The Middle East part 2

[Donnervogel 0]

Erm this discussion is totally silly.

Nobody said Germany would go to war with Israel. Fact is that Israel keeps provoking the German forces and the Germans just let it happen. But if they don't stop they would risk that sooner or later someone is going to take defensive action wich could result in in the ships deploying their anti air weaponry. After all it is a highly risky move to lock the helicopter of the UNFIL commander with your weapons system. Under other circumstances that is enough to deploy defensive measures witch include the elimination of the threat (shooting down the jet that did it).

Suggesting Germany want "to finish what they started 60 years ago" is a stupid and childish attempt to provoke a flamewar. Germany is there because Israel has asked European powers to take part in the UNFIL mission. It is very sad that now it is Israel that is offending those nations that came on Israel's call.

[Baff2 0]

I don't think we have to worry too much about the ships anti-aircraft weaponry.

In the entire Falklands campaign Aegis systems 100% failed to shoot anything down.

A squadron of Tornadoes or Typhoons....on the otherhand.

[Donnervogel 0]

I don't think we have to worry too much about the ships anti-aircraft weaponry.

In the entire Falklands campaign Aegis systems 100% failed to shoot anything down.

A squadron of Tornadoes or Typhoons....on the otherhand.

this one AEAGIS?

Nah really, how is this contributing to my point?

I don't know what kind of Air defence capabilities those ships have and I don't really care. But I don't think the lessosn from the Falklands war went by unnoticed...

We could get into a "M1 pwns Leo2" and vice versa type of discussion but I think that is that this site it for: http://www.militaryphotos.net

My point is that provoking others is a risky thing and very delicate situations might arise.

[mp_phonix 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Bakka-lakka-dakka!!! Muhammed Jihad!!!1!ONE!!1!!ELEVEN!1!

LoL. I saw that movie too. was laughing like crazy all the way through.

Quote[/b] ]

I don't think we have to worry too much about the ships anti-aircraft weaponry

Are you talking about the IDF navy or the BW navy ?

One of the reasons Iraq lost is because low-tech. USA's M1A2 shot the old T-72 before they even were in range to shoot at the T-72, not mentionaing the air supirioraty.

Just a question to some of you that "disses" the IDF.

I seriously do not get it. You think that we are flaying old wwII airplanes or some 1960's Phantoms ?

I seriously do not understand.

Quote[/b] ]

waht about real armies?

hey, we fought out 3 armies that launched a surpirse strike in Yom Kipur [for whom do not know, considered the holies day for the jews -> the jews do not eat or drink water that day and the army readiness was low] which were armed with the best soviet weaponary. every soldier was outnombuer 1 to 3. do you think that is easy ?

[Daniel 0]

[Offtopic]

Quote[/b] ]I don't think we have to worry too much about the ships anti-aircraft weaponry

He's talking about BW. And I'd hazard a guess that German naval armament is a little more advanced than back in the 1980s.

[/Offtopic]

[Baff2 0]

I wouldn't bet on it. Most navies don't upgrade all that often. Especially ones that don't see any action. The U.S. is still using WW2 ships. Navies are expensive and we've all been steadily disarming since 1982.

Aircraft on the otherhand are much cheaper to upgrade. You argument cuts both ways.

I don't know what kind of Air defence capabilities those ships have and I don't really care. But I don't think the lessosn from the Falklands war went by unnoticed...

My point is that provoking others is a risky thing and very delicate situations might arise.

If they haven't brought a carrier with them, it went unnoticed.

Or it was too expensive a lesson. Aircraft Carriers are expensive. Germany isn't noted for using it's fleet beyond range of it's own airspace/aircover.

Apologies if i'm not reinforcing your point. But I think it's important to gain an understanding of what those delicacies are so that the big talk understands it's limitations and recognises the risks of provocation for what they are.

[Donnervogel 0]

Apologies if i'm not reinforcing your point. But I think it's important to gain an understanding of what those delicacies are so that the big talk understands it's limitations and recognises the risks of provocation for what they are.

Well and I think you focus on a minor point not really having much to do with the problem. The delicate thing is the action, not the result. If Israeli aircraft are shot at this will be a delicate situation. No matter if hit or not. And I think we all agree that we don't want such a situation.

[Garcia 0]

The Iraqi army met the strongest army in the world, do you think you would hold for more than a week or two against the US army? I doubt it...

Maybe your sarcastic, my bad in that case, but otherwise, here's my comment:

Sure, the US wins everywhere, cause the system of the whole country is probably created out from the needs of the military.

Why do you think people join the army? Not for the pride, the feeling of being able to change the world.

They do it cause they want/need the money. (And of course also cause of the fact that every woman on earth thinks a man in uniform is hot )

So, US kids comming on to university. Oh noes, law school, that costs 50 000 dollars. Hmm.. I know, I'll join the army.

