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
|
|||
|
|||
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om... (Quant) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... As long as the US insists on selling the Arabs surrounding Israel, and in still some cases technically at war with her sophisticated weapons systems, I don't understand the objection to ISrael selling China (a nation NOT at war with the US) some of its sophisticated weaponry as well!? If the US wants to negotiate a mutual agreement with Israel, where if the US ceases to sell Egypt then Israel will cease to sell China, it ought to do so. It should be reciprocal. Why should the US be allowed to sell Israel's sworn enemies modern deadly weaponry while Israel is called a traitor when it seeks to do the same to countries that don't even border on the US? Now if the US and MExico were in a technical state of war, and Israel was selling it weaponry, I could understand the objection. But China is practically on the other end of the earth with respect to the US. Why the double standard? No double standard. The difference is we are providing some $14K per Israeli in various forms of aid each year. Except that at least $8,400 of that $14K is going into the pockets of US workers in defense industries inside the US. Nor do most ISraelis live inside F-15s or Apaches. But what you're saying is, that the aid is actually a LEASH, to be used to keep Israel in line. You don't want ISraelis to make a living selling arms the same way US defense workers do, but rather give them welfare checks so that they will be dependent on the US holding the aid leash in the right hand, and who can then belittle them for taking it while selling ISrael's bordering enemies advanced arms with left hand. Right? It kindo f sucks when you provide *that* level of aid and get in return not only espionage directed at your own, You mean like when the US flew U-2s over Israel to spy on Dimona back in the early '60s? Or when ISrael was forced to accept inspectors to come into Dimona sent by Kennedy and Johnson? Or do you mean when the US leaves Israel in the lurch during the Six Day War, and instead of sending a flotilla to open up the blockade that that the Egyptians put on the Port of Eilat (which they promised to do in the '57 Dulles-Eban memorandum), the US instead sends its most sophisticated spy ship, the LIberty, to spy on ISraeli combat movements? All while tiny ISrael is fighting ALL ALONE on all fronts? Then the US sends a spy ship smack up close to the ISraeli coast? ... but advanced weapons sold to those who you won't sell to yourself because you realize they are indeed a serious potential regional threat (or maybe not so regional, seeing as how the PRC (actually one of its PLA spin-off companies) bribed their way into control of port operations on the Panama Canal). Why are you ****ed about the Panama Canal when you stopped England, France and ISrael in 1956 from halting Nasser's nationalizing the Suez Canal? Or when you fail to meet your written obligation to ISrael, which withdrew from the Sinai in 1957 BASED ON GOOD FAITH of the written promise given by Dulles to Eban to send a flotiall if Nasser ever tried it again, to induce Israel to withdraw at that time. And then, you ignore your written promise a mere decade later when Nasser indeed does a repeat performance, thereby forcing ISrael to open the EGyptian blockade all alone and by itself? And Israel is supposed to trust the US after that? And who the hell is going to be crazy enough to try to blockade the Panama Canal? China? Russia? Israel? You cannot be serious about this mumbo jumbo that the PRC could ever control and deny US ships from using the Canal. That is about as absurd a concept as the moon being made of green cheese. I don't think the PRC is going to risk a nuclear war with the US to block US ships from traversing the canal. How silly can one get? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Quant" wrote in message om... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:be9rkt$7ht$1 What's wrong with the "security of supply" from Rafael? 