2000 Americans Dead..........and Counting
#62
Posted 01 November 2005 - 10:44 PM
R Havell, on Nov 1 2005, 11:43 PM, said:
Quote
As for being condescending... you obviously haven't read many of my posts up till now.
#63
Posted 01 November 2005 - 10:45 PM
A. J. Raffles, on Nov 1 2005, 11:44 PM, said:
#64
Posted 01 November 2005 - 10:55 PM
Stroggy, on Nov 1 2005, 10:44 PM, said:
A. J. I have lurked for long enough to know that Stroggy is a bit of a kno... know-it-all
#65
Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:14 PM
Galadrin, on Nov 1 2005, 11:55 PM, said:
#66
Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:17 PM
Anyhoo, my point is that these "2'nd World" dictators are too often propped up by world powers, and that starting a war to essentially install a more favorable regime while removing an "evil dictator" that your father helped keep in power is pretty freaking lame.
#67
Posted 02 November 2005 - 06:56 AM
Quote
- both's operation is based on nuclear fission, except another one's is based on nuclear fusion
- both are in black list of Greenpeace
- both have same first letter
Then about Germany... After WW2 they were limited to zero submarines and now they've got almost 15 years to build or buy ones, so how on earth could they have given them to Israel???
***
Then to assure you about something:
Quote
***
And finally people, don't underestimate some nations' military power. US forces have showed only their best, which, as in every military force, is only marginal. Nowadays if defender can resist long enough, best marginal doesn't anymore count. It's "second line troops" (meaning majority of first line troops) and then reserves and economy that make the decision. If defender can resist long enough. Also no one knows for certainty how major war (= two major powers really fighting a war, not some well-planned and executed occupation of much lesser power) would proceed.
China for example can easily arm millions of men (line up, give them rifles and train basics), but to maneuver and maintain them is totally different thing, not to mention their attack strength to resisting country. At the moment US forces are very likely quite stretched, mostly for their home front. Totalitarian police states can wield much more easily larger armies and Iran isn't actually very far from one, not forgetting that they have cultural and religional difference, even rivalry, compared to USA. Also USA has been quite widely considered imperialistic meddler of other sovereign states issues and thereby it would most likely receive even more liberal resistance throughout western world. But as an European citizen I don't actually mind, because Europe is finally challenging USA in economy...
PS: Stroggy, sor for sarcasm. I couldn't resist!
#68
Posted 02 November 2005 - 12:36 PM
Juni Ori, on Nov 2 2005, 07:56 AM, said:
Quote
- both's operation is based on nuclear fission, except another one's is based on nuclear fusion
- both are in black list of Greenpeace
- both have same first letter
Then about Germany... After WW2 they were limited to zero submarines and now they've got almost 15 years to build or buy ones, so how on earth could they have given them to Israel???
***
Then to assure you about something:
Quote
***
The fact that Iran has SCUDs does not automatically mean they are capable of reaching Israel. This is something they later stated as having developed themselves (namely the shahab-3 missiles)
By the way, why did Russian spyplanes have to confirm the existance of Iran's SCUDs when the Russians gave said SCUDs themselves?
I do not believe Iran would want to "wipe Israel of the map," after all they'd be destroying their greatest scapegoat... of coarse mr. Ahmadinejadh does not seem to be a very stable person.
#69
Posted 03 November 2005 - 07:11 AM
You do have a strong point in:
Quote
#70
Posted 03 November 2005 - 12:55 PM
Also, China already conscripts thousands and gives them training. It's the same for all neutral countries (especially Switzerland), it's what they have to do to protect themselves.
#71
Posted 03 November 2005 - 01:06 PM
I'm also well aware that China already conscripts thousands of men every year, as well as in Finland we do (possibly about 30'000 per year, whichof possibly about 10% abort service). What I meant was that it has equipment and arms to form so huge army that no other nation could even dream of it. And I mean Russia and USA too. In Russia they don't have strong enough organization to get men to service at the moment and in USA they living standard would drastically decrease causing severe disturbances and possibly even collapse of economy.
And, as mentioned, I'm well aware of conscription armies and their necessity to some countries, as I've served in one myself.
#72
Posted 03 November 2005 - 04:11 PM
Juni Ori, on Nov 3 2005, 08:11 AM, said:
To name one: loads of plazas and bridges in Cairo reffer to the 6th of october, including one 6th of October bridge. This reffers to Egypt's crossing of the Suez into Israeli controlled Sinai. However the fact that the same Suez was crossed not much later by the israeli army (under Sharon) is quickly forgotten.
A new pan-arabic (or arabic-persian) coalition is difficult to foresee, but not impossible.
#73
Posted 03 November 2005 - 06:14 PM
As for an Islamic front I don't see that happening any time soon, as closely related these nations are, they have too many differences between them to really consider fighting as one united entity, even against Israel I don't see this happening any time soon.
http://www.last.fm/user/DeathDude/Upcoming Concerts will be attending, 5/10/08: Dream Theater, 5/12/08: Gigantour, 5/16/08: Nightwish, 5/27/08: Rush, 6/5/08 and 6/6/08: Iron Maiden, 7/27/08: Judas Priest,