And, voila, you have recruits!

So, therefore US wins, cause they have so many troops.

But lets face it.

1 on 1, the iraqi would win with ease. And why's that?

Well, he doesn't do it cause of the money, the uniform or anything else.

He does it to protect his country, his family, his friends, the thing he belives in.

They're real patriots, though, they don't have sites about themselves, so the western world just see them as crazy terrorists shouting "Bakka-lakka-dakka!!! Muhammed Jihad!!!1!ONE!!1!!ELEVEN!1!!"* and 'spraying' with their AKs.

Atleast, that's what I think.

Quote[/b] ]* Some quotes from "Team America", nothing I have actually seen/heard

Well I wasn't talking about amount of troops or fighting morale, I was talking about technology and equipment. a US soldier 1 on 1 against a Iraqi soldier with the same equipment on both sides could probably go Iraqis way most of the time, but seeing that the US army got much better equipment, they had a easy time. Just like the US army would have a easy time taking out the IDF. IDF would probably cause more casualties because they've got a better equiped army, but USA wouldn't have a too hard time taking them out. Besides, if USA stopped funding IDF they would have serious problems keeping their strenght up.

Quote[/b] ]hey, we fought out 3 armies that launched a surpirse strike in Yom Kipur [for whom do not know, considered the holies day for the jews -> the jews do not eat or drink water that day and the army readiness was low] which were armed with the best soviet weaponary. every soldier was outnombuer 1 to 3. do you think that is easy ?

Yes and Israel was stuffed with technology from USA and probably many other western countries. But which one who had the upper hand equipmentwise will be a matter of opinion. Another matter is the fact that the people who fought that time is getting a bit old now. Which means you have to rely on a younger generation. I mean, Finland managed to hold Soviet and not lose that much land during WWII, but that doesn't mean the finns still kicks ass to this day.

[oneoff 0]

Quote[/b] ]One of the reasons Iraq lost is because low-tech. USA's M1A2 shot the old T-72 before they even were in range to shoot at the T-72, not mentionaing the air supirioraty.

altho i agree with your point that the m1a1`s battered the t72`s.

i would like to remind you that iraq didnt lose , last i heard the fight is still going on and i think you will find that just like vietnam the u.s aint gonna win this one before they leave.

i dont like that fact but as a realist i do have to air on the pesimistic side.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

You know, this is bullshit. Germany wouldn't drop the hammer on the IDF alone. They dared to target U N I F I L command!!!

The IDF would be facing alot more than just Germany. You can bet your ass that after all the mistakes you've made in the war against Lebanon, targeting civilians and even at least 1 UN installation, there would be hell to pay by the IDF. It would be the rest of Europe on top of the IDF, at least - and that would be just for starters. After the IDF would be weakened enough, heck, I bet every arab country would chip in for one final effort to really ruin the days of israelis.

I really think you don't know on how thin the ice is getting beneath the IDF. The smallest mistake could cost you more than you'd be willing to admit - and if you'd use, say, "illegal" stuff - heck, well, you think you're the only ones packing seriously "offensive" weaponry? I bet the russians would even thank the U.N. the opportunity to test out things worse than they use in their home country to combat "incidents"...

If Israel attacks UNIFIL, it'll be Israel vs The World... and somehow I don't think that Israel would come out the victor in that kind of scenario...

[Fumega 0]

Well, my father is going to Lebanon in November (engineering) to help construct what those fucking retardeds destroyed, and he's more afraid of that fucked israelis more than the so called "terrorists".

The middle east is all against you, which is for starters a very serious business, and add to these many european countries and almost all world except US, Australia, and a few more... I really don't know how you can still continue to exist...

[olemissrebel 0]

Quote[/b] ]One of the reasons Iraq lost is because low-tech. USA's M1A2 shot the old T-72 before they even were in range to shoot at the T-72, not mentionaing the air supirioraty.

altho i agree with your point that the m1a1`s battered the t72`s.

 i would like to remind you that iraq didnt lose , last i heard the fight is still going on and i think you will find that just like vietnam the u.s aint gonna win this one before they leave.

i dont like that fact but as a realist i do have to air on the pesimistic side.

are you seriously retarded, we aren't talking about random insurgents here, the iraqi army went from the third largest in the world to the second largest in iraq in a day. ever heard of that quote?