1) The base consumption level is lower and if the product becomes unprofitable Israel could drop it altogether and opt for AIM-9 Israel can't afford to use second-rate equipment, especially since the US is supplying that equipment to its bordering enemies. It has to produce a superior product or lose the coming war, which in Israel's case means losing the country. The US can afford to fight and lose wars and come back again. Israel does not have that luxury. To the US, second rate equipment only means the loss of a few pilots. To Israel it means the possible loss of its total existence. 2) Israel is in an unstable region of the world in which the disruption of the Rafael plant is rather more likely than that of BAE or Raytheon. Who knows these days who is more secure? The US has lost tall buildings in the center of Manhattan. 3) There are considerable political complications doing defense business with Israel. It would be unfortunate if your Arab Oil suppliers cut you off because you bought Israeli weapons for example. It's unfortunate that the US has put itself in the position where a few Arabs can grap it by the balls in that way. After all, it was the US and Britain that discovered and developed that oil in the first place. Israel wouldn't take that crap from the Arabs. Chile preferred the python (Maybe because of the price). India also preferred it (One of the reasond probably was not trusting the American "security of supply"). I don't know about Chile, but the Pakistani Airforce is a very good outfit and the Indian Air Force would need a superior product to beat the Pakis in the air. The Pakis are well trained. More probably because India was subject to a US arms embargo at the time as a result of its nuclear weapons program. Not necessarily. Israel produces more bang for the buck, and Israel cannot be pressured by Pakistan to sell her an equivalent missile. Hence, Pakistan must buy an inferior AAM from the US, or the UK, France or Russia. When it comes to any future possible conflict with Pakistan, India wants to win. And if a pilot KNOWS he is going up against a good pilot in a good plane, he wants to have a better fire control system and AAM to win. It's that simple. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"JGB" wrote in message om... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:beaana$rsf$1 Are you familiar with the Polish helicopter deal a few years back with Israel that Beoing had quashed by leaning on congress to lean on Poland with not too subtle intimations regarding Poland's membership in NATO? That one cost ISrael $400 million in lost sales to Poland. $1.2 B contract with CHina for Phalcons, quashed. The US does tend to frown on the sale of advanced weapons systems to a potential adversary. The reasons are obvious I'd have thought. POLAND was not a potential ADVERSARY! While waiting to be admitted into NATO, Poland was leaning towards an Israeli/Polish helicopter deal, where a Polish helicopter would be upgraded, and all the electronics and weaponry would be Israeli, over purchasing Apaches from Boeing. The contract was to be for $800 million, of which Israeli companies stood to make about half. Well Boeing wasn't going to lay back and take that crap, so it leaned on congress which then apparently leaned on Poland. I mean, the US wasn't taking Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and others into NATO just to have more countries to defend, for Chrissake! It needs more MARKETS for F-16s and Apaches That's the reason for the NATO expansion in the first place!!! It sure as hell wasn't going to sign treaties of defense with these countries only to let Israel sell them their weapon systems Past deals with Ecuador, PEru, Taiwan for Kfirs back in the '70s quashed. Kfir C2's were in fact sold to both Colombia (111) and Ecuador(12) in 1976 Oh yeah, at the time there was objection to ISrael selling Kfirs to Taiwan, as we were cozying up with the PRC and didn't want them ****ed. Now we don't want ISrael selling the PRC for fear of what it could do to Taiwan! Give me a break! Trust me, Israel EARNS the aid the US gives it. It pays for it. What worries many of us is what the US is paying for it in terms of future security, selling advanced weapons to China isnt a very friendly act. Whose security? Why do we have any military in East Asia anyway? Do the Japanese or the Koreans want the US there nowadays? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
jukita wrote in message .. .
