- This topic has 1,260 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 14, 2009 at 11:41 AM #469554October 14, 2009 at 11:57 AM #468797
CricketOnTheHearth
Participant“Here’s a cookie, now do as we say.”
Yah, that’ll work. Not.
Israel is just to important strategically for us to weaken it… and division, unless done extremely carefully, would weaken it because it is just so small. (Maybe 2X the size of Riverside County, if that).
After seeing a relief picture of the Golan Heights and how thoroughly they overlook something like the northern 1/3 of Israel, I can see why the Israelis occupied them.
The original (1946) partition of Israel was a joke– indefensible Swiss cheese. And when immediately forced to defend, the Israelis fixed that pretty quick.
No surprise to me the Israelis are very, very sensitive to tactical/strategic threats to them. They just don’t have the margin of distance a Russia or US has.
October 14, 2009 at 11:57 AM #468980Participant“Here’s a cookie, now do as we say.”
Yah, that’ll work. Not.
Israel is just to important strategically for us to weaken it… and division, unless done extremely carefully, would weaken it because it is just so small. (Maybe 2X the size of Riverside County, if that).
After seeing a relief picture of the Golan Heights and how thoroughly they overlook something like the northern 1/3 of Israel, I can see why the Israelis occupied them.
The original (1946) partition of Israel was a joke– indefensible Swiss cheese. And when immediately forced to defend, the Israelis fixed that pretty quick.
No surprise to me the Israelis are very, very sensitive to tactical/strategic threats to them. They just don’t have the margin of distance a Russia or US has.
October 14, 2009 at 11:57 AM #469339Participant“Here’s a cookie, now do as we say.”
Yah, that’ll work. Not.
Israel is just to important strategically for us to weaken it… and division, unless done extremely carefully, would weaken it because it is just so small. (Maybe 2X the size of Riverside County, if that).
After seeing a relief picture of the Golan Heights and how thoroughly they overlook something like the northern 1/3 of Israel, I can see why the Israelis occupied them.
The original (1946) partition of Israel was a joke– indefensible Swiss cheese. And when immediately forced to defend, the Israelis fixed that pretty quick.
No surprise to me the Israelis are very, very sensitive to tactical/strategic threats to them. They just don’t have the margin of distance a Russia or US has.
October 14, 2009 at 11:57 AM #469411Participant“Here’s a cookie, now do as we say.”
Yah, that’ll work. Not.
Israel is just to important strategically for us to weaken it… and division, unless done extremely carefully, would weaken it because it is just so small. (Maybe 2X the size of Riverside County, if that).
After seeing a relief picture of the Golan Heights and how thoroughly they overlook something like the northern 1/3 of Israel, I can see why the Israelis occupied them.
The original (1946) partition of Israel was a joke– indefensible Swiss cheese. And when immediately forced to defend, the Israelis fixed that pretty quick.
No surprise to me the Israelis are very, very sensitive to tactical/strategic threats to them. They just don’t have the margin of distance a Russia or US has.
October 14, 2009 at 11:57 AM #469623Participant“Here’s a cookie, now do as we say.”
Yah, that’ll work. Not.
Israel is just to important strategically for us to weaken it… and division, unless done extremely carefully, would weaken it because it is just so small. (Maybe 2X the size of Riverside County, if that).
After seeing a relief picture of the Golan Heights and how thoroughly they overlook something like the northern 1/3 of Israel, I can see why the Israelis occupied them.
The original (1946) partition of Israel was a joke– indefensible Swiss cheese. And when immediately forced to defend, the Israelis fixed that pretty quick.
No surprise to me the Israelis are very, very sensitive to tactical/strategic threats to them. They just don’t have the margin of distance a Russia or US has.
October 14, 2009 at 12:21 PM #468837briansd1
Guest[quote=ucodegen]
Don’t want to inflame the radicals. I consider it a possible typo until otherwise proven. [/quote]Maybe you shouldn’t use the Washington Post as a source then repudiate it.
As far I’m concerned, the WP is correct until proven otherwise, not the other way around.
I don’t have time to put all the votes in a spreadsheet but you claim that the summary page is wrong so the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.
[quote=ucodegen]
If you notice, most of these exploratory areas are located in the ‘east’ Germany area that was finally returned to Germany from Russian control. [/quote]If it is in former East Germany, then it’s was and remains in German control.
[quote=ucodegen]
They are not even close to the Brits. I have seen both practice at Red Flag @ Nellis. There is a world of difference in attitude they bring. The Brits are all business and the French use it as a dating tool when off base. [/quote]That I don’t know. I just read that France’s military budget is roughly the same as Britain’s. France also has a nice airshow.
