Yeah right, id like 2 see israel try that. Hezbollah in Lebanon will be glad 2 step in 4 Iran & if they get tired by any chance, Iran can begin 2 launch their newly acquired Russian made missles at isreal.
Isreal is not as strong as yal r thinking we all saw how they got confused & frustrated against Hezbollah (militant group) last year. Iran will only be glad to have a reason to release all their terror cells on isreal.

Donzman:

Your naivety out under the sun again. Maybe you'll want to check out which country receives the highest share of US Foreign Aid, then get back and tell me the US has nothing to do with Isreal - Arab wars.

I fail to grasp your reasoning. So we're to assume that because the US is the largest donor to Israel they are behind the arab-israeli conflict? Including the one just days after the Israeli state was formed? In that war and the six-day war, was Israel the aggressor? When Nasser of Egypt sent his armies in concert with t he syrian army, was that the US at work? After the 1948 Arab -Israeli war, Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel were offered "full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions" in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel; many, however, refused. In addition, the entire Jewish population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was either killed, captured, or expelled by Arab armies. Many also fled to Israel. The palestinians were encouraged to run from Israeli territory by tellin gthem lies that the Jews planned to massacre them. After they fled their hometowns, the other arab countries refused to take the displaced people in, leadin to the homeless palestinians today.
and you still think the US was the root problem in the middle east?

Donzman:


Funny enough, you detest Mugabe for driving whites out of their land but you see the establishment of a Jewish state in a formerly conquered territory as ok. Don't you see the inconsistency in your reasoning?

Formerly conquered territory? what are you talking about? The Jewish State was set up following a legal proclamation by the League of Nations (United Nations). That makes it 100% legal. By then the Jews owned most of that land anyway, after buying most of the land from arabs who sold them barren patches and then greedily tried to take them back after the Jews irrigated them into productivity. read up your history.

and no matter how you put a spin on it, mugabe's move crippled his country's economy. Big on national pride, lean on food. I'm sure Idi Amin also found favour in your eyes, after all he had some rudimentary plans for bettering his country's economy.

Donzman:

Haha. . .Ok. After reading tons of books and journal articles on Haiti, you feel your American propaganda is going to somehow shut me blind. Hahaha. . .Dude you're hilarious at best. Right from the time of the Haitian revolution, America has always taken the side of anyone willing to oppress Haitians. They never accepted the Haitian independence until 60 or so years after the fact.

They supported Duvaliers until they were kicked out to France. Freedom fighters my bum! So you mean to tell me the almighty freedom fighting US will change its stance on Freedom?

Haiti declared her independence in 1804. At that time the United States was embroiled in a desperate war for survival with Britain. France was the only ally of the US at that point. And france was the colonial power ousted from Haiti at that time. Does it strike you as strange that the US wasn't on best of terms with the Haitian Govt?
Besides, if you keep bringing 200 year old happenings to support your arguments we might as well use the benin or Oyo empire to analyze OBJs policies.

Donzman:


As for your WMD essays;

If Nuclear weapons are bad and dangerous, NOBODY should own them. What gives one country the right to own them in the name of self defence and another the right not to?. . .So the country which doesn't will keep being forced to be subservient because they can't defend themselves. Every NATION has the right to self defence, you can't obtain a weapon of defence and somehow try to reason with me that you deserve it and they don't. Especially when I see you as an aggressor with enemies changing every decade.

Most of the Nuclear arsenal in the western world were commissioned over 20 years ago. the warheads remain the same, perhaps delivery vehicles have changed. These were made in the cold war era arms race, until MAD made these guys come to their senses. Under the SALT many have been destroyed. But some exist, and they are a fact of life to be dealt with. Luckily for the world, these remain in the hands of stable countries who would definitely think twice before using them. Now people like you advocate proliferation, a reversal of all the gains of the past decades. Nuclear proliferation will make the world a vastly more unsafe place. despite your naive idealism, is that what you really want? Most of the world's nuclear powers aren't trigger happy when it comes to atomic warfare. You want that to change?
Can you name any one instance Nigeria (as an example) has been forced with nuclear weapons to be subservient? Canada? Kenya? Brazil? Mexico? Japan? North Korea? So which ones are you talking about?
If these countreis were pursuing nuclear weapons solely for deterrence purposes then on emight consider your point of view. But countries like Iran and North Korea have shown their willingness to someday go on the offensive with such weapons. Every nation has a right to defence, agreed! Is self-defense all about nuclear weapons?
It's clearly because nuclear weapons are such an abstract concept to you that you do not recognize the inherent danger of your current thought process. Let the Nigerian govt open a biological weapons factory near your house, would you trust them to keep you safe? Why did most sensible people raise a hulabaloo when the Fed. Govt announced plans to get a nuclear reactor in the near future?