[Balschoiw 0]

German ships cruising international waters near Lebanon coast:

Fregatte „Mecklenburg-Vorpommern“

Fregatte „Karlsruhe“

Supply ship „Frankfurt am Main“

Tender „Elbe“

Long Range Recon ship "Alster"

4 high-speed attack crafts

Fregatten of the "Bremen" class have the following weaponary:

1x 76 mm OTO-Melara gun

2x 20 mm Rheinmetall cannons

Ship-Ship-Flugkörper HARPOON

16x NATO Sea Sparrow

2x GDC RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) 21 cells

4x torpedotubes, Torpedos 324 mm Mk 32

2x Helos SEA LYNX Mk.88

With an active defense radius of 100 km´s and extended surveilance capabilities by hotlinking with Alster recon you get a powerfull machinery you don´t want to mess with.

The 4 high-speed attack crafts are equipped with GDC RAM´s aswell and have some other nifty things aboard.

Talking about things we don´t see.

Who know where our subs are right now ?

U 32 at home or making some field surveilance tests aswell ?

Hard to say as it´s almost undetectable.

Not speaking of air support aswell. Italy is justz a hop away and Eurofighters need some exercising anyway.

@mpphoenix

Are you somewhat retarded ?

Your air force provokes us as we are fulfilling a UN mandate. We are not planning to flatten Israel anytime soon, but you can be assured that the fleet in international waters can defend itself pretty well against any agression from your side.

BW is not the agressor. It´s IDF.

So quit your orgasmic warphantasies.

And pls keep the nonsense of BW invading Israel on your own.

It makes you look like a complete idiot.

If any western nation ever wanted to bring down Israel there are more effective ways that don´t even involve the use of military

Let us do the job YOUR country has asked for and stay the fuck away from our ships and personel. It´s non of your business.

[xawery 0]

Ok guys, I think everyone should take a deep breath. No, make that two.

First of all, this discussion is about to degenerate to a 'my army pwns your army' and 'your army <3 penis' dick-waving contest. I know we all sometimes feel the atavistic urge to bang our fists on our chests in support of our troops, but it's all pretty useless don't you think? There is no way of saying how one army will fare against another, simply because combat involves many contingent factors which cannot be accounted for a priori. Furthermore, no military is stupid enough to disclose all details about its forces and equipment, so any attempts at logical reasoning in such discussions are nothing more than uninformed speculations by default. Please, let's not lower our standards to those of militaryphotos.net (have you noticed the sudden rise in the use of the word 'retarded' in this thread?).

Second of all, there is no way that any incident caused by the IDF would result in a military conflict between Western powers and Israel. Not even shooting at the UNIFIL commander. Think about it. Even if some countries would be in favour of military action, it will be a cold day in hell when the USA abandons its support for Isreal. The USA will thus naturally veto any proposal for military actions against Isreal in the UN. As the Coalition of the Willing has shown, moving in without UN approval can really isolate you and turn the public opinion worldwide against you. And that was a war against a two-bit dictator! What do you think would be the fallout of attacking a fellow democracy without UN approval? Then there is the general anti-war sentiment in Europe, caused not in the least by the loss of life in Mr. Bush's Little Big Iraq Adventure. In other words, no western nation would make a move against Israel without UN approval, and even then it would have to consider the internal consequences of such actions.

Third, what would be the point? Teaching the Isreali's a lesson? Regime change? As much as I disagree with Isreael's policies, I do realise that weakening Israel in any significant way would destabilise the Middle East even further. As BUZZARD said, any sign of weakness would be the green light for Israel's enemies to take a piece of the cake. As it happens, Israel's enemies (especially Iran) aren't exactly best pals with the West either. It is in noone's interest to strengthen their position.

In conclusion: to seriously consider a 'Israel vs The World' military conflict is to waste one's time. Which is not to say that any 'incidents' involving the IDF and UNIFIL would go by without consequences. We can all see what kind of controversy the relatively harmless incidents have sparked. Imagine the detrimental effect on Isreal's standing in the world should something truly significant happen. Isolation, loss of credibility, perhaps even economic sanctions. But full-scale military conflict? No.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]have you noticed the sudden rise in the use of the word 'retarded' in this thread?

Spot on Xawery,I double checked to see if I`m on the right forum after reading post after post of people calling each other retarded

Let`s not destroy this wonderful albeit not very active community,we have a higher standard to live up to.

[Balschoiw 0]

It´s hard to stay polite with a guy like mphoenix who seems to live in a completely different universe, trying constantly to put things on other members of this forum combined with a lack of knowledge and views that are in disrespect for human life, period.

Oh and btw, go to the Arma section of the forum, compared to it, the OT section is the Lion´s club of civilized debating

[Nemesis6 0]

Run, Tisi, run!

