Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Israel Tells the U.S. It Will Retaliate if Attacked by Iraq
The New York Times ^ | 9/21/2002 | Michael R. Gordon

Posted on 09/21/2002 3:02:55 PM PDT by ex-Texan

Israel Tells the U.S. It Will Retaliate if Attacked by Iraq

By MICHAEL R. GORDON

JERUSALEM, Sept. 21 — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has informed the Bush administration that he plans to strike back if Iraq attacks Israel, according to Israeli and Western officials.

Mr. Sharon's statements, made privately to senior American officials in recent weeks, represent a major shift in Israeli thinking since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when 39 Iraqi Scud missiles struck without any Israeli response.

Advertisement

The prime minister's position reflects a widespread belief among Israeli politicians and generals that Arab leaders perceived Israel's restraint in 1991 as weakness. Throughout his military and political career, Mr. Sharon has always held that any attack on Israel must be promptly and powerfully punished.

"I don't think there is a scenario in which Israel will get hit and not strike back," a senior Western official said. "I think the evolving strategy will be commensurate response."

Mr. Sharon's position has significant implications for the Pentagon, which fears that an Israeli entry would stir up Arab public opinion and make it harder for the Pentagon to maintain cooperation from the Arab states where Washington hopes to base American forces

Read Rest of Article

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: israel; willretaliate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-285 next last
To: Robert_Paulson2
Why in heck are the Israel's so infatuated with Arafat? The guy is totally impotent anyway... who gives a damn what he thinks!
51 posted on 09/21/2002 4:37:18 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SEGUET
I got news pal. If the troops get contaminated with biological weaponry and we deploy pharmaceuticals to the theatre, the citizenry of the US is sitting duck to an attack here at home. I damn well hope the White House has that scenario mapped out!
52 posted on 09/21/2002 4:39:22 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
"The USA KNEW they were going to do this."

And your point being?

53 posted on 09/21/2002 4:40:41 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Rye
I have no problem with US and IDF cooperation, so don't you go trying to label this argument as "anti-semite". That old gibberish is a bunch of malarky which is used any time people want to steer discussion from facts.

If the IDF and US Pentagon are so coordinated, why did Israel send Pollard to spy on us?

54 posted on 09/21/2002 4:41:02 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
Sharon's ego appears to be interfering with more diplomatic solutions

I've been watching this Mid-East crap for 50 years.
I'm not sure there are diplomatic solutions.

55 posted on 09/21/2002 4:41:46 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
Pakistan is not that easily pacified. If they have fought for generations with India and have gone toe-to-toe with India to create nuclear weapons themselves, don't count muslim ties out entirely.

I am sure that the Pakistan issue is being addressed by your favorite diplomat, Colin Powell.

You should thank the General for covering your back because if this was during Clinton... do you really think Madeline Albright would have known what to do?

56 posted on 09/21/2002 4:43:50 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Which is exactly why we should be isolating from the situation. I'm particularly distressed that so many appear to have mistaken the interests of the United States for the interests of any other nation. US families and US interests go before any other nation, and that includes Israel.
57 posted on 09/21/2002 4:44:55 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
I have news for you --- ALL major players in this world spy on each other. ....whether they're allies or enemies.
58 posted on 09/21/2002 4:46:06 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Rye
Jonathan Pollard's case is not an example of paranoia. It IS an example of Israeli espionage on our nation. Say... are you LIBERAL?
59 posted on 09/21/2002 4:46:19 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Rye
Israel is not a major player.
60 posted on 09/21/2002 4:47:21 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
I'd agree with you if there wasn't oil there.
We're a player whether we want to be or not.
61 posted on 09/21/2002 4:49:14 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
I posted that in a series of several responses to bones...

Israel and the USA no doubt in my mind, did this together... It is NOT some rogue act by Israel.. but part of the war on terror.

It's final roundup time in Israel, prior to the other actions impending in the theatre...

I expect the usual "Israel must cease hostilities" stuff momentarily... whilst cia operatives go through the list of terroristas KNOWN to be in the compound... alongsided their mossad counterparts.


