🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <dusek.713136868@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:
>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.

Well, All this planes didn't get a single mobile launcher in all the
war, the CNN and other media misled Israelis that there are only a few
launchers were around and it is a matter of days (if not hours) that
this problem is going to add. This was outright misinformation. The
Americans for all their hype in the war - just didn't preform their
job in western Iraq and in the area of Nuclear and Chemical waepons
(The findings of all the UN missions there show this. I remember
hearing Akeus telling the press his team destructed more scuds then
the entire Coalition forces in the Gulf War).
in a recent interview the former commander of the IAF (General Avihu
Bin-Nun) said the Americans didn't take the Scud missile seriously and in the bottom
line did a lousy job of "defending" Israel, he added that his guys
could have done it with a greater chances - after all the pilots
sat in the "sealed rooms" with the rest of the people and wanted it
stopped much more than the Americams.

>
>>>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.

For your Info, the only casualty in Israel from the Scuds were killed
by the sharpnel from a Patriot. Apart from PR from Rayetheon this
was only a sleeping pill for the Israeli public who looked at it as
"saviour" - while it wasn't.

I fail to understand why Israel shouldn't have been given Patriots even
if she reacted against Iraq, the conditions were very ruthless and
brutal extortion tactic on the part of the Bush administration.

>
>>>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.

There is a way , that the American didn't try: Commandos on the surface.
I again refer you to General Bin-Nun's comments on how the Americans
did in the Western Iraq front and what the IAF/IDF could have done
there.

I think it's useless to argue who is better since you and I beleive
that our nation's army would have done better and this is a matter
of belief more than facts. (You might argue that the American armed
forces did the best possible effort - I disagree).

>James

David.
--
=============================================================================
  David Ben-Ami (irc: bigdav)      |   "I can resist anything but Temptation"
  s2780369@Techst02.Technion.Ac.Il |       Oscar Wilde
  davidba@Carmel.Technion.Ac.Il  davidba@Moav.Techniona.Ac.Il