|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#32
July 3rd 03, 03:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Kemp wrote in message . ..
On 3 Jul 2003 02:20:30 -0700, (Quant) wrote: Peter Kemp wrote in message . .. On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote: 2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price and in many cases in quality. And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that are "inferior" and "more expensive". Again, is Israel really that stupid or are you missing something. You're wrong. America lost big contract to Israel in India. Errr...say what? We only recently started selling the more benign military products to India again after a few years of embargoing military exports to them (unlike israel, we sometimes try to apply *some* degree of moralistic control to our sales programs). America is losing big contracts in Europe (UAV's, Spike Anti Tank missilis instead of the American Javelin for example), South America (Pyhton on behalf of AIM-9 for example), "Big contracts"? Yeah, sure... Turkey (Sabra tanks instead of Abrams tanks), LOL! Let's wait and see if *any* tanks are procured--and BTW, aren't those just M60A1 mods? Which is a US tank, right? South Korea, Yeah, there was a lot of competition from israel for the F-15K contract, not to mention the recent Mk 41 VLS selection by the ROKN...not. Taiwan, Taiwan being that country that is pursuing additional US weapons deliveries as fast as they can get approval, right? Eastern Europe. Israel is also leading in the market of upgrading soviet era systems using advanced technology etc. Wow, now *that* is gonna define a true market leader, right? Can't build much yourselves, but golly you are good at piling onto everybody elses efforts... Brooks Sorry, wasn't clear, I was referring to contracts within Israel. Things like the M-16 having displaced the damn good Galil simply because the M-16 could be paid for out of the aid (or so it appeared to this humble Brit). But since we seem to agree that the aid doesn't help Israel, we can leave it there. 
|
|
#33
July 3rd 03, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(JGB) wrote in message om...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message The MAIN reason why Israel gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to. It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments. Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs. Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was effectively jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both sides in the conflict. Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel *because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong. From what I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory). I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? And 67, of which no less a figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)? since 1948 to repeatedly return the Sinai to Egypt, including the oil fields that Israel had developed the last time to get US compensation, but for the life of me I can't understand the $2.8 B annual tribute to Egypt which received from Israel a much improved Sinai! Which is less than what we provide to Israel. Not only does Israel lost strategic depth and costly infrastructure, but its own US aid is offset by a similar amount of aid to Egypt. Nope, US aid to Egypt is *always* less than that provided to Israel; AIPAC would have it no other way. Can you explain to me the rationale, or how Israel gained in that "bargain?" They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to Egypt? And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt goes to non-military requirements as well? The Egyptian army today, thanks to US training and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet tutelage. And is still no threat to Israel. Brooks
|
|
#34
July 3rd 03, 03:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Arie Kazachin) wrote in message ...
In message - (Kevin Brooks) writes: [snip] points apparently did not stick with you. I am merely pointing out that whining about your economic/military dependency upon the US and any negative impacts can easily be rendered moot by declaring you won't accept further US aid (like *that* will ever happen). It started to happen gradually when Benjamin Netaniyahoo was at the PM post: Israel started on its own a multi-year initiative to reduce the aid sum by 100M$ per year. But he only stayed 3 years at this post - after failing to prevent Netaniyahoo's win in 1996, in 1999 elections the US made every effort to not let it fail again and with lots of US-funded pro-Barak "associations" Netaniyahoo lost to the most worthless PM I remember. Needless to say, Barak stopped the process of gradual reduction of aid that Netaniyahoo started. In general, US administrations from both sides prefare Israeli elections to be won by our left (which act to increase the ammount of aid we take) than by our right (which act to gradually decrease the ammount of aid). It almost looks like US administrations are not interested in Israel stopping asking for aid. Why? I had a hunch but you gave a figure few lines below which supports my hunch: So the US is running Israeli elections? No more so (and probably a lot less so)than AIPAC is influencing US elections. American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to happen. Please. Take a gander at what portion of US defense exports go to Israel; the last figures I found (covering 97-99) indicated that Israel accounted for just over 5% of total US sales. Given that even Only 5% of US weapons given away for free to Israel? That explains why US administrations would prefare things to remain as they are now. ??? The