62 posted on 09/21/2002 4:51:22 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
Pakistan is not that easily pacified.

perhaps not, but their nukes are... and they are NO THREAT TO ISRAEL... period. Or india either.
63 posted on 09/21/2002 4:53:27 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
Say... are you LIBERAL?

LOL....Well, if you consider a gun-totin', GOP votin', flat tax advocatin', UN despisin' guy a liberal.....

Be honest, are you a teenager? Your views are naive and uninformed in the extreme.

64 posted on 09/21/2002 4:56:28 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
"I got news pal. If the troops get contaminated with biological weaponry and we deploy pharmaceuticals to the theatre, the citizenry of the US is sitting duck to an attack here at home. I damn well hope the White House has that scenario mapped out!"

Don't laugh - the old rope a dope - while we are busy over there with Franks-footers v Sad man - a little head fake - a little US bio thing (that is probably already here - and we are in the sh*tter -

THE Buush doesn't want to think about things like that though
65 posted on 09/21/2002 4:56:34 PM PDT by SEGUET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
Israel is not a major player.

If you have the third strongest military in the world, you're a major player.

66 posted on 09/21/2002 4:57:47 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Actually there is another play. US companies should work with Russian companies to develop oil exploration projects in Siberia. By hauling the crude across the North Pacific, we can alter the balance of power away from Middle Eastern oil thugs. The faster we help the Japanese and Russians figure out how to develop in Siberia, the better off fuel prices will be in the US. Then, the democrats can prevent US oil exploration in ANWAR all they want. It won't matter. How ironic that it is easier to cut a deal with the Russians in Siberia than it is with Gray Davis.
67 posted on 09/21/2002 4:58:36 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Rye
according to whose standard are you measuring?
IDF is a great force, but it's not that great. You'd have to say that IDF is better than UK, Russia, and China???
68 posted on 09/21/2002 4:59:24 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Rye
Just because you're paranoid,
doesn't mean someone ISN'T out to get you.
69 posted on 09/21/2002 5:00:37 PM PDT by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
Well, there is nothing to control when the other side is hell-bent on keeping it going. It was, after all, the previous Barak administration that was in charge when the "intifada" began.

I believe that the Israelis are really paranoid about being seen as a US puppet that will be reeled in when their response is diplomatically unsettling. As they were done in the first Gulf War, and throughout the 1990s. I'm positive that the Palestinians wouldn't be continuing this uprising if they had reason to believe the Israelis would retaliate with overwhelming force, as they had done until the late 1980s, 1990s.

I am not sure if they can communicate directly with US forces, I believe it is probable however, being they are flying with an airforce of which a large portion is American. I DO know that with use of IFF coding Israeli and American warplanes could work cooperately, that was a sticking point in the first Gulf War. The Israelis wanted the codes to prepare for their counter-strike, but the Bush I administration wouldn't give them, so the Israelis had to sit back, or risk tangling with American pilots.

70 posted on 09/21/2002 5:01:51 PM PDT by Joseph_CutlerUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
How ironic that it is easier to cut a deal with the Russians in Siberia than it is with Gray Davis.

LOL!
Still having trouble with Marxists...

71 posted on 09/21/2002 5:03:47 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
If we believe that our nation has been attacked, we should address the situation with the perpetrator... any perpetrator... including if Israel's action costs American lives.

But not vice-versa, right? You don't really care if any American action costs Israelly lives? You also believe that a country does not have a right to retaliate if attacked, unless it can insure no American lives are threatened?

Just asking?

Hank

72 posted on 09/21/2002 5:04:51 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Joseph_CutlerUSA
So does that mean that IDF and USAF/USN pilots can ID each other? That's a great step forwards.

The real problem I am more concerned about is that if Saddam Hussein uses chemical weapons on Israel, a nuclear response would kill our operatives and forces in the field.

Regarding biological weapons, some of the people in this thread do not understand how these devices work. Israel won't realize it was hit with biological weapons for some period of time (likely a few weeks).

73 posted on 09/21/2002 5:05:13 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
I would consider the IDF better then all 3 of those, my opinion of course.

The Brits don't have the quantity, the Russians and Chinese don't have the logistics or quality.