You'll never learn. as a wise man once said, there is none so blind as they who will not see!

jagwar:

Yeah right, id like 2 see israel try that. Hezbollah in Lebanon will be glad 2 step in 4 Iran & if they get tired by any chance, Iran can begin 2 launch their newly acquired Russian made missles at isreal.
Isreal is not as strong as yal r thinking we all saw how they got confused & frustrated against Hezbollah (militant group) last year. Iran will only be glad to have a reason to release all their terror cells on isreal.

Israel is a lot stronger than you think. Aainst Hezbollah they were forced to keep a full scale invasion in check to minimize mounting civillian casualties especially with mounting civillian casualties.
The Iraqi army was the strongest standing army in the middle east and we saw what 200000 US troops did to them. The Israeli army is nearly as technologically advanced as the US army, has higher patriotism levels and a high level of professionalism.
But that's a moot point. Israel poses no threat to Iran (they don't even have a common border). Based on Ahmedinejad's genocidal rantings however, a nuclear armed Iran poses a grave threat to Israel.

In the past these guys have shown no particular logic in attacking israel for no just reason. In gulf war 1, despite the fact that israel took no part in the fighting, Iraq still routinely lobbed Scud missiles at israel in hopes of killing the most civillians they could. 

Still doubt Israel's motives? Let's examine that of the Arabs. In his memoirs after World war two, The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem noted that "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.'”

The same ideals live on in the minds and hearts of these guys. and you want to give them WMDs.

It's all good. We live far away from strife so we feel safe. But if you think Al Qaeda's eyes haven't turned towards Nigeria (with it's rich, rich resources and large, army of recruits poorly educated almajiri population) think again.

Formerly conquered territory? what are you talking about? The Jewish State was set up following a legal proclamation by the League of Nations (United Nations). That makes it 100% legal. By then the Jews owned most of that land anyway, after buying most of the land from arabs who sold them barren patches and then greedily tried to take them back after the Jews irrigated them into productivity. read up your history.

You have an affinity to bullshit, no wonder your name says "texaz". Cowboy and bullshit territory, all your regurgitate is bullshit. Sell that crap to a farmer willing to buy, ha!

and no matter how you put a spin on it, mugabe's move crippled his country's economy. Big on national pride, lean on food. I'm sure Idi Amin also found favour in your eyes, after all he had some rudimentary plans for bettering his country's economy.

Yeah, in the same vein, the Haitian Revolution was misguided. Look how they ended up after the revolution, let's ignore the fact that no Western nation recognized their independence and didn't associate with them diplomatically. That action put their economy in the whammy it still is today. I wonder why the France's "Jewel of the Caribbean" is now the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere. It has nothing to do with the alienation it faced for daring to speak up against slavery and humiliation. I suppose Zimbabwe's travails also has nothing to do with the alienation they're facing for deciding to take back what the colonial masters took by force.

Sometimes I wonder for some people, they refuse to think, oh well!

Haiti declared her independence in 1804. At that time the United States was embroiled in a desperate war for survival with Britain. France was the only ally of the US at that point. And france was the colonial power ousted from Haiti at that time. Does it strike you as strange that the US wasn't on best of terms with the Haitian Govt?

Your ignorance of Haitian history is on full display. Maybe you should locate Thomas Jefferson's (you know the former slave holding president of your favourite nation) famous quote on the Haitian Revolution. . ."[We Must] confine the pest to the island(Haiti)". How dare they fight for freedom?

After 60 years of isolating Haiti, they choose to promote all sorts of anti-progress policies in Haiti. Supporting the Duvaliers is just one of them, what about the imposition of "democracy" in the name of the atrocious Jean-Bertrand Aristide?

Guy, mind yourself there ohh, do I look like your soil you feed with manure from horseshit? Watch it!

But countries like Iran and North Korea have shown their willingness to someday go on the offensive with such weapons.

. . .And your favourite nation hasn't?. . .Last I checked, Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor with nukes, still wondering why the US decided to use nukes on Japan.