Kevin Brooks wrote: And before you accuse me of some ludicrous anti-Israel bias, I'd add that we have had some pretty good success with some Israeli products, Litening targeting pods being a good example (and note that in that case the supply security issue has been ameliorated by having a US partner firm produce them for the US customers; Israel manufacturers sensors for all US Litening pods. "The team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and Rafael, the Israeli Armament Development Authority, has been awarded the contract to supply the sensor pods to both the Guard and the Reserve. Rafael supplies the forward (sensor) section, and Northrop Grumman supplies the aft (electronics) section of the pod." http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s/litening.htm Many items the US use are produced in Israel. Cluster bombs and the ITALD (decoy against AA missiles) comes to mind. During the war in Iraq the Arab media made a fuss about pictures of used ITALD found by Iraqis with "Made in Israel" on it. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
(JGB) wrote in message . com...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om... (Quant) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... As long as the US insists on selling the Arabs surrounding Israel, and in still some cases technically at war with her sophisticated weapons systems, I don't understand the objection to ISrael selling China (a nation NOT at war with the US) some of its sophisticated weaponry as well!? If the US wants to negotiate a mutual agreement with Israel, where if the US ceases to sell Egypt then Israel will cease to sell China, it ought to do so. It should be reciprocal. Why should the US be allowed to sell Israel's sworn enemies modern deadly weaponry while Israel is called a traitor when it seeks to do the same to countries that don't even border on the US? Now if the US and MExico were in a technical state of war, and Israel was selling it weaponry, I could understand the objection. But China is practically on the other end of the earth with respect to the US. Why the double standard? No double standard. The difference is we are providing some $14K per Israeli in various forms of aid each year. Except that at least $8,400 of that $14K is going into the pockets of US workers in defense industries inside the US. Nor do most ISraelis live inside F-15s or Apaches. But what you're saying is, that the aid is actually a LEASH, to be used to keep Israel in line. You don't want ISraelis to make a living selling arms the same way US defense workers do, but rather give them welfare checks so that they will be dependent on the US holding the aid leash in the right hand, and who can then belittle them for taking it while selling ISrael's bordering enemies advanced arms with left hand. Right? Nope, wrong. It kindo f sucks when you provide *that* level of aid and get in return not only espionage directed at your own, You mean like when the US flew U-2s over Israel to spy on Dimona back in the early '60s? What U-2's? Or when ISrael was forced to accept inspectors to come into Dimona sent by Kennedy and Johnson? Again, a terrible price to pay for US aid; not that I have ever heard that the incident you mentioned actually happened, though. Or do you mean when the US leaves Israel in the lurch during the Six Day War, and instead of sending a flotilla to open up the blockade that that the Egyptians put on the Port of Eilat (which they promised to do in the '57 Dulles-Eban memorandum), the US instead sends its most sophisticated spy ship, the LIberty, to spy on ISraeli combat movements? All while tiny ISrael is fighting ALL ALONE on all fronts? Then the US sends a spy ship smack up close to the ISraeli coast? LOL! First, if you are preaching a pro-Israel argument, bringing the USS Liberty into the agenda is the *last* thing you want to do; there are a lot of us who wish the USN counterstrikes *had* been allowed (which would have left israel without a naval force that would amount to much). And preaching about "tiny Israel" in the 67 War doesn't garner much sympathy either. Again, go back and read Begin's later comments about the real lack of *necessity* for israel to have gone to war in the first place...but you know more about it than Mr. Begin did, right? ... but advanced weapons sold to those who you won't sell to yourself because you realize they are indeed a serious potential regional threat (or maybe not so regional, seeing as how the PRC (actually one of its PLA spin-off companies) bribed their way into control of port operations on the Panama Canal). Why are you ****ed about the Panama Canal when you stopped England, France and ISrael in 1956 from halting Nasser's nationalizing the Suez Canal? LOL again. Try a reading comprehension course. Who said I am ****ed about the PC? I happen to believe that giving it to the Panamanians was one of the only intelligent acts of the Carter administration. I am, however, quite suspicious of why a PLA-sponsored firm reportedly engaged in rather high-stakes bribery, etc., to gain that contract... Or when you fail to meet your written obligation to ISrael, which withdrew from the Sinai in 1957 BASED ON GOOD FAITH of the written promise given by Dulles to Eban to send a flotiall if Nasser ever tried it again, to induce Israel to withdraw at that time. So you say...anything to back up this ranting? And then, you ignore your written promise a mere decade later when Nasser indeed does a repeat performance, thereby forcing ISrael to open the EGyptian blockade all alone and by itself? And Israel is supposed to trust the US after that? I could actually care less whether