich (Aug 16, 2006)

as we think who will replace Bush in 2008 so the same for the UN and France

scarey proposition as to whom may fill those shoes, if they can one way or the other........

E


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 23, 2006)

Erich said:


> as we think who will replace Bush in 2008 so the same for the UN and France
> 
> scarey proposition as to whom may fill those shoes, if they can one way or the other........
> 
> E



I hope its not Hilary Clinton. If she becomes president, were all screwed.


----------



## Pisis (Aug 24, 2006)

I don't think so... Personally, I'd like Joe Lieberman for president...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2006)

I dont. I dont like Democrats though.


----------



## Pisis (Aug 25, 2006)

Well as far as i know, hes a middle winger. Sometimes he goes with republicans, for example in the case of iraq...


----------



## Chief (Aug 25, 2006)

Amen adler. Luckily things don't look to good for her. Thank God. At least by what I heard.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 26, 2006)

Heard that if she does become pres. she is going to pull us out of Iraq which will be a huge mistake...


----------



## Chief (Aug 27, 2006)

Hold it! If she couldn't figure out how to keep the leash on her husband. What makes her think she can keep a leash on america?

Why do people like her anyway?


----------



## Erich (Aug 27, 2006)

just watch and wait and you will find that she will win the Demo's hearts. Lieberman is going full on independent because his support for the actions in the mid-east which is a big no-no in the Demos eyes and they want him long gone through their own admission. I haven't voted either Demo/Repub for years and I do think I even voted for Kako the whale one term just because the leadership was so profoundly corrupt on both sides. the local independents in my territory of the state of Jefferson are completely idiots

politicians are fools


----------



## Soren (Aug 27, 2006)

Jank said:


> Our special forces are now being issued the new SCAR (SOF Combat Assault Rifle).
> 
> This is a much better gun than the G-36. The accuracy is rep0orted to be 1 MOA or better which is *amazing* for most any rifle let alone a combat rifle.



You can achieve that with the G-36 as-well Jank, and quite easily at that.

Having fired the G-36 I find it very hard to believe that the SCAR-L should be a "much better" or even better weapon at all. I do like the fact that the SCAR is lighter and seems more compact though, thats always a plus, however I'm skeptical as to how big an improvement it is going to be over the M4.

Its a pitty the XM8 project has been cancelled, it looked very promising...


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 27, 2006)

Chief said:


> Hold it! If she couldn't figure out how to keep the leash on her husband. What makes her think she can keep a leash on america?
> 
> Why do people like her anyway?



People like her because she's a woman. She is also weak, and some old skank on menopause, which is probably why her husband screwed that secretary...


----------



## evangilder (Aug 27, 2006)

Erich said:


> politicians are fools



That about sums it up the best, Erich!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 28, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Heard that if she does become pres. she is going to pull us out of Iraq which will be a huge mistake...



You may not hear about it in the news but this administration is allready talking about it as well. Keep watching the news and you are going to see a large troop reduction to start it off.


----------



## Chief (Aug 28, 2006)

*wonders* Have they asked the soldiers what they think about whether we should stay or leave Iraq. 

My opinion: I think we should stay. They started it yes, but we stood to the challange. However, the challange isn't over yet. there is still a terrorist presence and we need to find it. If we pull out now it'll just show the world that america can't follow through on their goals.


----------



## Erich (Aug 28, 2006)

but if we get yanked internally which could happen any day now, I'd prefer the US Army/Air Force/Navy, etc. to be home defending our borders than the national Guard or local vigilantes. I'm all for a troop reduction but let the air force test out some new toys, and believe me we have "stuff" we haven't even tried out yet


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2006)

Chief said:


> *wonders* Have they asked the soldiers what they think about whether we should stay or leave Iraq.
> 
> My opinion: I think we should stay. They started it yes, but we stood to the challange. However, the challange isn't over yet. there is still a terrorist presence and we need to find it. If we pull out now it'll just show the world that america can't follow through on their goals.



Yes they asked us while we in Iraq and they ask us still now what we think about it now that my unit is not in Iraq at the moment.