Point is this: If no nation has it, no chance for intimidation. If some have it and other don't, the chance for intimidation is there. If everyone has it, who are you going to intimidate?. . .I have mine!

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander till thy Kingdom Come! If you decide it's not good for the gander then it's not good for the goose.

It's clearly because nuclear weapons are such an abstract concept to you that you do not recognize the inherent danger of your current thought process. Let the Nigerian govt open a biological weapons factory near your house, would you trust them to keep you safe? Why did most sensible people raise a hulabaloo when the Fed. Govt announced plans to get a nuclear reactor in the near future?

Yeah, like the Nuclear Plant leak in RUSSIA?. . .I don't see you and your favourite nation saying Russians are incapable of owning nuclear weapons.

1) Texazzpete doesn't have anything to do with texas. Many people here will have long figured out where i got the nick from.
Jefferson was in support of slave trade. What did you expect him to say when slaves in America were stirring in response to the Haitian Revolution? Did you read about any american naval blockade of Haiti?
Whether or not the pro-slavery US recognised Haiti or not, Haitians should have had enough resources to be self-sufficient. They Did! A series of bloody internal conflicts of their own making crippled them, not any American plot like you try to paint.
if you still insist that Haiti's troubles stem from their 'isolation' in the 1800s, what happened when the rest of the world recognised them?
Here's an excerpt from wikipedia:

The charismatic black leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected president in 1991, but was deposed in a coup shortly after. There followed three years of brutal control by a military junta led by Raoul Cedras, before a second American invasion and occupation in 1994 returned Aristide to power. One of the first acts of the re-installed government of Aristide was to disband the army, to great popular acclaim.

Aristide was succeeded by a close ally and former prime minister, René Préval, in 1996. While Aristide was the first democratically elected president in Haitian history, Préval's administration was most notable for the fact that he was the first person in Haiti's history to constitutionally succeed a president and then serve a complete term, leaving office voluntarily at the prescribed time. Every previous president had either died in office, been assassinated, been deposed, overstayed his prescribed term, or been installed by a foreign power.

Note the parts in bold. It's clear that Haiti's problems are largely of their own making, with internal strife being the order of the day.
If the Duvaliers were such buddies of America, why did Jean Duvalier (papa doc) go round telling people he killed Kennedy with voodoo? Why did he keep a jar in his basement he claimed kennedy's soul was trapped in?

I have nothing against Mugabe, but there's such a thing as doing things right! Obviously you see nothing wrong in the way he handled the situation in the country. Why wouldnt the world alienate him? If Nigeria suddenly drives off SPDC, Chevron, Elf and Mobil and seizes their assets, do you think the international community would not react with extreme outrage?


till this day, there are arguments for and against the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, but less than 300000 people died in both, a far cry from the terrible death toll that would have been racked up in a protracted land war. Doubt the figures? In the battle for some small islands near the Japanese mainland, here are the casualty figures in the battle for Iwo Jima: 6800 US Marines Killed, 21000 japanese Killed. Unremarkable, right? Wrong! 90% of the casualties were suffered in the first 4 days and over 90% of all japanese troops were killed because they refused to surrender even when they were beaten.
At the battle of Okinawa, 7000 US troops and 5000 Us navy sailors were KIA and MIA. SO you can see why the use of the Nuclear bomb seemed so attractive.
I'm not excusing it. but it was a wartime decision to use whatever means in their arsenal to bring an end to a war the whole world was weary of. And after this, so many checks and balances were put in place for the use of an atomic weapon again. The US president cannot unilaterally use a nuclear weapon on another govt, except if attacked by nuclear weaponry too.
It's this checks and balances that's lacking in the countries you so eagerly want to have the Bomb.

The Chernobyl disaster in Russia was tragic. but that has to do with a nuclear reactor, which is far more unstable than already processed nuclear warheads. a nuclear meltdown of a reactor isn't nearly as powerful as an atomic explosion.

WOuld you risk massive loss of human lives to a nuclear device all in the name of 'what's good for the goose, ?'. that's the question you have to ask yourself!

@Texazzpete,

Honestly, you have made so many incorrect statements ranging from the strenght of the Iraqi army to the issue of countires being allowed to keep nuclear weapons.

Apart from the 5 countries what about India, Israel and Pakistan? What is the essence of the NPT if any country can opt out of it or not even sign it and develop nuclear weapons as much as it wants to?