israel trusts the US; I do know, however, that the US sure as heck can't trust Israel. And who the hell is going to be crazy enough to try to blockade the Panama Canal? China? Russia? Israel? Back to that reading comprehension course with you... You cannot be serious about this mumbo jumbo that the PRC could ever control and deny US ships from using the Canal. That is about as absurd a concept as the moon being made of green cheese. I don't think the PRC is going to risk a nuclear war with the US to block US ships from traversing the canal. How silly can one get? Gee, you do get all wound up rather easily, don't you? The PRC having an ability to influence PC operations does indeed pose a situation that we would have to monitor, as it is the shortest route for rapid reinforcement of the Seventh Fleet in the event a serious crisis were to erupt over taiwan (you know, that little island that Israel fell all over itself to cultivate ties with, then just as quickly fell all over itself to cut those ties in favor of selling all of that nifty military hardware to the PRC?). Brooks |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"JGB" wrote in message om... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Quant" wrote in message om... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:be9rkt$7ht$1 What's wrong with the "security of supply" from Rafael? 1) The base consumption level is lower and if the product becomes unprofitable Israel could drop it altogether and opt for AIM-9 Israel can't afford to use second-rate equipment, especially since the US is supplying that equipment to its bordering enemies. It has to produce a superior product or lose the coming war, which in Israel's case means losing the country. The US can afford to fight and lose wars and come back again. Israel does not have that luxury. To the US, second rate equipment only means the loss of a few pilots. To Israel it means the possible loss of its total existence. If you think the Aim-9 series of missiles is second rate you ought to change your choice of recreational drug. I'm a great fan of both ASRAAM and Python but lets not get silly here. Keith |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
In message , JGB
writes I believe Israel sold China the Python 3, which is an old generation AAM from the 1980s, of no real threat to the US. Okay: you fly along and I'll fire a Python 3 at you. Back in 1982, British pilots were getting 80% hits with the AIM-9L Sidewinder (the Python 3 is supposed to be better) against Argentinian pilots in Israeli-built planes, trained by Israeli pilots, and whose courage was demonstrated beyond doubt. Israel casually exporting third-generation IR-AAMs is a serious proliferation issue. But the Harpoon cruise missiles the US sold to EGypt are a very real, lethal threat to Israel. What crucial targets can they hit? Why is Egypt a real, current threat? (Peace treaty in 1977, if I remember right, and no aggression in thirty years) Either proliferating weapons is fine (in which case Israel can make no complaint about who the US and its allies sell what to) or it isn't. If Israel wants to be listened to about the dangers of proliferation, it needs to be less export-driven about its own sales policy. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
In message , JGB
writes "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... Python 3 provided a marked improvement in Chinese capability in comparison to the missiles previously in service and as an agile all aspect Mach 3 AA missile is a very real threat to ANY aircraft. Keith So what? Is China at war with the US? Egypt isn't at war with Israel, but you're whining about US sales there. Egypt borders on Israel, a few minutes from ISrael flying time, and has a very cold "peace" with Israel. Egypt is a US ally that has a very 'cold' peace with Israel and is at risk of pre-emptive attack, AS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE! (if you're going over the top, so will I) Saudi Arabia practically borders on Israel and is still technically at war with Israel, When has Saudi Arabia waged active war against Israel? and certainly doesn't recognize its right to exist. Does that stop the US from selling them F-15's and F-16's and M-1 tanks and Harpoon Cruise missiles? I don't quite get the double standard. Explain it to me. When did US (or allied) aircraft stage from Israel against Iraq in 1991 or 2003 or any time in between? The missions had to be flown. They weren't flown from Israel. Part of being a reliable ally is providing bases and flight rights. Israel wasn't useful. Which way does the money flow? There's the answer. The golden rule: the US has the gold, so it makes the rules. Israel is welcome to reject all US aid and assistance. (Bet it won't!). The US makes profitable sales to countries Israel doesn't like. But the US bankrolls Israel, not vice versa, therefore the US is able to make its irritation about Israel's promiscuous exports stick while Israel confines its protests to verbiage. (And personally I'd be a _lot_ more worried about Syria than Egypt, but that's just me.) -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how to force jeppview charts with flitestar? | rexwind | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | January 19th 05 11:13 AM |
USA - Air Force one | franck jeamourra | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | June 11th 04 11:40 AM |
100 Air Force Overviews online !! | Frank Noort | Aerobatics | 0 | May 17th 04 06:47 PM |
Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | April 29th 04 03:08 PM |
RV-7a baggage area | David Smith | Home Built | 32 | December 15th 03 04:08 AM |