F-16 alone has about 800 changes in them suggested by IAF as a result of their operation and which worth billions to the F-16s manufacturer when selling to other states. In a similar way, almost any US weapon in IDF has lots of "bugs" found and reported, which translates to higher profits when selling to other states. Also, there are other issues that salespeople know worth a lot: This hyperbole is unsupported. The US itself was operating the F-16, along with NATO nations, before Israel ever put it into service. The first A-G use of F-16 was by IAF, the destruction of the Iraqi reactor. So? The first A-A victory of F-16 also happened in IAF few weeks earlier. So? The first A-A victory of F-15 also happened in IAF. So? When a salesperson from General Dynamics (those old days, Lockheed today, IIRC) competes on a fat contract against, say a salesperson from Marcell Dassault (sp?) from one of these other 95% states, the words "our product had been tested by Israel" worth LOTS of money. So it makes a perfect business sense: give away 5% of weapons to Israel, which'll debug them and most probably use them in real combat and after that use the weapon record in IDF to rip profits from the remaining 95% of the market. Methinks you exaggerate the the situation quite a bit. Like another poster mentioned in this thread, nothing is given for free. And Israel can cease accepting that aid anytime it wants--but it does, as you have noted, not desire to, seeing itself as being benefitted by our largesse. Brooks
|
|
#35
July 3rd 03, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Binyamin Dissen wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 06:42:39 -0400 Peter Kemp wrote: :On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:01:12 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote: :On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:50:00 -0400 Peter Kemp :wrote: ::On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote: ::2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily ::subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price ::and in many cases in quality. ::And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that ::are "inferior" and "more expensive". :False. :Of course you can attempt to prove me wrong by supplying examples, but :supplying proof is rarely the interest of the typical Holocaust denier. :Holocaust denier? Me? I suggest you alter your medication mate, as :I've said nothing of the sort *ever*, and I'd like to see you show one :iota of evidence that I have supported such notions. :As for proof, the IDF use of the M-16 vice the Galil, or the F-16 vice :the Lavi Have you compared the prices of each to the GOI? In these cases the inferior product is also cheaper. Benny, The Galil is too heavy for the infantry but Israel continues to use it for the armored force and other units. For the near future the IDF also preferred the excellent M-16 M4 on the new Israeli Tavor bullpup but the main reason was the dollaric budget of the IDF (American guns don't cost money to Israel, its part of the military aid). The Lavi is irrelevant today. It was buried 20 years ago when the US tried to prevent competition to the F-16. The bottom line is that we all agree that Israel-US relations are a mutual relations and that it's wrong to say that the US was "doing a favor" to Israel when it decided to give financial/military aid to Israel and to other states in the region.
|
|
#36
July 3rd 03, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om...
(JGB) wrote in message om... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message The MAIN reason why Israel gets $3B in aid annually is so that US defense contactors can sell Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan $5 billion in arms annually without opposition from AIPAC, or increased Israel arms sales to China and other states we'd rather they not sell their own advanced technologies to. It IS quid pro quo, and not just based on sentiments. Come now. We were providing extensive monetary aid to Israel before we started selling major/modern arms to the neighboring Arabs. Israel did get mostly civilian aid to help Israel integrate millions of Jewish immigrants, but it was relatively little compared to the aid that began to flow after the Six Day War when Israel proved its capability of standing up to the SOviet Union, and Johnson saw Israel as a potential asset. The US arms embargo to BOTH sides then was effectively jettisoned, allowing for the US to become the major armorer of both sides in the conflict. Sorry, but we did not engage in major sales to Arab nations until the very late 70's at the earliest, and more accurately in the 80's. hich would make your accusation that we were providing aid to Israel *because* we want to seel weapons to Arab nations...wrong. AIPAC made problems for the US defense industry that was raging to sell AWACs (and indeed did sell them) to Saudi Arabia (which virtually borders on Israel) and everything else including the kitchen sink, and displace Britain, France and the USSR as major arms providers to the Gulf States in particular. And so, to quiet Israeli and AIPAC domestic opposition, a quiet "understanding" emerged in which while the US would sell the Arab states surrounding Israel THREE times as much in dollar value, at a good profit, while the arms sold to Israel would be technically cutting edge, capable of overcoming the Arab numerical advantage, and the US would finance these sales to ISrael with low cost loans and outright grants. And that has been the situation since the late 1970s, more or less. That is the real reason why there is virtually no congressional opposition to US aid to Israel, because the arms industry subcontractors