Supporting hypocrisy and double standards of the West while being awake to issues in the middle east is not ideal.

Meanwhile, I hope you stop calling those of us that believe in either complete destruction of the nukes or free access to any country that wants to develop them idiots because no one has monopoly of insults and believe me, I give back as much as I receive.

@Afam
I've had to work nights in a supervisory role in an oil rig where everything seems to be going awry, I'm pretty sure my arguments may have deteoriated over the past few posts. It's a pity i let myself get drawn in in a mudslinging match with Donzman. Anyway, i apologize to all for such a blanket insult.

I think i need some sleep . Expect me to tackle issues squarely when my head is clearer.

@texazzpete

U will be wasting your time trying to engage with the previous poster intellectually.In one thread,he claimed that a person who disagreed with him was better off dead

In todays' world,we have an imperfect state of affairs.Yes, it would have been better if there were no nukes and better if the anti-proliferation regime was, at all times, made compulsorily applicable to all nations,irrespective of whether they signed the NPT or not.

Unfortunately this is not the case.The question then is,what is the best way forward.

My view is that anti-proliferation efforts are not helped by proliferation.Common sense if you ask me.

The question of whether the recognised Nuclear Weapons States under the NPT are moving fast enough to decommision is rendered irrelevant by proliferation by religious fanatics in Iran.

If they never wanted to,they now have an excuse not to .Why continue reducing your nuclear stockpile when some mad mullahs in Iran are busy defying the NPT.

Bear in mind that US nuclear stockpile had fallen from 32,000 warheads in 1966 to 9,000 today while that of Russia has fallen from 35,000 in 1990 to 16,000.

There will never be a day in which countries that have nukes will suddenly remove all their nukes.It has to be a gradual process.That process must be one that creates a binding anti-proliferation regime which is well enforced.Iran's actions make a mockery of this

If by some miracle the 5 NWS had gotten rid of their nukes by now,does anyone believe that the Iranian mullahs would not be in a race to acquire the bomb?

till this day, there are arguments for and against the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, but less than 300000 people died in both, a far cry from the terrible death toll that would have been racked up in a protracted land war. Doubt the figures? In the battle for some small islands near the Japanese mainland, here are the casualty figures in the battle for Iwo Jima: 6800 US Marines Killed, 21000 japanese Killed. Unremarkable, right? Wrong! 90% of the casualties were suffered in the first 4 days and over 90% of all japanese troops were killed because they refused to surrender even when they were beaten.
At the battle of Okinawa, 7000 US troops and 5000 Us navy sailors were KIA and MIA. SO you can see why the use of the Nuclear bomb seemed so attractive.

Yeah that totally justifies killing 300,000 innocent people, TOTALLY. . . .Let's also forget soldiers signed up to die in wars!

Donzman:


Yeah that totally justifies killing 300,000 innocent people, TOTALLY. . . .Let's also forget soldiers signed up to die in wars!

In the battle of Okinawa,150,000 civilians died.About a quarter of the entire population of about 600,000. 94,000 Japanese soilders died as well.

If it cost 150,000 civilians to take Okinawa away from Japan by conventional means,civilian casualties will definitely run into the millions if a similar thing was done in mainland Japan.

Now,if someone was to ask me to chose between a method that costs millions of lives and one that cost 300,000 lives,I will go for the later

Maybe we should nuke Iraq too, the civillian death toll is well over 100,000.

Donzman:

Maybe we should nuke Iraq too, the civillian death tool is well over 100,000.

In your mind,u probably thought this a good ironic point to put across.But your point is clearly riddled with stupidity.

There are very few parrallells,if any ,that can be drawn btw Japan in 1945 and Iraq in 2007.

