Why are Arab nations so shit at fighting Israel?
- Thread starter Pete the Greek
- Start date
Spion
I hear ya
Well, you'll need to demonstrate that rather than just assert it. And I rather think historical evidence is more to the point than logic here.warren said:
So, you're saying that battle experienced European Jewish former allied soldiers with recent very real memories of the holocaust and with their backs against the wall in a foreign land they could not retreat from were not more likely to perform more effectively than conscripted peasants in colonial armies? They clearly did, and for those reasons, IMO
DarthSydodyas
rusting
hello.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The irony is that in Europe anti-semitism against both types of semite are increasing...
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
kyser_soze said:
Aye.
Spion
I hear ya
But Ahmadinajad was elected by universal suffrage. Our queen has the right to dissolve parliament and the armed forces swear allegiance to her and to protect her from 'enemies within and without' or words to that effect. So, I guess we are no more democratic than Iran. Thanks for reminding me of that, TomTomUS said:
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
We don't choose our leader in the UK either. He's chosen by the members of his political party and associate bodies. Only then do the people get to cast their vote, and when they do, they aren't actually voting for their 'supreme leader', but for a local branch of one of the political parties. We don't get to choose who represents us even at a local level - that's decided by the elite of whichever political party is standing for the House of Commons (parliament). Then there's the 'other' house - the House of Lords. None of those members are elected - they are chosen/created or inherited peerage (landowning/business elite) by the 'Queen/Prime Minister'. There are two types of Lord - the inherited/created Lord, and the many "Lords Spiritual". The Lords Spiritual are not elected, and are formed from the religious leaders of the UK, whom I think were chosen by the elite of whichever political party was in power when they took office. None of the people of the country voted for either the Lords Spiritual (Theocrats) or the Aristocrats (inherited/landowners/old family/business elite).TomUS said:
Intercession, anyone?
The British have always had this thing about titlesTomUS said:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
invisibleplanet said:
However, if you don't like the leader, you have the option of not voting for the local representative of his or her party.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
TomUS said:
Aye, the Electoral College should be abolished. I even recall my US Government teacher criticising the system as "outdated".
The House of Lords is essentially like the upper chamber in any country that has a bicameral legislature. Most Senators in other countries are appointed, rather than elected. The Lords are appointed in the same way. The aristocratic titles are anachronistic, though the functions are not. Hereditary peers are those whom come from auld aristocratic families who were rewarded for some service to the monarch. The life-peers are chosen by the government of the day.
Wow, that's complicated. And as I understand it, there aren't any written rules (like a constitution) so the system is based on tradition. Do these Lord turkeys have any power to affect public policy or do they just sit around and debate and think they are important?nino_savatte said:
The electoral college is more than outdated. It was clearly put in as a buffer between the voters and the government to make sure the unwashed couldn't threaten the power of the elite. Currently, it encourages corruption. Our current evil idiot president wouldn't be there were it not for this silly system.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
TomUS said:
But then, when the US was founded, only landowners and petit Aristocrats could vote. A woman, Betsy Ross, who has been lionised in popular history, designed the first flag but couldn't vote in her country's first elections.
The Lords act in much the same way as your Senate.
Why? Because Arabs do not really wish to win. IF they do win, they will be foreced to deal withj yet another quarrelsome Arab nation. In addition, they will then have to face heat at home because "Palestinians" are used without reservation as conveient scapegoats.
Have internal dissent related to lack of media freedom? Blame Zionists and Jews for their oppression of "Palestinians."
Honour killings and complaints of genital mutilation eating away at your performance points? Point to how Jews used the Hoplocuast to steal Arab land.
Without Israel, or even withit and an independant "Palestine" next to it, Arab leasers will be faced with their own inadequacies.
Have internal dissent related to lack of media freedom? Blame Zionists and Jews for their oppression of "Palestinians."
Honour killings and complaints of genital mutilation eating away at your performance points? Point to how Jews used the Hoplocuast to steal Arab land.
Without Israel, or even withit and an independant "Palestine" next to it, Arab leasers will be faced with their own inadequacies.
Spion: "Ahmadinejad was elected under universal sufferage." Indeed he was in a system where only those candidates personally approved by the leading mullah and his close allies. A system where each ethnic and/or religious minority is afforded and limited to but one seat in the national legislature.
Aldeberan: "Israel wins because of American largesse." Except that the relationship did not begin at all until 62 and really did not take effect until the wake of the 67 War so that every war until 73 was won by Israel on its own. Even after 73, Israel was limited to the applications of these weapons because of contractual obligations.
Selemlar: "Hezbollah did well against Israel in 06 Lebanon War" People make the mistake (do not know what you think on the issue so do not assume I am referemcing you) of assuming the ISraeli Prime Objective was the rescuing of the 2 kidnapped Reservists. It was not. job 1 wwas to push the Grad launchers back from 15 to 22 kilomters from the Israeli border.
To that degree, this objective was accomplished post haste and with very little effort. Furthermore, with the UNIFIL mandate changed and an International Force in place, Israel was truly successful.
Were there inadequacies with the IDF's performance, sure. For one the Reserve mobilisation was complicated by numerous errors that had deployments off target by 3 days in some places.