Some have even argued that in a technologically and numerically level playing field, the Brits are even better militarily than we, Americans. We just have bigger badder weapons.
[quote=ucodegen]
Was recently 25%, now 22%.
US = 22%, Japan=16.624%, Germany=8.577%, UK=6.642%, France=6.301%, Italy=5.079%, Canada=2.977%, Spain=2.968%, China=2.667%, Mexico=2.257%, all others=23.908%
This is only contribs to the budget and does not include peacekeeping force.[/quote]I don’t know what your source is but… I’m surprised that Japan contributes that much to NATO given that Japan is not a member. China? Mexico?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_NATO
But, anyway, assuming your source is correct, the lower level of contribution you indicated would underscore that fact the NATO member states don’t rely critically on America for protection from the “bad guys” like Iran.
October 14, 2009 at 12:21 PM #469020Guest[quote=ucodegen]
Don’t want to inflame the radicals. I consider it a possible typo until otherwise proven. [/quote]Maybe you shouldn’t use the Washington Post as a source then repudiate it.
As far I’m concerned, the WP is correct until proven otherwise, not the other way around.
I don’t have time to put all the votes in a spreadsheet but you claim that the summary page is wrong so the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.
[quote=ucodegen]
If you notice, most of these exploratory areas are located in the ‘east’ Germany area that was finally returned to Germany from Russian control. [/quote]If it is in former East Germany, then it’s was and remains in German control.
[quote=ucodegen]
They are not even close to the Brits. I have seen both practice at Red Flag @ Nellis. There is a world of difference in attitude they bring. The Brits are all business and the French use it as a dating tool when off base. [/quote]That I don’t know. I just read that France’s military budget is roughly the same as Britain’s. France also has a nice airshow.
Some have even argued that in a technologically and numerically level playing field, the Brits are even better militarily than we, Americans. We just have bigger badder weapons.
[quote=ucodegen]
Was recently 25%, now 22%.
US = 22%, Japan=16.624%, Germany=8.577%, UK=6.642%, France=6.301%, Italy=5.079%, Canada=2.977%, Spain=2.968%, China=2.667%, Mexico=2.257%, all others=23.908%
This is only contribs to the budget and does not include peacekeeping force.[/quote]I don’t know what your source is but… I’m surprised that Japan contributes that much to NATO given that Japan is not a member. China? Mexico?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_NATO
But, anyway, assuming your source is correct, the lower level of contribution you indicated would underscore that fact the NATO member states don’t rely critically on America for protection from the “bad guys” like Iran.
October 14, 2009 at 12:21 PM #469378Guest[quote=ucodegen]
Don’t want to inflame the radicals. I consider it a possible typo until otherwise proven. [/quote]Maybe you shouldn’t use the Washington Post as a source then repudiate it.
As far I’m concerned, the WP is correct until proven otherwise, not the other way around.
I don’t have time to put all the votes in a spreadsheet but you claim that the summary page is wrong so the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.
[quote=ucodegen]
If you notice, most of these exploratory areas are located in the ‘east’ Germany area that was finally returned to Germany from Russian control. [/quote]If it is in former East Germany, then it’s was and remains in German control.
[quote=ucodegen]
They are not even close to the Brits. I have seen both practice at Red Flag @ Nellis. There is a world of difference in attitude they bring. The Brits are all business and the French use it as a dating tool when off base. [/quote]That I don’t know. I just read that France’s military budget is roughly the same as Britain’s. France also has a nice airshow.
Some have even argued that in a technologically and numerically level playing field, the Brits are even better militarily than we, Americans. We just have bigger badder weapons.
[quote=ucodegen]
Was recently 25%, now 22%.
US = 22%, Japan=16.624%, Germany=8.577%, UK=6.642%, France=6.301%, Italy=5.079%, Canada=2.977%, Spain=2.968%, China=2.667%, Mexico=2.257%, all others=23.908%
This is only contribs to the budget and does not include peacekeeping force.[/quote]I don’t know what your source is but… I’m surprised that Japan contributes that much to NATO given that Japan is not a member. China? Mexico?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_NATO
But, anyway, assuming your source is correct, the lower level of contribution you indicated would underscore that fact the NATO member states don’t rely critically on America for protection from the “bad guys” like Iran.
October 14, 2009 at 12:21 PM #469450Guest[quote=ucodegen]
Don’t want to inflame the radicals. I consider it a possible typo until otherwise proven. [/quote]Maybe you shouldn’t use the Washington Post as a source then repudiate it.