No need for me to point that out

Let's simplify all of this. Israel is a troubled state, it has always being a troubled state. The jewish people have always being a troubled people, they've being bullied since biblical times and I think due to the fact that they have, or at least they had the largest army in The middle east, due to certain contibutions by a certain country, they've being busy all these years doing nothing but protecting the country. If they feel threatened by Iran, which they should, due to public statements made by certain people then why no engage in warfare, I think they'll have the backing up of the US and maybe even the EU, just as long as they are carefull to use only little and less powerful nukes, okay what am I saying, this move could completely distabilize the region. Iran won't just sit back and watch, but Israel has to do something, any ideas

@dblock

Israel doesn't have the largest army in the middle east. The armies of Iran, Syria, pre Iraq war Iraq and perhaps Saudi Arabia are probably larger. What they do have is the best technology in the region and Enough patriotism and resolve to take anybody on. For 2000 years the Jews have been driven from place to place and persecuted. Now they're finally back in their ancestral land and they aren't going to give that up for anybody.
And despite what some of you think, Israel produces lots of its own hi-tech weapons. In fact, one of Israel's main exports is technology. They've driven countries like france mad with their ability to modify and improve existing technologies. France, for example stopped selling mirage jets to israel after the israelis modified and enhanced them above the then capability of the french air force. The Israeli Merkava main battle tank is perhaps the toughest in the world.

I don't think israel will use nukes anytime soon. for one, that would be going too far and would strip it of all support from the United states, their chief ally. Also, israel has constantly denied they have nukes (even though experts speculate they have as many as 100 nukes in underground storage, considering the fact that they assisted South Africa to develop her own nukes).
You're right on one thing. Israel definitely feels threatened by Iran's comments.
The thing is, many of us are armchair generals, we stand aside and condemn. i'm pretty sure if say Libya was making the same genocidal comments about Nigeria, many people here will be up in arms if Libya tries to get Nukes.
Here's a simple chain: if Gadaffi says "All nigerians are roaches, they must be killed in Fire, we must purge the world of the evil Nigerians" and suddenly we hear he's desperately seeking nukes and increasing the range of his missiles to hit nigeria, would we applaud his well-deserved move to obtain a nuke for himself? will we sit still and remain happy?
Will we go on nairaland to protest if we hear that the NDA was drawing up plans to surgically destroy the nuclear plants?

@DOnzman
What was the civillian death 'tool' at the end of the conventional Us - Iraq war in 2003? What's the toll now after 2 years of bloody slaughter among the Iraqis?
Here's a question for you; Do you believe Nuclear bombs make the world safer?

Here's a question for you; Do you believe Nuclear bombs make the world safer?

If every nation owns theirs?. . .Yes. If some nations own it and others don't?. . .No.

if Gadaffi says "All nigerians are roaches, they must be killed in Fire, we must purge the world of the evil Nigerians" and suddenly we hear he's desperately seeking nukes and increasing the range of his missiles to hit nigeria, would we applaud his well-deserved move to obtain a nuke for himself? will we sit still and remain happy?
Will we go on nairaland to protest if we hear that the NDA was drawing up plans to surgically destroy the nuclear plants?

Well, we'll then need to start seeking out our own nukes too. If we both have nukes then the nuclear threat is dispersed. . . .Thanks for playing!

Donzman:

If every nation owns theirs?. . .Yes. If some nations own it and others don't?. . .No.

Well, we'll then need to start seeking out our own nukes too. If we both have nukes then the nuclear threat is dispersed. . . .Thanks for playing!

Nice! According to your logic, since some countries have nuclear weapons, everyone should have! Including those that plunge their countries into unprecedented levels of poverty just to get their hands on a nuclear weapon!

If every nation owns nuclear bombs, then the risk of nuclear holocaust becomes magnified beyond our wildest dreams. The chances of such nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorist organisations like al-qaeda becomes extremely high. Just imagine if they detonate a nuclear weapon in mainland US or in israel. But then again, that doesn't matter to people like you, does it?

all along, people here have based their argument on one thing. nuclear weapons are terribly destructive devices which should not exist. but they do. Luckily for the world, at the moment they are in the hands of stable, prosperous governments (except for N. Korea) and are not likely to be used in the forseeable future, considering the debate still surroundign the use of the bomb in japan many years ago.
with indiscriminate proliferation, nukes could end up in the hands of unscrupulous and trigger-happy nations and organizations, who could plunge the world into fire. a nuclear bomb exploding anywhere, whether in the west or east should concern us all. Preaching proliferation based on such simplistic slogans like "what's good for the goose, ", just to satisfy the current lucrative anti-american and anti-israeli (or anti-semitic) views is misguided in my opinion.

Sure, millitants in Naija Delta carry guns. is the solution to the matter giving everyone guns? Most Nigerians would walk past soldiers or MOPOL with guns slung at their soldiers. WOuld any Nigerian happily walk beside a mad man carrying an Ak 47?