have become dispersed into all 50 states, and most major congressional districts, and cutting off aid to ISrael would result also in cutting off arms sales to the Arab states which would wound the defense indistry which exports around $14 billion dollars worth of goods annually, half of which goes to the ME, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and others. From what I can recall, israel held out quite firmly for a significant aid increase and additional one-time funds (i.e., paying for new airbases to replace those lost when they gave up the Sinai) before they would agree to sign the peace treaty with Egypt (Carter being oh-so-willing to pay that tribute in return for his moment of glory). I can understand why Israel, which had been pressured THREE TIMES You are counting 56, when the israelis, supported by their erstwhile Anglo-French allies, started the conflict? And 1949 when Israel was forced to give up parts of the Sinai it captured as well. But Israel did not start the conflict in 1956. Egypt was arming and sending Palestinian fedayeen from the Gaza Strip into the Negev and murdering Israelis by the score without letup from 1950 onwards. Your assumption assumes that arming and sending terrorists into a country to murder civilians is not an act of war, even when it continuously violates an Armistice (the 1949 armistice). It's like saying the US started the war with Afghanistan ignoring that Al Qaeda was being assisted and shielded by the Taliban gov't. nd 67, of which no less a figure than Menachem Begin later stated it was time for Israelis to face facts and accept that they went into that war with territorial gains as their goal (though not their only goal, no doubt)? That is sheer LIE! Israel had NO territorial conquests in mind at all. Try "The History of the Middle East Wars" by J.N. Westwood for starters. It is both a lie and totally libellous. Israel did its utmost NOT to go into the West Bank, but King Hussein virtually begged Israel to come and conquer it by his inane and insane actions! What you say is the Arab distortion of history not unlike "Comical ALi's" assertions that there were no Marines in Baghdad. since 1948 to repeatedly return the Sinai to Egypt, including the oil fields that Israel had developed the last time to get US compensation, but for the life of me I can't understand the $2.8 B annual tribute to Egypt which received from Israel a much improved Sinai! Which is less than what we provide to Israel. Not only does Israel lost strategic depth and costly infrastructure, but its own US aid is offset by a similar amount of aid to Egypt. Nope, US aid to Egypt is *always* less than that provided to Israel; AIPAC would have it no other way. Not by much. $2.8 vs. $3. And why should EGypt get ANY??? It was the aggressor in 1948 and 1967, and indirectly in 1956 with Nasser's actions of arming terrorists and expropriating international properties by fiat. Can you explain to me the rationale, or how Israel gained in that "bargain?" They gained substantially. Billions in US aid on an annual basis. Care to work out what the per-capita aid amount to Israel is versus that to Egypt? But Egypt outnumbers its adversary Israel by 12 to 1. SO are you saying that they should get 12 times as much aid to bolster their numerical superiority over Israel as well??? And you are aware that a goodly chunk of the US aid to Egypt goes to non-military requirements as well? It goes to line the pockets of politicians, if that's what you mean. But I have no objection to the US cutting off all aid to ISrael if it also cuts off all aid to Egypt and all arms sales to all sides in the Middle East. If the US, France, UK and Russia didn't sell tens of billions of dollars worth of arms into the region, Israel wouldn't need a thin dime! Do you think that Israelis like living in M-1 tanks and Apache helicopters? If the world wants to solve the ME problems, let the world ban all arms and aid from the region! The Egyptian army today, thanks to US training and arms, is far more dangerous than it ever was under SOviet tutelage. And is still no threat to Israel. Quite a threat. The sale of 54 Harpoon cruise missiles to Egypt, against which Israel has no defense, could be a very serious threat, particularly if the Egyptians acquired nukes. ANd there are those in the Egyptian parliament calling on Egyptian development of nukes. In fact, the EGyptian army has never been a greater threat to Israel than today. Unlike the past, when it was armed and trained by the Russians, it is today a real army with F-16s, M-1A1 tanks (which are manufactured in Egypt under license) and quite good US training that has been ongoing since the first Gulf War. If they pulled another stunt as Nasser did and moved into the Sinai, ISrael would have no alternative to nuclear war. It is today doubtful that ISrael could defeat the Egyptian army in conventional battle as was the case in the past. As for peace treaties, they come and go. Who today remembers the Treaty of Sedan between Germany and France of 1870, or the armistice of 1918? What counts is real capabilities and not scraps of paper. Scraps of paper can be repudiated and torn up in an instant. Bush went after Saddam and is cracking down in the ME in general mainly because he knows that Israel no longer can count on conventional superiority to win, and that the next major war in the ME would have to be nuclear, with Israel forced to throw the first punch to survive. The risk of that to the oilfields and everything overshadows any relatively minor risks and costs to the US fighting a few limited wars in the ME to make sure that WMD do not proliferate any further in the region. Because Israel will not wait with folded arms as others plot its doom.