[mp_phonix 0]

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Second of all, there is no way that any incident caused by the IDF would result in a military conflict between Western powers and Israel. Not even shooting at the UNIFIL commander. Think about it. Even if some countries would be in favour of military action, it will be a cold day in hell when the USA abandons its support for Isreal. The USA will thus naturally veto any proposal for military actions against Isreal in the UN. As the Coalition of the Willing has shown, moving in without UN approval can really isolate you and turn the public opinion worldwide against you. And that was a war against a two-bit dictator! What do you think would be the fallout of attacking a fellow democracy without UN approval? Then there is the general anti-war sentiment in Europe, caused not in the least by the loss of life in Mr. Bush's Little Big Iraq Adventure. In other words, no western nation would make a move against Israel without UN approval, and even then it would have to consider the internal consequences of such actions.

Actually, Xavery, I'd have to disagree with you on this one. You know, the UN is more than just the USA. And the fact that the US and UK have disregarded the UN when they invaded Iraq only demonstrated the UN's weakness regarding final decisions with real consequences. So having the whole of the UN countries support a motion, even if vetoed, and going in against Israel, against the US's wishes, could also be seen as a move of defiance against an increasingly intolerable US. I bet that many countries would jump on that horse. The only thing really stopping them would be, as you said, the anti-war sentiment. But think of the situation. None of these countries who committed their own people to this UN mission (which, as we do recall, is only there because Israel said the UN should handle the issue) will tolerate them being shot at - and I bet the anti-war sentiment would change real quick when the corpses start coming home from IDF-caused "incidents"... I mean, first the UN is invited to take care of the issue, and the next second it's in the IDF crosshair? No, really, if push comes to shove, I bet most countries would side on the anti-Israel faction, against the US will or not.

I guess this could get alot more interesting than we thought...

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Run, Tisi, run!

So you like making fun of the assasination that happened, um well 2 years ago with no further content ?

Both of you once more demonstrated what nature you are.

Making fun of dead people is so grown-up.

Apart from that the posts are just spam.

Keep it coming. I guess this will shorten your lifespan here on the forums.

[mp_phonix 0]

yes I like making a fun of assasinations.

Woudln't yout be happy and make fun of Bin-Laden if he was dead ? I bet you will.

Israeli PM Olmert said today that Hizbullah is no longer a threat to Israel. Probably not true, at least I think so.

[quicksand 0]

@mp_phonix

I wouldn`t.What exactly is the funny part in the presumed Bin Laden death.

Actually I can`t even remember one pupill while I was in highschool that burst into laughter when we found out how Hitler died.

I would like a mod to interfere right now because you are really dumbing down the intelectual level of this particular thread.Or maybe you would care to explain how those crappy photoshops serve the discussion.

[Garcia 0]

What's wrong with doing that to filthy terrorists ?

1. This is simply a disgusting mindset. But we've seen before that you find it funny when people get killed so it's not surprising.

and when exactly that happend ?

yes I like making a fun of assasinations.

Woudln't yout be happy and make fun of Bin-Laden if he was dead ? I bet you will.

Donnervogel...I honestly can't see where you got that totally wild accusation from...  

[oneoff 0]

Quote[/b] ]are you seriously retarded, we aren't talking about random insurgents here, the iraqi army went from the third largest in the world to the second largest in iraq in a day. ever heard of that quote?

Actually i havent no, was it george bush on some political rally who said it or a fox news presenter?

you think a few insurgents kille 101 americans in iraq in the last 30 days ?

look at what i said i didnt like it but its a fact, the iraqi army went home put there civies on and are now fighting with there cheap brown pin striped suits on .

[Nemesis6 0]

Quote[/b] ]Run, Tisi, run!

So you like making fun of the assasination that happened, um well 2 years ago with no further content ?

Both of you once more demonstrated what nature you are.

Making fun of dead people is so grown-up.

Apart from that the posts are just spam.

Keep it coming. I guess this will shorten your lifespan here on the forums.

Awww, that's nice. Too bad you didn't tell us the real reason you oppose killing terrorists. Demonstrating how grown up I am... It's called humor. Anyway, here's another one - Ahmed Yassin: Yassinerated. He was also called the pediatrician of death. Now how is that not ironic?

Peretz: IDF will keep up targeted operations in Gaza

Quote[/b] ]Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Wednesday morning that the IDF would keep up its recent activity in the Gaza Strip, but would maintain a policy of targeted operations against the terrorist infrastructure.

Speaking at a press conference at the Gaza Command, Peretz said that "No one can put an absolute stop to Kassam fire … but that doesn't mean we have to remain helpless. We won't let these [terrorist organizations] grow stronger."

Peretz added that the public debate surrounding IDF activity in Gaza could "hamper" the army's operational ability.

Gunfights continued into the morning hours in the northern Gaza Strip, as Golani and Givati infantry forces and combat engineers, backed by armored vehicles and helicopters, battled gunmen inside the town of Beit Hanoun.

At least eight Palestinians were killed in the overnight operation - aimed at stopping Kassam rocket attacks - which the army described as the largest in scale since the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit more than four months ago.

Peretz: IDF will keep up targeted operations in Gaza