Donzman:

If we both have nukes then the nuclear threat is dispersed. . . .Thanks for playing!

You'll never know how close the fingers were to the red buttons at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis during the cold war.
You'll never know how many drills and fixes had to be instituted to put in place a fail-safe system to prevent a mistake launch. One nuke is all it takes.

In the 90s North Korea test fired a missile which arced over Japan. In the world you envision, considering the fact that a ballistic missile from N korea needs to fly for less than 20 mins to get to Japan, what if the Japanese defense Force interprets such a test as a nuclear launch?

Also, peacekeeping operations, how do you do them? What if Sudan threatens to nuke any african nation that goes near Darfur?

Look, it has being said by analysts and politicians, that Israel has enough military force to take on all the arabic countries, Israel has 9.7 Billion dollars in military expenditure which is far more than that of it's arabic neighbours, excluding Saudi Arabia which has 30 billion in expenditure. Israel has around 150 nuclear warheads, but the iranian miltary haven't got anything, well at least none that the west knows of. The bout between Israel and Lebanon recently, was the only battle in twenty years that even suggested any weakness against it's neighbours. Israel has;

---Small Arms
---M16 assault rifle
---M4 Carbine
---Tavor TAR-21 bullpup assault rifle
---"Refaim" advance rifle grenade
---Galil assault rifle
---Uzi submachine gun
---Micro Uzi
---Para Micro Uzi
---Mini Uzi
---Uzi pistol
---IMI Negev light machine gun
---Jericho 941 "Baby Eagle" handgun
---T.C.I. M89-SR semi-auto bullpup sniper rifle (based on a M-36 Sardius rifle)
---SR-99 semi-auto sniper rifle
---RCWS - remote control weapon station
---OWS - overhead weapon station (also known as "Mag Refael"
---Corner Shot
---Armoured Fighting Vehicles
---Merkava - Main battle tank
---Mk 1
---Mk 2
---Mk 3
---Mk 3 Baz (improved armour and fire control system)
---Mk 3 LIC (modified for low intensity warfare, i.e. urban warfare).
---Mk 4
---Nammer ARV - Merkava armoured recovery vehicle
---Magah (upgraded M60 Patton) - Main battle tank
---Multi purpose tank-chassis based IFVs/CEVs
---Puma - Combat engineering armoured vehicle
---Achzarit - APC (armored personal carrier)
---NagmaShot - an APC based on the Centurion tank
---Nagmachon
---Nakpadon
---Caterpillar D9 up-armored bulldozer military version
---Machbet - self propelled anti aircraft system
---Self-propelled artillery systems
---All-terrain vehicles and other wheeled vehicles
---Abir
---Sufa
---Desert Raider
---Rockets and Missiles
---Gil/Spike - ATGM (anti-tank guided missile)
---Shifon - ATGM
---Jericho missile - ballistic missile
---Shavit - satellite launch missile, based on Jericho
---Rafael Python 4 and Rafael Python 5 - advance air-to-air missiles (You don't want to mess with thess babies)
---Popeye (AGM-142) - advance guided air-to-ground missile
---Gabriel anti-ship missile
---Hetz (Arrow missile) - part of a ballistic missile defense system, able to shoot down ballistic missiles
---Electronics and High-Tech
---Oren Yarok (Green Pine) - radar system used by the Arrow system
---Phalcon - intelligence gathering systems installed on large airplane
---Satellites
---Ofeq - reconnaissance satellite
---Amos - communications satellite (civilian, used by the IDF)
---Katbam - unmanned naval vehicle
---LITENING targeting pod - enhance fighter jets offensive capabilities
---McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jet     electronic systems
---Barak Zoher - advance tank firing system, installed on Merkava tanks
---Dolphin class submarine electronic and warfare systems
---Aircraft platforms
---Nesher fighter jet (upgraded Mirage V)
---Kfir fighter jet (upgraded and improved Mirage V)
---Nammer fighter jet (Mirage III)
---Lavi fighter jet (original design, prototype flown but project cancelled due to cost)
---Arava STOL medium transport aircraft
---Mazlat (UAV) - unmanned small aerial vehicle
---Naval platforms
---Dabur/Dvora/Tsir'a/Yatush patrol craft
---Sa'ar-class missile boat
---Saar 2 class missile boats
---Saar 3 class missile boats
---Saar 4 class missile boats
---Saar 4.5 class missile boats
---Saar 5 class missile boats

Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have more troops than Israel in Both, Active troops, Reserved and Parmilitary, but Israel has got the Technology, there's no telling what they could achieve if they went full force on their nieghbours, as there is minimum information on their manpower and technological capabilties

It's not about technology, that's why the US is still stuck in Iraq, that's why the US failed in Vietnam and Somalia.