|
|
#37
July 3rd 03, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
Peter Kemp wrote in message . .. On 3 Jul 2003 02:20:30 -0700, (Quant) wrote: Peter Kemp wrote in message . .. On 2 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -0700, (Quant) wrote: 2. Despite the fact that the American industries are heavily subsidized they can't compete against the Israeli industries in price and in many cases in quality. And yet the Israel products repeatedly lose out to US products that are "inferior" and "more expensive". Again, is Israel really that stupid or are you missing something. You're wrong. America lost big contract to Israel in India. Errr...say what? We only recently started selling the more benign military products to India again after a few years of embargoing military exports to them (unlike israel, we sometimes try to apply *some* degree of moralistic control to our sales programs). Again you continue to spread false arguments. India is heavily depended on Arab oil and for years embargoed Israel and acted against it on the UN. Only in 1992 Israel and India established diplomatic relations for the first time. All the major Israeli military sales to India happened on the last few years. Despite of it, today 50% of the Indian military import is coming from Israel. America is losing big contracts in Europe (UAV's, Spike Anti Tank missilis instead of the American Javelin for example), South America (Pyhton on behalf of AIM-9 for example), "Big contracts"? Yeah, sure... In Israeli terms its big contracts. For example: Armies using the airborne litening pod: US Air Force Reserve's and Air National Guards for their F-16 Block 25/30/32 Fighting Falcon. Other air forces operating the system include the US Marine Corps (AV-8B), Israeli air Force (F-16), Spanish and Italian Navy (AV-8B) and Spanish air force (F/A-18), German Air Force (Tornado IDS), and the Venezuela (F-16A/B). The pods were also selected for South Africa's Grippens, India's Mirage 2000, MiG-27 and Jaguar. The most recent inquiry for the pods came in March, for a planned procurement of F-16s by Austria. The pod is also fully integrated in the Eurofighter, F-5E, MiG-21 and other types. Testing are underway to integrate the pod with Boeing F-15I operated by the Israel Air Force. Turkey (Sabra tanks instead of Abrams tanks), LOL! Let's wait and see if *any* tanks are procured--and BTW, aren't those just M60A1 mods? Which is a US tank, right? I'm glad you're laughing. It's important to know how to laugh after you lost a contract. 700 million dollars are guaranteed to Israel, and if Turkey will choose to upgrade 800 tanks, the Israeli industries will get another 2 billions. But its upgraded M60's so you don't care about the money do you? South Korea, Yeah, there was a lot of competition from israel for the F-15K contract, not to mention the recent Mk 41 VLS selection by the ROKN...not. Taiwan, Taiwan being that country that is pursuing additional US weapons deliveries as fast as they can get approval, right? Eastern Europe. Israel is also leading in the market of upgrading soviet era systems using advanced technology etc. Wow, now *that* is gonna define a true market leader, right? Nope, Israel with an economy of one-hundredth smaller than the American economy is not intended to be THE market leader, but we are a major player and growing while the market is shrinking. This is despite the fact that we are competing against heavily subsidized American industries. Can't build much yourselves, but golly you are good at piling onto everybody elses efforts... Brooks Sorry, wasn't clear, I was referring to contracts within Israel. Things like the M-16 having displaced the damn good Galil simply because the M-16 could be paid for out of the aid (or so it appeared to this humble Brit). But since we seem to agree that the aid doesn't help Israel, we can leave it there.