Soldiers are like 50-50 on the case but moral is very low on the subject at the moment.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 29, 2006)

Being in a sh*thole like that is bad for _any _soldiers morale.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2006)

Yes it is.


----------



## Chief (Aug 29, 2006)

Can't argue with you there.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 29, 2006)

Pulling the Coalition forces out of Iraq wouldn't be a huge mistake, as long as it's done properly and over an extended period of time. The Coalition has done what it aimed to do, it's set-up a democratic nation and brought down the dictator. The job of the Coalition now is to train the security forces then hand over the security to them. 

The numbers should then be reduced. The Coalition should maintain a watching force of around 20,000 for some years - unfortunately most would be U.S troops but it wouldn't be anything close to the current 138,000 (?) U.S troops maintained in Iraq at the moment. A force like that could provide it's own security, and aid the Iraq forces in any attempt of hostile action from outside influences.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2006)

I agree plan_D and I think that is how it is going to happen over the next 3 years.


----------



## Pisis (Aug 29, 2006)

138,000 US soldiers in Iraq now? Wow! I didn't know And yeah, fighting with terrorrists isn't a good thing on your morale...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2006)

Pisis 138,000 troops is about 20,000 less than when I was there.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 2, 2006)

let's just hope pulling out doesn't go the same way it did in Vietnam......


----------



## plan_D (Sep 2, 2006)

You don't have to worry about the withdrawal from Iraq being anything like Vietnam. The Coalition would remove forces from Iraq step by step, handing power to the Iraqi security forces as they go. A Coalition force much smaller than that currently in Iraq will be left behind, that will aid the Iraqi security to the best of their ability. But they will just be an aid, never the main force. 

The situation in Vietnam was hasty. The U.S forces withdrew very quickly and removed everything U.S from Vietnamese soil. That left North and South Vietnamese troops facing off against each other in open warfare. There'll be none of that in Iraq. While Vietnam had it's Communist insurgency, there was an army to fight too. An army is something the Islamic extremists in Iraq do not have. They do not have tanks, planes, uniforms or a supply base. They are insurgents, they cannot operate in open warfare, on open ground, with their colours held high like the Vietming could.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2006)

And no matter what happens there will probably be a Civil War there anyhow because the people that can not live with one another.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 3, 2006)

but if there's a civil war and there aren't many of our troops to try and keep the peice will other nations join in the fight?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2006)

Hard to say, more than likely yes.


----------



## Erich (Sep 3, 2006)

in association with the Iraqui conflict the question has to be propsed by all : can the Iraqui's even be trusted with taking care of thier own personal affairs to allow us to get back home ? I must confess I do not trust any of them ...........to carry a bucket of water over 35 yards to thier home as to placing a roadside bomb to kill our troops

E


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 3, 2006)

I think its going to be ugly the Shitites scrapping with Sunni leaving the Kurds alone to the north will Iran come in openly opening the possibility of a new full blown Cold War


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2006)

Erich I agree.

pbfoot I agree as well because it is allready like that and was like that back when I was there.


----------



## DIOGENIS (Oct 3, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hard to say, more than likely yes.



i don't think so, this issue is still a hot potato, and as far as EU is concerned, there is nothing to be gained there, on the contrary public opinion in most countries is opposed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2006)

No Diogenis you are wrong. The world will not stand bye and allow the Middle East to destabalize anymore that it allready has.

If Civil War does break out the UN (Even though I think the UN is a big failure and worthless) will do mandate a Peace Keeping Force to go in there and stop the fighting.


----------



## DIOGENIS (Oct 3, 2006)

If the whole situation show signs of stabilization, of course UN is the most appropriate solution.Not only for this country to avoid a civil war, but also to keep other neighbours from going in and have a piece, ( Turkie/Iran).

Thought we were discussing individual nation's possible involvement though.

As for the public's opinion and not the politician's, i believe that the UN solution is the most popular.

I may sound controversial , but i think global terrorism threat is a much more complicated (fanatical /social ) issue than keeping this country's unity


----------