The US isn't stuck in Iraq cos of lack of technology. They've achieved little in Iraq there because the enemy isn't a miltant group but the enemy is a group of warlords acting independently and the problem is more complicated than shoot your enemy, There's the chaos between the Shiites and Sunnis and the insecurity of the Kurds, it's an historical problem that even Saddam Hussein couldn't even get under control anymore. You've got youths with weapons and they are backed by terrorists group, the reason why they are failing is not because they are incapable of succeeding in Iraq but because they approached the way the wrong way, they went after the leaders when they should sought distabilizing the groups so that they cannot function and then delivering aid and so on. Israel isn't like the US, they know their enemy and what they can do, they are familiar with their enemy, this problem didn't just airse yesterday.

Ummm. . .Last I checked, all I said was that it isn't all about technology so thanks for backing me up!

OOPs

lolz!

Donzman:

It's not about technology, that's why the US is still stuck in Iraq, that's why the US failed in Vietnam and Somalia.

Actually it is to an extent. That's why Israel has survived this long surrounded by hostile nations. That's why the US blew apart opposing Iraqi units during both gulf wars. That's why the Russians were chopped to pieces by RPGs during the first Chechna campaign as their MBTs weren't fitted with ERA bricks.

I beg to differ with anyone who suggests that the US military is not doing a good job in Iraq.Their are only about 60,000 US combat troops in Iraq controlling a nation of 24 million

The main problem facing US troops is the inadequacy of combat troops in the battle theatre.In a counter-insurgency operation ,u need adequate numbers of combat troops .

This is what the US lacks in Iraq because the polticians have tried to win the war on the cheap.

I beg to differ with anyone who suggests that the US military is not doing a good job in Iraq.Their are only about 60,000 US combat troops in Iraq controlling a nation of 24 million

Did you say controlling?. . .Omo commot your foot from your ass!

@Donzman

When Saddam was hung,people like u said it was the Americans that did it,

When the Iraqis conducted an election,America did it

When the Iraqi leaders called for an extension of US stay in Iraq at the UN,America
When oil is smuggled out ,America did it

Given all u say America did in Iraq,that amounts to effective control

Don't be an idiot, whatever America is doing in Iraq is far from controlling the 24 million people. We have bombs going off everyday, that doesn't sound like control to me.

They can control Iraqi politics all they want but at the end of the day, they're not controlling Iraq. You think the people in Iraq listen to Al-Maliki?

I suppose since South Africa has an extremely high death rate,the South African Govt does not control S.A

Applying that logic,no one can blame Isreal for "controlling "the West Bank,since bombs go off their regularly.

Does the Sudanese GOVT control Sudan,does Colombian Govt control Colombia,does Russia control Chechnya

What does death rate from disease have to do with death rate from explosives?. . .Are you being an idiot?. . .There is no parallel between S. African and Iraq's condition. Quit being an idiot.

The US is struggling to get hold of Iraq, they're far from controlling it. Terrorists/militants are running rampant in the nation!

@Dunce

S.A has one of the highest crime rates in the world quite apart from death from diseases.Its death rate matches those of warzones

IF any country was getting the FREE WEAPONARY AND AID (Yes, billions in free money and weapons every fucking year from the US) that Israel was they would be a world power. All this bullshit of Israel being so great by their own doing is bullshit. And why should we as Nigerians even care about defending a racist, Apartheid state like Israel. Damn our people are something else.

Pakistan having nukes is quite alright but Iran isnt. Yeah. I see the logic behind that. Liek Pakistan doesnt have moslem fundamentalists like Iran. Like Our allies have never become our enemies and vice versa in relation to the United States. Like China wasnt a communist devil half a century ago and is now our biggest bussiness and trading partner and STILL COMMUNIST.

90% of American foreign policy and intervention is based on the prevailing fears concocted up by our warped minded politicians of the era. When they focus their attention on African nations liek Nigeria and the Niger Delta in another 20-30 years and nigeria becomes the next Iraq perhaps you all will be singing a different tune.