Whether the Russians have the quantity anymore is also suspect.
74 posted on 09/21/2002 5:06:48 PM PDT by Joseph_CutlerUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
Yes, the Palestinians have a violent streak running. However, real political solutions occur when people have hope and ideals. Neither appear to exist for any individual in the Middle East. The Jews and Palestinians have such poor leadership. Really feel sorry for any individuals living around there.

Thanks for the dime store platitudes. Now roll over and go back to sleep.

75 posted on 09/21/2002 5:07:41 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
Of course they have every right to self defense, but it's puzzling why they would bother to get involved in more than some token way, since the end of Saddam's reign would be at hand anyway...unless they didn't trust the US to finish the job.
76 posted on 09/21/2002 5:08:13 PM PDT by kms61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
No, that's not what I said. US forces have not killed Israelis. My point is that if the US military is on an offensive operation in Iraq, Israel needs to stay out of the battlefield. IDF will further cloud our operations and cost US lives.

While Israel has a right to respond and defend her citizens, there are times when little response is really practical. During Desert Storm this was exactly the case. USAF was hunting SCUDs and performing an offensive role. US Army was shooting SCUDS and performing the defensive role. What else is there to do?

77 posted on 09/21/2002 5:08:23 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
"So does that mean that IDF and USAF/USN pilots can ID each other? That's a great step forwards."

I'm almost absolutely sure the answer is yes, if the USAF decides to give the IAF their IFF codes. Maybe some of the military types here could clear this up?

"The real problem I am more concerned about is that if Saddam Hussein uses chemical weapons on Israel, a nuclear response would kill our operatives and forces in the field."

If the Israelis used nuclear weapons, I think the first thing they would do would be to make sure they weren't hitting Americans. That would be the absolute worst thing they could ever do politically.

"Regarding biological weapons, some of the people in this thread do not understand how these devices work. Israel won't realize it was hit with biological weapons for some period of time (likely a few weeks)."

Possibly, but did it really take that long for the Anthrax to be identified? And that was such a small scale attack, in a large country, right?
78 posted on 09/21/2002 5:10:14 PM PDT by Joseph_CutlerUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Joseph_CutlerUSA
So you have no basis for your claim? IDF is a great force, but it's not the third best on Earth by any means. It's probably top 10, but Russia, the US, and NATO could probably out class IDF. The Chinese Red Army would probably roll over Israel in a few minutes. So, no, I don't think IDF is number 3 on Earth. And, no, I doubt that Israel itself can be considered a "major" player. Certainly, the US news media makes Israeli politics a topic du jour. However, it doesn't really merit such 24-7 attention.
79 posted on 09/21/2002 5:11:11 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
This would be a big mistake. Israel can strike back, but it cannot occupy the country. Only the US can go in with force and occupy the capital. Israel's involvement would seriously erode our ability to set up a friendly democratic post-Saddam government.
80 posted on 09/21/2002 5:11:14 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
and thank you so much for your thought provoking contribution to this thread.
81 posted on 09/21/2002 5:12:05 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
ABSOLUTELY!
82 posted on 09/21/2002 5:12:33 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Joseph_CutlerUSA
If we assume that Israel's gov't consults with the White House prior to launching a nuclear retalliation, the White House would probably say "no" anyway. Do you seriously think that General Sharon would care what we think? I doubt it. So, the real problem is that US agents, operatives, and advance teams will be in Baghdad and other areas or Iraq snooping for WMD and scooping targets. Then, suddenly a nuke from Israel wipes out communication with field operatives, fries all international satillite links, and then toasts our planning.

With friends like that, no wonder they're spying on the nation who set them up!

Regarding biological weapons, Israel has some good medical facilities but I doubt that they will be able to identify anthrax within 72 hours of when the strike occurs. It is more likely that anthrax will be laced into other things. If IDF or emergency crews respond and are unknowingly exposed, they will present symptoms several days later. By that point, the war could be over.

83 posted on 09/21/2002 5:18:32 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
It is a matter of a counter attack, not an offensive. The Israelis are merely saying, clearly this time, that if Iraq sends scud or any other weapon against Israel, the IDF will respond with something much heavier.
84 posted on 09/21/2002 5:20:15 PM PDT by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
"So you have no basis for your claim?"