So called Friendly Fire is always a big problem for any army anywhere but it was especially bad this war.
Finally, drawing Merkava 4s and 3s into improvised Kill Boxes was a huge problem.
Still, all 3 of these very real problems did not amount to very much of anything. No tanks were totalled, all Reservists were successfully deployed, and, and after getting drawn into boxes for the first quarter of the short conflict, it only happened one more time to no fault at all of the IDF personel or equipemtn involved (bogged down in a wet wadi).
The IDF went against a highly entrenched assymetircal force with wide popular support (not universal of course as a few villages, Shia included, managed to keep all Hezbolli out). Under these circumstances, and understanding that Israel could not unleash half as much power as it might have liked to considering how much collateral damage might have been incurred, Israel did very well.
"Arabs had volunteers and smalla rms." Volunteer suggest a person with little or no military training and this is completely off the mark regarding common Hezbolli. They rtrain well in the limited scope of effectiveness (anti-Armour and standardised guerilla warfare). Most begin training at a very young age.
As for using this in your context, to rationalise Arab losses over the years, you must remember that the PLO was no different, nor are HAMAS and other militant groups of today. The military apparattuses of past conflicts, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan's armies were sometimes trained quite well, especially Jordan's army under Glubb PAsha. Almost entirely Emglish trained and operared in those years.
As for small arms, in Operation Peace for Galilee (1st Lebanon War) the opposition, primarily the PLO and Lebanese Aramy Islamic Faction both had a decent amnount of tanks (albeit older than IDF) and heavy artillery.
Today many Arab focres have up to date weaponry so that is not really a good excuse.
Bernie: "Arabs should fight Israel the way Russia engagted Germany: With well fortified positions and heavy anti -aircraft and anti-tank warfare until cost outweights effectiveness" The main difference is that Germany was the one engaging Russia, not the converse. Arabs would need to be attacking within Israel Proper. Russia's defencive stratagies relied heavily on both morale and amiliarity with topography and popular support. Also, Arabs have been using anti-tank weaponry in a huge way and despite intitial successes, that have failed with it terribly.
Aldeberan: "Israel wins because of American largesse." Except that the relationship did not begin at all until 62 and really did not take effect until the wake of the 67 War so that every war until 73 was won by Israel on its own. Even after 73, Israel was limited to the applications of these weapons because of contractual obligations.
Selemlar: "Hezbollah did well against Israel in 06 Lebanon War" People make the mistake (do not know what you think on the issue so do not assume I am referemcing you) of assuming the ISraeli Prime Objective was the rescuing of the 2 kidnapped Reservists. It was not. job 1 wwas to push the Grad launchers back from 15 to 22 kilomters from the Israeli border.
To that degree, this objective was accomplished post haste and with very little effort. Furthermore, with the UNIFIL mandate changed and an International Force in place, Israel was truly successful.
Were there inadequacies with the IDF's performance, sure. For one the Reserve mobilisation was complicated by numerous errors that had deployments off target by 3 days in some places.
So called Friendly Fire is always a big problem for any army anywhere but it was especially bad this war.
Finally, drawing Merkava 4s and 3s into improvised Kill Boxes was a huge problem.
Still, all 3 of these very real problems did not amount to very much of anything. No tanks were totalled, all Reservists were successfully deployed, and, and after getting drawn into boxes for the first quarter of the short conflict, it only happened one more time to no fault at all of the IDF personel or equipemtn involved (bogged down in a wet wadi).
The IDF went against a highly entrenched assymetircal force with wide popular support (not universal of course as a few villages, Shia included, managed to keep all Hezbolli out). Under these circumstances, and understanding that Israel could not unleash half as much power as it might have liked to considering how much collateral damage might have been incurred, Israel did very well.
"Arabs had volunteers and smalla rms." Volunteer suggest a person with little or no military training and this is completely off the mark regarding common Hezbolli. They rtrain well in the limited scope of effectiveness (anti-Armour and standardised guerilla warfare). Most begin training at a very young age.
As for using this in your context, to rationalise Arab losses over the years, you must remember that the PLO was no different, nor are HAMAS and other militant groups of today. The military apparattuses of past conflicts, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan's armies were sometimes trained quite well, especially Jordan's army under Glubb PAsha. Almost entirely Emglish trained and operared in those years.
As for small arms, in Operation Peace for Galilee (1st Lebanon War) the opposition, primarily the PLO and Lebanese Aramy Islamic Faction both had a decent amnount of tanks (albeit older than IDF) and heavy artillery.
Today many Arab focres have up to date weaponry so that is not really a good excuse.
Bernie: "Arabs should fight Israel the way Russia engagted Germany: With well fortified positions and heavy anti -aircraft and anti-tank warfare until cost outweights effectiveness" The main difference is that Germany was the one engaging Russia, not the converse. Arabs would need to be attacking within Israel Proper. Russia's defencive stratagies relied heavily on both morale and amiliarity with topography and popular support. Also, Arabs have been using anti-tank weaponry in a huge way and despite intitial successes, that have failed with it terribly.
Similar threads
- Poll
