🚀 go-pugleaf

davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
>That certainly didn't frighten Israel in the Past (can you remember
>1981?) I'm sure the American and British would have been glad to
>concentrate on the Kuwaiti front and let Israel do (maybe better)
>job in Western Iraq.

	Better Job? The IDF is an excellant fighting force but the
U.S. had a better command and controll over Iraq. With planes stacked
up waiting in line to bomb targets over Kuwait, more planes there would
have been wasted.

>>2.  Risk of degrading the military efforts of the Coalition against
>>Iraq (major, considering the public posturing by some of the Arab
>partners).
>This is Bullshit, I can't imagine Assad rallying with Saddam just
>becuase Israel defended itself. much less so Mubarak, the Saudis
>or the Kuwaitis. All the arabs did was posturing and Israel should
>know better than buy this s**t.

	Why risk it? The U.S. had a handle on things. More planes were
not needed.

(stuff about Patriot deleted)
>Knowing the actual good they brought maybe this was a benefit.

	The Patriots might have been over rated, but the did intercept
attacks. If we didn't send them we would still be hearing if from
you.

>>Benefits =
>>
>>1.  Eventual (though probably not immediate, and perhaps never
>>significant) reduction in Scud attack rates.
>I think the IDF could have done very nicely, I think the result would
>have been clear-ciut reduction.

	Really? The IDF would have wasted more time than the U.S. hunting
scuds. The IDF didn't have awacs and other bonuses that the U.S, had in
that area. When a scud was launched its launcher died. Unless the IDF
leveled EVERY standing structure in Westren Iraq there is no way they could
have been more effective than the U.S.

James