Well I've got the fact that of all the West's armies, the IDF is certainly the least neglected.

"Russia, the US, and NATO could probably out class IDF."

NATO as a block? All NATO is, is the United States. So, subtracting the US, what do they really have, especially after the Germans have gutted their armed forces since the end of the Cold War? The Europeans have been trying to create a Euro Army, and they are falling flat on their faces, because they don't give their militaries anywhere near approriate funding. The UK, France, Belgium, Italians, anywhere near the Israelis in quantity and quality? Not near. They have no reason to, with the United States protecting most of their interests.

The Russians are a matter I'm not fully informed on. I do know however that much of the USSR's military power is rotting in tank parks, harbors, and airforce junkyards.

The US Armed forces are of course superior, because they've got both the quantity of the IDF (plus a hell of a lot more), and the quality (although the 1990s weren't exactly happy times).

"The Chinese Red Army would probably roll over Israel in a few minutes."

If China and Israel were sitting side by side on a map? Would the Chinese roll over the US Army? The Chinese would face the same problems against the Israelis as they would against the United States. Totally outclassed in modern weaponry, mobility, and supplies (assuming the US continues to supply the Israelis). All it comes down to is "Do numbers matter?" The same question that we'd ask if it was the United States vs. China.

"So, no, I don't think IDF is number 3 on Earth. And, no, I doubt that Israel itself can be considered a "major" player. Certainly, the US news media makes Israeli politics a topic du jour. However, it doesn't really merit such 24-7 attention."

If Israel wasn't a major player, it wouldn't be such a big deal if they attacked Iraq.

The Arabs themselves have made Israel a big player.
85 posted on 09/21/2002 5:20:54 PM PDT by Joseph_CutlerUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

Comment #86 Removed by Moderator

To: bonesmccoy
"If we assume that Israel's gov't consults with the White House prior to launching a nuclear retalliation, the White House would probably say "no" anyway. Do you seriously think that General Sharon would care what we think? I doubt it. So, the real problem is that US agents, operatives, and advance teams will be in Baghdad and other areas or Iraq snooping for WMD and scooping targets. Then, suddenly a nuke from Israel wipes out communication with field operatives, fries all international satillite links, and then toasts our planning."

A. I don't know how the Israelis would react, with conventional or nuclear weapons.
B. I'm sure everything possible would be done to reduce friendly fire casualties. Just like the US Armed Forces would do if they were hit by chemical weapons and had to retaliate. And I suspect if he was to hit Israel, he would also hit the US Army.

"With friends like that, no wonder they're spying on the nation who set them up!"

The United States certainly did not set Israel up, the Soviet Union deserves as much credit, if not more. It was the Soviet Union, after all, that through Czechoslovakia was the only country to import arms to the Jews. It took MUCH lobbying of Truman for him to finally agree to recognize the state. Once it was recognized however, we did try to take the lead, in order to gain the Israelis' favor.

Then who gave them arms? Not the US, but France.

"Regarding biological weapons, Israel has some good medical facilities but I doubt that they will be able to identify anthrax within 72 hours of when the strike occurs. It is more likely that anthrax will be laced into other things. If IDF or emergency crews respond and are unknowingly exposed, they will present symptoms several days later. By that point, the war could be over."

A. I personally think chemical weapons are much more likely.
B. The United States, without knowing what it was looking for, or knowing to look for it, recognized Anthax in a country of 270+ million in under a week?
C. I doubt the war would be over that quickly if we're assuming the biological weapons are used from the start. I'm not one who sees another 72 hour ground campaign, although I would hope for one.
D. If the war was looking to be over in 3 days or so, I don't think the Israelis would retaliate with anything other then conventional munitions.
87 posted on 09/21/2002 5:32:47 PM PDT by Joseph_CutlerUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Joseph_CutlerUSA
If the Arab gov't's spent nearly as much time on their own people's issues as they spend on Israel, there wouldn't be nearly the amount of disease and suffering in their nations (to be certain!).