|
|
#38
July 3rd 03, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lyle wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:54:10 +0200, wrote: On 1 Jul 2003 15:34:02 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote: wrote in message . .. On 30 Jun 2003 18:31:07 -0700, (Kevin Brooks) wrote: (Quant) wrote in message . com... American defense contractors would not be too happy if that were to happen. why would they be upset, we just got done with a war, and we would use the money and that we would give them for their military to rearm ours. They would be upset not only because they would be denied the GUARANTEED $2 billion they get from the US treasury annually to build planes for Israel, but also the loss of an additional $5 billion in profitable arms sales annually to the Middle East ARab states in general, because without arms sales to Israel, AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies would cause a reimposition of the ENTIRE embargo on arms sales to the region that was the law before 1961. But in addition, they would lose access to a few thousand good Israeli engineers that have helped upgrade US military technologies. The F-15I was specified by the Israeli military. The Israeli designed Arrow II theater ABM system was designed in Israel, albeit 2/rds financed by the US. It helped the US circumvent the US-Soviet ABM treaty in its development, and its technology and design also belongs to the US partner which can limit its sales by Israel to third parties. INdeed, Boeing will now be manufacturing Arrow IIs in the US. Indeed, the US and Israeli defense industries have become so intertwined at the design level that it is increasingly difficult to know where one begins and the other lets off.
|
|
#39
July 3rd 03, 08:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Anthony" wrote in message ...
France has been an enemy of Israel since the 1970s when the French government sold Israel to the Arabs for a few litres of oil (paid good (Mirages, ships, etc.) not delivered, orders suddenly cancelled, etc.). Israel discovered decades ago that Europeans cannot be trusted, and the US can (or at least is more trustworthy than Europe) so they deal with the US not Europe. Ever hear the story where Israel relabelled Brazilian (?) oranges and goods produced in the illegally occupied territories as Israeli produce in order to defraud Europe? Don't understand? What do you mean Brazilian? Defraud Europe with what? This produce was produced using Palestinian arab labour they get paid for it, what is Europe's response (largely due to arab and "liberal" lobbying) boycott the products which also feed Palestinian arabs. If anything Europe lacks common-sense. There is a group of people who cannot be trusted, and it isn't the Europeans. We're still waiting for a full audit of every penny of the $2.5 bn that was given to the Palestinians during Oslo. The audit has conveniently not appeared. What is absolutely guarenteed though is that the European parliament under the auspices of Chris Patten funded incitement in the Palestinian education system and paid for large shipments in arms which end up as shrapnel or empty shell casings in Israeli towns.
|
|
#40
July 3rd 03, 10:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message -
(Kevin Brooks) writes: [snip] So the US is running Israeli elections? No more so (and probably a lot less so)than AIPAC is influencing US elections. In 1992 Israel was swamped by a wave of new comers from the former USSR (10% of population in few short years) and was asking for a loan guaranties from US. At the same period there was a demand from US to start "advancing" in the so-called "peace process" (as usuall, the "advance" is in the direction of the sea). Israely right headed by Shamir was opposing US demand while Israely left headed by Rabin was supporting it. So, shortly before the 1992 elections, the US secretary of the state Jim Baker said: "Israeli voters should choose: either they vote for Shamir or for the loan guaranties". If that isn't "an offer we can't refuse" I don't know what it is. But let's return to aircrafts: The F-16 alone has about 800 changes in them suggested by IAF as a result of their operation and which worth billions to the F-16s manufacturer when selling to other states. In a similar way, almost any US weapon in IDF has lots of "bugs" found and reported, which translates to higher profits when selling to other states. Also, there are other issues that salespeople know worth a lot: This hyperbole is unsupported. The US itself was operating the F-16, along with NATO nations, before Israel ever put it into service. Imagine two aircraft salespersons attempting to make a fat deal with a representative of some country. Salesperson A claims: "For the last few years our aircrafts had been patroling the airspace, practicing on firing ranges and in mock A-A engagements, etc". Salesperson B claims: "For the last few years our aircrafts attacked Iraqi reactor at range slightly longer than the manufacturer stated and they also participated in real A-A engagements and went out victorious at all times". With all other factors being equal, I'm sure you'll agree that salesperson B will make the sale because to the customer, real combat experience is much more important that peace time operation. And not only the customer knows that, the manufacturer knows too. And it might make business sense to give away product to 5% of the market it it can help get publicity and get higher profits from the remaining 95% of the market. ************************************************** **************************** * Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: * ************************************************** **************************** NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap. ___ .__/ | | O / _/ / | | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!! | | | | | | | /O\ | _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/ | * / \ o ++ O ++ o | | | | | \ \_) \ | \ | \ | \ | \ | \ | \ | \_|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
Linear Mode