As far I’m concerned, the WP is correct until proven otherwise, not the other way around.
I don’t have time to put all the votes in a spreadsheet but you claim that the summary page is wrong so the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.
[quote=ucodegen]
If you notice, most of these exploratory areas are located in the ‘east’ Germany area that was finally returned to Germany from Russian control. [/quote]If it is in former East Germany, then it’s was and remains in German control.
[quote=ucodegen]
They are not even close to the Brits. I have seen both practice at Red Flag @ Nellis. There is a world of difference in attitude they bring. The Brits are all business and the French use it as a dating tool when off base. [/quote]That I don’t know. I just read that France’s military budget is roughly the same as Britain’s. France also has a nice airshow.
Some have even argued that in a technologically and numerically level playing field, the Brits are even better militarily than we, Americans. We just have bigger badder weapons.
[quote=ucodegen]
Was recently 25%, now 22%.
US = 22%, Japan=16.624%, Germany=8.577%, UK=6.642%, France=6.301%, Italy=5.079%, Canada=2.977%, Spain=2.968%, China=2.667%, Mexico=2.257%, all others=23.908%
This is only contribs to the budget and does not include peacekeeping force.[/quote]I don’t know what your source is but… I’m surprised that Japan contributes that much to NATO given that Japan is not a member. China? Mexico?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_NATO
But, anyway, assuming your source is correct, the lower level of contribution you indicated would underscore that fact the NATO member states don’t rely critically on America for protection from the “bad guys” like Iran.
October 14, 2009 at 12:21 PM #469663Guest[quote=ucodegen]
Don’t want to inflame the radicals. I consider it a possible typo until otherwise proven. [/quote]Maybe you shouldn’t use the Washington Post as a source then repudiate it.
As far I’m concerned, the WP is correct until proven otherwise, not the other way around.
I don’t have time to put all the votes in a spreadsheet but you claim that the summary page is wrong so the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.
[quote=ucodegen]
If you notice, most of these exploratory areas are located in the ‘east’ Germany area that was finally returned to Germany from Russian control. [/quote]If it is in former East Germany, then it’s was and remains in German control.
[quote=ucodegen]
They are not even close to the Brits. I have seen both practice at Red Flag @ Nellis. There is a world of difference in attitude they bring. The Brits are all business and the French use it as a dating tool when off base. [/quote]That I don’t know. I just read that France’s military budget is roughly the same as Britain’s. France also has a nice airshow.
Some have even argued that in a technologically and numerically level playing field, the Brits are even better militarily than we, Americans. We just have bigger badder weapons.
[quote=ucodegen]
Was recently 25%, now 22%.
US = 22%, Japan=16.624%, Germany=8.577%, UK=6.642%, France=6.301%, Italy=5.079%, Canada=2.977%, Spain=2.968%, China=2.667%, Mexico=2.257%, all others=23.908%
This is only contribs to the budget and does not include peacekeeping force.[/quote]I don’t know what your source is but… I’m surprised that Japan contributes that much to NATO given that Japan is not a member. China? Mexico?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_NATO
But, anyway, assuming your source is correct, the lower level of contribution you indicated would underscore that fact the NATO member states don’t rely critically on America for protection from the “bad guys” like Iran.
October 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM #468852Guestucodegen, it sounds like you maybe in the military. If so, then I’m very disappointed in military training. Doubly so if you’re a commissioned officer.
They really need to kick the “Kansans” out of the military and get some internationalist elitist instructors in there. Perhaps some good recommendations could come from Condi Rice.
October 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM #469035Guestucodegen, it sounds like you maybe in the military. If so, then I’m very disappointed in military training. Doubly so if you’re a commissioned officer.
They really need to kick the “Kansans” out of the military and get some internationalist elitist instructors in there. Perhaps some good recommendations could come from Condi Rice.
October 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM #469393Guestucodegen, it sounds like you maybe in the military. If so, then I’m very disappointed in military training. Doubly so if you’re a commissioned officer.
They really need to kick the “Kansans” out of the military and get some internationalist elitist instructors in there. Perhaps some good recommendations could come from Condi Rice.
October 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM #469466Guestucodegen, it sounds like you maybe in the military. If so, then I’m very disappointed in military training. Doubly so if you’re a commissioned officer.
They really need to kick the “Kansans” out of the military and get some internationalist elitist instructors in there. Perhaps some good recommendations could come from Condi Rice.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