Regarding US vs. China, China is the biggest challenge to US military supremacy. They would roll over So. Korea in a few days if they entered the peninsula again. So, yes, the Chinese are a major player, especially since their population is so big.

Russia is still a major player by virtue of their nukes.

Israel does have ICBM technology and does have nuclear capability. This makes Israel a nuclear player and important.

However, I suppose I should define "major" in my thinking. A major nation has substantial natural resources, large population to utilize resources, a strong economy to mobilize against threats to well-being, and the ability to be stand by itself. By these definitions, Israel is not major and neither are some European and Asian nations. Taiwan and So. Korean are both reliant on US military cooperation. Japan is resource poor, which means they aren't "major" either. Israel, though strategic, does not warrant a controlling influence on US foreign policy. In fact, we should be more concerned with stabilizing the Russian economy, improving democratic change in China, and stabilizing European and Japanese economics.

88 posted on 09/21/2002 5:36:07 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
"If the Arab gov't's spent nearly as much time on their own people's issues as they spend on Israel, there wouldn't be nearly the amount of disease and suffering in their nations (to be certain!)."

Absolutely agree.

"Regarding US vs. China, China is the biggest challenge to US military supremacy. They would roll over So. Korea in a few days if they entered the peninsula again. So, yes, the Chinese are a major player, especially since their population is so big."

Quite possible, but definitely not assured. The ROK certainly has a hell of a lot of firepower, and once again, they've got the logistics (which the North Koreans don't have on their own...Do the Chinese have the ability to project that kind of force? I really don't know. Any help from former military?)

"Russia is still a major player by virtue of their nukes."

Agreed, I was talking conventional forces.

"Israel does have ICBM technology and does have nuclear capability. This makes Israel a nuclear player and important."

True.

"However, I suppose I should define "major" in my thinking. A major nation has substantial natural resources, large population to utilize resources, a strong economy to mobilize against threats to well-being, and the ability to be stand by itself."

Ah, we obviously weren't going by the same definition. By major power, I meant the ability to affect international politics greatly. By the above qualifications, no the Israelis aren't a major power, especially without US support.

"By these definitions, Israel is not major and neither are some European and Asian nations. Taiwan and So. Korean are both reliant on US military cooperation. Japan is resource poor, which means they aren't "major" either."

Agree.

"Israel, though strategic, does not warrant a controlling influence on US foreign policy. In fact, we should be more concerned with stabilizing the Russian economy, improving democratic change in China, and stabilizing European and Japanese economics."

Agree to disagree. :)
89 posted on 09/21/2002 5:41:36 PM PDT by Joseph_CutlerUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
Israel will stay OUT of our fight with Iraq, up to and until Iraq carries the war to Israel, by way of attacking Israel. Then it becomes Israels war too.

A parallel to your thought is: Canada goes to war with Mexico and expects the US to stay out of it, even tho Mexico bombs Wash DC, it is not the US's fight. The US should stay out of it and suffer the damage.

That is bullsh*t thinking.

Any country that is attacked by another country has the right to defend themselves, including Israel.

If Iraq is stupid enough to attack Israel, again, the war will be over in about 24 hours, with Baghdad a smouldering ruin.

90 posted on 09/21/2002 5:46:55 PM PDT by rstevens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Joseph_CutlerUSA
A. I don't know how the Israelis would react, with conventional or nuclear weapons.
B. I'm sure everything possible would be done to reduce friendly fire casualties. Just like the US Armed Forces would do if they were hit by chemical weapons and had to retaliate. And I suspect if he was to hit Israel, he would also hit the US Army.

A. Israel has already stated it would respond with nuclear force.

B. This is an argument against IDF involvement in the war. If the US is similarly attacked, US forces would most certainly respond similarly to the response of the IDF.

A. I personally think chemical weapons are much more likely.

My point is that Sharon's comments are ridiculous. IDF is handcuffed by the circumstances. Even if they had the force to mount a response, Israel can not politically. If Sharon does respond militarily, it will likely damage US-Israeli relations for a long time.

B. The United States, without knowing what it was looking for, or knowing to look for it, recognized Anthax in a country of 270+ million in under a week?

We got lucky. The infectious disease physician in West Palm Beach was an astute clinician and he made the correct phone call to CDC in a timely manner. Nevertheless many people suffered and died during the attack. Part of the reason is the inability of local physicians to diagnose the disease with locally available labs. CDC has not prepared the nation for biological attack and if we suffer civilian casualties in the next few months, don't blame me... i've been posting here about this issue for a year now.

C. I doubt the war would be over that quickly if we're assuming the biological weapons are used from the start. I'm not one who sees another 72 hour ground campaign, although I would hope for one.

Regardless of how long the ground offensive takes, IDF involvement is not planned into the agenda. It would throw off our planning and logistics. Once we are in motion, Sharon should defend his nation by working to shoot down incoming threats, but he should stay out of our theatre of operations.

D. If the war was looking to be over in 3 days or so, I don't think the Israelis would retaliate with anything other then conventional munitions.

No, the reason I have been so vocal on this thread is that the Israeli gov't has already stated policy to do nuclear retalliation to use of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. The Israeli gov't needs to stop painting itself in a corner. They've lost control of the situation. This situation is now being controlled by the US and the White House.

Althought I'm just a joe-6-pack citizen, the reality is that Sharon is not convincing me of his ability to create a longer term peace strategy in the mid-east.

91 posted on 09/21/2002 5:48:04 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: plowhand
go back to your sheep!
92 posted on 09/21/2002 5:48:29 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: rstevens
Your analogy is such a weak way to analyze the situation in the Mid East. If Canada or Mexico began to destabilize, America has the economic, political, and military might to address the situation quickly. Israel does not. Israel has been given much armament by the US. Financially, they are certainly tied to the US markets.
93 posted on 09/21/2002 5:53:32 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
And, no, I doubt that Israel itself can be considered a "major" player.....

Any nation with 50+ nuclear weapons is a major player....period.
94 posted on 09/21/2002 5:59:15 PM PDT by JSloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Joseph_CutlerUSA
aww come on. I just laid out a great set of practical reasons, and you won't cut any slack on the definition of major???

Here's some info on the IDF from http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Israeli_Defence_Force

Israel is the only nuclear power in the middle east. Although the government has never officially admitted it, nuclear weapons were developed at the Dimona site in the 1960s, with the first two nuclear bombs probably operational before the six-day war. It is widely reported that Prime Minister Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel's first nuclear alert during thar war. It is also reported that, fearing defeat in the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton nuclear bombs.

The current size and composition of Israel's nuclear stockpile is uncertain, and is the subject of various estimates and reports. Isreal probably has 100-200 nuclear warheads, which can be delivered by airplanes (F-4 Phantom II), or ballistic missiles (Lance, Jericho, or Jericho II missiles). The Jericho II is reported to have a range between 1,500 and 4,000 kms, meaning that it can target sites as far away as central Russia.

Military branches:

IDF

Ground

Air

Navy

Pioneer Fighting Youth (Nahal)

Frontier Guard

Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $8.7 billion (FY99)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 9.4% (FY99)

The IDF's human assets (estimate, source: CIA World Factbook 2000) Military manpower - Category Males Females Availability (age 15-49) 1,499,186 1,462,063

Fit for military service (age 15-49) 1,226,903 1,192,319

Reaching military age (18) annually 50,348 47,996

*******************************************| By comparison to China's forces:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Republic_of_China/Military

People's Liberation Army (PLA), which includes the Ground Forces, Navy (includes Marines and Naval Aviation), Air Force, Second Artillery Corps (the strategic missile force), People's Armed Police (internal security troops, nominally subordinate to Ministry of Public Security, but included by the Chinese as part of the "armed forces" and considered to be an adjunct to the PLA in wartime)

Military manpower

Military age: 18 years of age

Availability:
males age 15-49: 363,050,980 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 199,178,361 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 10,839,039 (2000 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $12.608 billion (FY99); note - The actual amount of PRC military spending remains highly controversial. First of all, the military may get resources which are not listed in the official budget. Second, it is difficult to get agreement on the conversion factor used to convert military expenditures to dollars.

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY99)

***************************************** Given that the PLA is 100 X larger than the IDF, I'd say that yes the Chinese could run like a Mongol Horde over Jerusalem.

95 posted on 09/21/2002 6:03:53 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: JSloth
does that mean you consider PAK or India as major players?
96 posted on 09/21/2002 6:04:50 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
"A. Israel has already stated it would respond with nuclear force."

When did it say that? It has implied that the Iraqis would be sorry, but I don't believe they have said nuclear weapons would be used...They still haven't officially even admitted to having nuclear weapons, although everyone knows they do.

"B. This is an argument against IDF involvement in the war. If the US is similarly attacked, US forces would most certainly respond similarly to the response of the IDF."

How is the argument that the US would do the same thing, an argument against the Israelis defending themselves?

Would the United States use WMD against Iraq if only the Israelis were hit?

Would it be political suicide in the United States if Israel retaliated?

I don't know. If you told the random guy on the street that the Israelis responded to thousands of their civilians dead, after 9-11, would they see that as such an evil?

"We got lucky. The infectious disease physician in West Palm Beach was an astute clinician and he made the correct phone call to CDC in a timely manner. Nevertheless many people suffered and died during the attack. Part of the reason is the inability of local physicians to diagnose the disease with locally available labs. CDC has not prepared the nation for biological attack and if we suffer civilian casualties in the next few months, don't blame me... i've been posting here about this issue for a year now."

Yes, we got lucky, but because -we- weren't expecting it and -we- haven't prepared for it. The Israelis certainly have for many years.

"Regardless of how long the ground offensive takes, IDF involvement is not planned into the agenda. It would throw off our planning and logistics. Once we are in motion, Sharon should defend his nation by working to shoot down incoming threats, but he should stay out of our theatre of operations."

I'm pretty sure that the Pentagon is preparing for the possibility of the introduction of the IAF. If they aren't, they're idiotic. Yes it would put things out of whack, but I don't believe it would cause an American loss. The Israeli response would probably be mostly air attacks, which won't affect US ground units, because they'd do all they could to avoid our ground units, and would probably be on static targets.

I think the biggest threat is air to air fights between USAF and IAF planes, but if the Israelis are really going in, I think the United States will give them the IFF codes.

"No, the reason I have been so vocal on this thread is that the Israeli gov't has already stated policy to do nuclear retalliation to use of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. The Israeli gov't needs to stop painting itself in a corner. They've lost control of the situation. This situation is now being controlled by the US and the White House."

Israeli government policy has always been to meet force with more force. They didn't do that during the Gulf War, they didn't do that durin the 1990s. Just because there may be an outdated document/policy saying that WMD will be met with WMD does not mean they are wed to that.

NATO policy was to use tactical nuclear weapons for specific threats by Warsaw Pact military units. Did that mean that NATO would have certainly used nuclear weapons on German ground? Maybe, but it wasn't a lock.

Bush I threatened the Iraqis with nuclear attacks if WMD were used against US troops. James Baker, and others, later insinuated that was only a bluff, and we wouldn't really have done it. How come the Israelis are wedded to public statements, but we aren't? They will decide when it happens, there certainly isn't a playbook sitting out where B must be the retaliation to A. I guarentee that there is some flexibility.

97 posted on 09/21/2002 6:05:35 PM PDT by Joseph_CutlerUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Joseph_CutlerUSA
"I think the biggest threat is air to air fights between USAF and IAF planes, but if the Israelis are really going in, I think the United States will give them the IFF codes."

POPPY COCK!

If this administration gives any codes to the IDF because Sharon wants them, then GW doesn't deserve to be reelected in 2004!

98 posted on 09/21/2002 6:10:51 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Joseph_CutlerUSA
"I think the biggest threat is air to air fights between USAF and IAF planes, but if the Israelis are really going in, I think the United States will give them the IFF codes."

POPPY COCK!

If this administration gives any codes to the IDF because Sharon wants them, then GW doesn't deserve to be reelected in 2004!

99 posted on 09/21/2002 6:10:51 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
please do send references regarding the recent intifada... there is clearly a set of circumstances in the last year that changed things... the media hasn't presented them... so what you got is great info.
100 posted on 09/21/2002 6:13:51 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-285 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson