When I was there US planes refueled, Ships came into port and the "camp" that i lived in have more naturalized American service members than El Paso TX. I was on a training rotation while most 82nd troops serve at least 6 months with the MFO.

So yes to yor question.

They'd probably let us land there if we were out of gas and gonna crash one of their future F-16's;)

I appreciate your comments and share your curiosity....

During the administration of President Ronald Reagan, the United States-Israeli relationship was significantly upgraded, with Israel becoming a strategic partner and de facto ally. A number of bilateral arrangements solidified this special relationship. In November 1983, the United States and Israel established a Joint Political-Military Group to coordinate military exercises and security planning between the two countries, as well as to position United States military equipment in Israel for use by American forces in the event of a crisis. In 1984 Israel and the United States concluded the United States-Israel Free Trade Area Agreement to provide tariff-free access to American and Israeli goods. In 1985 the two countries established a Joint Economic Development Group to help Israel solve its economic problems; in 1986 they created a Joint Security Assistance Group to discuss aid issues. Also in 1986, Israel began participating in research and development programs relating to the United States Strategic Defense Initiative. In January 1987, the United States designated Israel a major non-NATO ally, with status similar to that of Australia and Japan. Two months later, Israel agreed to the construction of a Voice of America relay transmitter on its soil to broadcast programs to the Soviet Union. In December 1987, Israel signed a memorandum of understanding allowing it to bid on United States defense contracts on the same basis as NATO countries. Finally, the two countries signed a memorandum of agreement in April 1988 formalizing existing arrangements for mutually beneficial United States-Israel technology transfers.

If I say that I'm not surprised to hear that -- does that make me an anti-semite?

My first cousin, who was an instructor at White Sands (then retired at Homestead) and got called out of American's school in Houston after retirement to fly F-16s patrolling the Turkish border two years ago said that landing in Israel is the scarier than a flying a sortie in Desert Storm.

Oh, I think we could do more than that if we worked it out ahead of time. For the reasons 87TD outlined I'd want to make sure they knew we were coming and they knew it was us.

I had already read the Wikipedia stuff before I posed the question......:P

We give a lot in return for a little.

We do give too much I do agree with that, but whether it scares the pilots or not we can and do fly over, land, refuel and keep troops on the ground.




U.S. Deploys Troops to Israel in Preparation of War with Iraq
(January 14, 2003)
by Beth Weiss
An American liaison team deployed to Tel Aviv this weekend is responsible for coordinating efforts and intelligence between the Pentagon, the IDF, and American forces. Major General Charles Simpson is the chief liaison officer for the U.S. Army and he will meet with IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon soon to arrange for the details of this joint project.

A joint air force exercise, the Juniper Cobra, will take place this week between Israeli and the American Patriot artillery in the Negev and radar units from the U.S. Sixth Fleet. Noble Dina, an anti-submarine warfare exercise, will be executed with the combined efforts of the Israel Navy and the Sixth Fleet.

Although all of these exercises were planned in advance of the expected war in Iraq, the exercises will help prepare the two countries' militaries for warfare. A senior Israeli defense source quoted in Haaretz said that the exercises "raise the level of preparedness to that of a possible transition from exercise to operational situation. It's good for the Americans, and good for us as well."

American soldiers arrived in Israel to also work with anti-missile defenses, both the U.S.-made Patriot and the Arrow, developed by both Israel and the U.S. On January 15, Israel moved to a higher than usual state of alert, codenamed "Red Hail." According to an advisor to Ariel Sharon, Zalman Shoval, this alert was planned before the looming war in Iraq was close and does not mean that Israel has inside information on when a U.S. attack will be.

In addition, the U.S. sailed an aircraft carrier, the Harry Truman, into the Mediterranean Sea. The aircraft should allow U.S. planes to reach Iraqi targets by flying over Israeli and Jordanian territory. Israel has permitted the use of its air zones but Jordan has yet to grant the U.S. permission to fly over its territory..

U.S. military units will stay in Israel until the end of a war with Iraq.

Israel's civilian preparedness for war includes the distribution of gas masks and TV and radio instructions on what to do in the event of a chemical or biological attack.

I don't think that posted above illustrates that we have a liberal leash with our strong ally regarding planes landing in Israel or using Israeli airspace. I have met some Israeli troops that went through Benning and also know two guys that went over there to train and acknowledge that goes on--but it isn't a smiley, reciprocal deal regarding our use of their airspace and has met with some controversy.

I'm leaning to believing it was no accident. Anan points out that the post had been frantically calling Israeli officials for hours, saying that they were taking near-hits from artillery. It's been a UN post for what, 40-50 years?

The Israelis are outta control.

I understand the Iran is estimated to provide Hezbollah with $100 million a year. Hez. is able to provide services and help to average citizens much more than the Lebanese govt. by most accounts. It's easy to say the people should just refuse the aid. Most people don't do that.

Remember that I was in during the late 80's and early 90's things were a little diff.

Do some study on the Korean war, rent some videos, something. We were way into Northern territory, more than once.

Jews against Jews...? http://www.jatonyc.org/

Anyone ever see this before? Heard about it on the radio today. Interesting reading.

My point, and you know I appreciate your service and respect your authoritie on affairs military.

When I toured the Holy Land in 1984, we didn't travel on commercial air (or a private jet)--can't do that now, and it ain't because of anti-terrorism measures. They have started weaning off of us and we need to start weaning them off of us.

Careful Plantman--you might Gonna get Gotta'ed by posting stuff like that:D ;)

Actually two of my very good friends (Jewish) are extrememly repulsed by the wall. They liken it to apartheid (sp?) -- A person with any humanity would agree that the way Israel treats the Palestinians is animal-like.

They get even more insane when I tease them -- asking them how much they send back to "Ish-ra-L" -- they say they send it to Rutgers, at least there it will do good.

It's pretty amazing that a small group of people can ruin the entire whole of a group.

Oh well.

Ya think?

I know this doesn't answer your question... but I thought you might find the maps interesting... The source, I know is clearly PRO-Palestine... but the facts are 100% correct. Geography-wise.

http://stopthewall.org/news/maps.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

here ya go. I will get the snapper pics re-sized manana;)

Nope. It is very nice to see that some people have a soul and they can admit when evil deeds are being done. Israel -- quickly becoming no better thant he "axis of evil" members!

Oh yeah, baby. 110 ft. of water, but good limits and my personal best that day was 36 lbs. and a six fish average of 28# on reds. A day that you want to keep the Amberjacks the hell away from your stern and just sink lead to get meat! Course that and the fact that the platform was a 53' Ocean Yacht.........:D

Not trying to ruffle feathers.

I like to read all sides of a story.

Neither am I, but as much as I hate to admit it, Gotta has a point regarding posting an upopular source of info on this subject. Peace.

Running 32Kts. in a 53' super lux that day--I would have never gone to those (oil rigs) in my boat. We were finished in 2 1/2 hours and my arms couldn't take any more. Good 'meat day.'

The bombing of the UN post reminds me a bit of the crushing of Rachael Corrie. The Israelis are going to do what they're going to do, and if some damn impartial observer is hanging out, taking notes, well F 'em.

Man, how are the right wingers going to reconsile this to their plan, cmac? Have you thought about the repercussions of your pov? For shame.;)

Which one?

For the moment, yes. Unlike you, I am serious.

How can you say brute force has failed so far when it hasn't even started? You destroy an ideology by destroying everyone with that ideology and everyone who supports it. What is left is going to be "regular". You seek out and destroy everyone who is involved and funding those who are looking for "martyrs"

And what has that move got them? Hezbollah has maintaned a presence and even part of the government and still lobbing shells. Has anything improved as a result?

So leave. Mapquest yourself to an airport and fly yourself out of this armpit of the world. There are 1000 mexicans who would want your spot.

Beyond that, if someone kills our enemies, whatever the reasons, should we care if someone kills them? I think not.

I was going to write that myself, but I am glad that you beat me to the punch. Ay caramba....:D

AKLIM, were you born here, or did you and your family emigrate? Just curious.

OK. Lets keep it simple and easy. Did we have a free hand to do what we wanted to win the war or did we go in with one arm and a leg tied, FOR THE MOST PART? Yes, we had some times were we did this, that or the other. What was the norm? Did the war get run out of the White House or the Pentagon?

Are you saying that my enemy's enemy is my friend? :confused:

OK. How would they say that the Palestinians treat the Isrealis? With the bombs and what not?

I doubt it is a small group. People like to believe that since it gives hope for the larger part. Somehow I don't believe that. Yes, there are a few radicals but I look at the direction the heard is moving to discern what people are like.

Hey, the Palestinians don't like us. They are supportive of OBL. So who cares if Isreal kills them all? To answer your question, I would say "yes, for now"

I think the UN post bombing is going to be a hard one to live down. I believe I heard one of the guys was Chinese and that China's not happy. If Israel tries to attack Iran, they might get a taste of what China's ever deepening pockets can do. Not that I like Iran too much, don't get me wrong, but China apparently does on some level.

"Today, we are all Israelis!" - Ken Mehlman of the Republican National Committee
 

I heard a nifty description of what the definition of 'conservative' as it applies to foreign entanglements used to be: something about how societies are complex entities and that any drastic intrusive action is bound to have multiple, unforseen, unintended consequences.

Here's an essay from one of the last standard-bearers of that sort of conservatism:


No, this is not 'our war'

My country has been "torn to shreds," said Fouad Siniora, the prime minister of Lebanon, as the death toll among his people passed 300 civilian dead, 1,000 wounded, with half a million homeless.

Israel must pay for the "barbaric destruction," said Siniora.

To the contrary, says columnist Lawrence Kudlow, "Israel is doing the Lord's work."

On American TV, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu says the ruination of Lebanon is Hezbollah's doing. But is it Hezbollah that is using U.S.-built F-16s, with precision-guided bombs and 155-mm artillery pieces to wreak death and devastation on Lebanon?

No, Israel is doing this, with the blessing and without a peep of protest from President Bush. And we wonder why they hate us.

"Today, we are all Israelis!" brayed Ken Mehlman of the Republican National Committee to a gathering of Christians United for Israel.

One wonders if these Christians care about what is happening to our Christian brethren in Lebanon and Gaza, who have had all power cut off by Israeli airstrikes, an outlawed form of collective punishment, that has left them with no sanitation, rotting food, impure water and days without light or electricity in the horrible heat of July.

When summer power outrages occur in America, it means a rising rate of death among our sick and elderly, and women and infants. One can only imagine what a hell it must be today in Gaza City and Beirut.

But all this carnage and destruction has only piqued the blood lust of the hairy-chested warriors at the Weekly Standard. In a signed editorial, "It's Our War," William Kristol calls for America to play her rightful role in this war by "countering this act of aggression by Iran with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?"

"Why wait?" Well, one reason is that the United States has not been attacked. A second is a small thing called the Constitution. Where does George W. Bush get the authority to launch a war on Iran? When did Congress declare war or authorize a war on Iran?

Answer: It never did. But these neoconservatives care no more about the Constitution than they cared about the truth when they lied into war in Iraq.

"Why wait?" How about thinking of the fate of those 25,000 Americans in Lebanon if we launch an unprovoked war on Iran. How many would wind up dead or hostages of Hezbollah if Iran gave the order to retaliate for the slaughter of their citizens by U.S. bombs? What would happen to the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, if Shiites and Iranian "volunteers" joined forces to exact revenge on our soldiers?

What about America? Richard Armitage, who did four tours in Nam and knows a bit about war, says that, in its ability to attack Western targets, al-Qaida is the B Team, Hezbollah the A Team. If Bush bombs Iran, what prevents Hezbollah from launching retaliatory attacks inside the United States?

None of this is written in defense of Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran.

But none of them has attacked our country, nor has Syria, whom Bush I made an ally in the Gulf War and to whom the most decorated soldier in Israeli history, Ehud Barak, offered 99 percent of the Golan Heights. If Nixon, Bush I and Clinton could deal with Hafez al-Assad, a tougher customer than son Bashar, what is the matter with George W. Bush?

The last superpower is impotent in this war because we have allowed Israel to dictate to whom we may and may not talk. Thus, Bush winds up cussing in frustration in St. Petersburg that somebody should tell the Syrians to stop it. Why not pick up the phone, Mr. President?

What is Kristol's moral and legal ground for a war on Iran? It is the "Iranian act of aggression" against Israel and that Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons – and we can't have that.

But there is no evidence Iran has any tighter control over Hezbollah than we have over Israel, whose response to the capture of two soldiers had all the spontaneity of the Schlieffen Plan. And, again, Hezbollah attacked Israel, not us. And there is no solid proof Iran is in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it has signed, but Israel refuses to sign.

If Iran's nuclear program justifies war, why cannot the neocons make that case in the constitutional way, instead of prodding Bush to launch a Pearl Harbor attack? Do they fear they have no credibility left after pushing Bush into this bloody quagmire in Iraq that has cost almost 2,600 dead and 18,000 wounded Americans?

No, Kenny boy, we are not "all Israelis." Some of us still think of ourselves as Americans, first, last and always.

And, no, Mr. Kristol, this is not "our war." It's your war.

Pat Buchanan, 7/20/06

I've never really been fond of Pat Buchanan. He's a bit too right wing for me and too much the isolationist. Didn't learn anything from WWII.

Here's a take from the Ottowa Citizen,
 

that's in Soviet Canuckistan, as Pat Buchanan calls it.

BTW, don't know much about the author. It's the first time I've seen his byline.

-------------------

July 27, 2006
An Unexpected Reason to Hope
By David Warren

Before we get to the uplifting substance of today's column, let me briefly skirmish with the innumerable correspondents who have filled my inbox with outrage against my justifications for Israel's attacks. They parrot what they have heard in the "liberal" media. The errors of fact I'm about to correct are beneath the elementary. But it is necessary to correct big lies as well as small.

Item: Israel has attacked Lebanon, which is too weak to defend itself.

This is a lie. The Israelis have made it abundantly clear they are not attacking Lebanon, but Hezbollah entrenched in Lebanese soil. Israelis, as anyone with any decency, feel sorry for innocent Lebanese caught in the crossfire. But as Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, put it to the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel: "Whether weak or strong, a government carries the responsibility for whatever happens within its country." She went on to hint the obvious: that Israel would prefer a Lebanon strong enough to disarm Hezbollah without Israeli help.

Item: The Israeli military operations are "excessive", and include unnecessary strikes against Lebanon's infrastructure and capital city.

This is a damned lie. Israel has been attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon, which necessarily includes infrastructure that Hezbollah uses. Even the attacks on the Beirut airport were to a purpose openly stated, and advertised in extensive leafleting and broadcasting before the airport's runways were cratered, and fuel depots taken out. From hard past experience, the Israelis knew Hezbollah would be using that airport not only to whisk their prisoners to safekeeping in Iran, but as a conduit to bring Iranian and Syrian advisers, and crucial supplies, in and out of the country. The strikes elsewhere in Beirut are overwhelmingly on the southern, Shia part of the city, where Hezbollah's masters have their command. Lebanese television and radio have themselves been broadcasting Israeli communiqués, clearly warning what they will hit, when, and why. The overwrought charge that Israel is "trying to destroy Lebanon" is an imposture. If the Israelis actually wanted to destroy all of Lebanon, they could carpetbomb the place.

Item: There is a huge civilian toll.

Statistics. And given the scale of the conflict, the number of deaths is not abnormally high. Our media have been giving running totals of civilian deaths in Lebanon that they should know are both wrong and misleading. They cannot know how many have been killed in Hezbollah's "hidey holes". Foreign reporters are in no position to distinguish between real civilians, and the Hezbollah fighters who blend among them. Even the United Nation's humanitarian point-man, Jan Egeland -- no friend of Israel -- has noted actual boasts from Hezbollah that their "human shield" strategy has got so many women and children killed, and so few of their own fighters. They cache their weapons in schools, hospitals, houses, apartment buildings. They hold civilians at gunpoint who are trying to flee. In light of all this, the stress on specific casualties -- for instance the poor little boy who was suffering hideously in a hospital in Tyre, that CNN went to town on, Monday night -- is a flagrant appeal to emotionalism, calculated to enflame misinformed audiences against Israel, throughout the West and the Arab world.

But now we come to the paradox. Despite some of the best efforts I've seen, by our liberal media, to spread poison, there is a growing understanding of what is taking place. Better yet, the response of the Arab world is increasingly directed against Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran; and even against Iran's other client, Hamas in Gaza (now suing for peace). This is unprecedented.

In a partly incoherent, rambling, and apocalyptic address on official Iranian TV, Sunday, President Ahmadinejad said, "Lebanon is the scene of an historic test, which will determine the future of humanity." Then, after condemning the unnamed leaders of various Arab regimes that had failed to align with Iran and Hezbollah, "This is 'the Day that all things secret will be tested'."

Iran unquestionably ordered the rocket and kidnapping attacks with which Hezbollah and Hamas provoked the current Israeli reaction (though it may have been greater than they expected). The ayatollahs are probably also behind the current terror spike within Iraq. Their motive is quite obvious: to change the subject from the Western and growing Arab alarm about Iran's own emergence as a bellicose nuclear power. The ayatollahs are, further, trying to cement their claim to be the managing directors of the international Jihad.

Ahmadinejad is right: this is "an historic test". But it does not follow that he is winning it. Instead, it appears, by pushing too hard and fast, Iran has opened a civil breach across the Muslim world between Shia and Sunni. The ayatollahs have thus created a new opportunity for the West to form alliances with Sunni Muslim states against Iran's aspiring regional hegemony, which the Bush administration is now rightly trying to exploit. Ahmadinejad has, in short, given us an unexpected reason to hope -- as Hitler did, when he began to make too many enemies.
otiosus@sympatico.ca

Pat is not my guru. Sometimes I disagree with him sharply.

Still, he's able to put aside blind allegiance and look at things as they are better than many conservatives. He made some good points in that piece. Simply saying you're not fond of him is not effective rebuttal.

Sorry, someone had to tell you.

Read the introduction to Pat's book "Where the Right Went Wrong," to see how little he learned from WW2.

Too many chest beaters in the U.S. today think everything is a continuation of the glory that was WW2. Lightning never strikes twice in the same place. Everything is different. You can quote me on that.

wasn't trying for a rebuttal. I just don't really like Pat Buchanan. Thanks for telling me.

Even Vietnam?

I thought the folks who preached isolationism during WWII were wrong. Buchanan seems to me to be one of a similar breed today. I may be wrong, I haven't read his book that you mentioned. Isolationism today on the part of the US would not be a good idea, however.

Did you read the Hansen article I linked over on the other Israel thread? I figured you would particularly enjoy that one...

July 27, 2006
No Diplomatic Solution to This War
By Cal Thomas

Why has Iran decided to play its Lebanese card now? That is a question asked by Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri in the July 23 London Sunday Times. Part of the answer, he writes, "lies in Washington's decision last May to reverse its policy towards Iran by offering large concessions on its nuclear programme. Tehran interpreted that as a sign of weakness."

If expanded terrorism, unprovoked attacks and threats to dominate the Middle East and the world are the consequences of perceived weakness, what might the benefits be for exhibiting strength? Peace through strength was more than a slogan during the Reagan years.

Instead of talk about "appropriate" responses to unprovoked attacks, "proportional" military action and worrying about our "image," what might be the result of sustained, unremitting and effective military might that neutralizes Hezbollah and teaches a lesson to those who would kill us?

Imagine if we had been concerned about a proportional response at the beginning of World War II. Instead, America nuked Japan and firebombed Germany. We weren't after a "sustainable cease-fire," nor did we speak in diplomatic niceties or worry about "civilian casualties." Our goal was the enemy's unconditional and complete surrender. There haven't been any dictators in Germany or Japan since.

There will be no diplomatic solution to this war. President Bush has asserted that democracy burns in every human heart. I want to believe that, but am growing skeptical.

What we have is a problem that diplomacy cannot solve. It is a language problem, but even more than that. Languages can be learned and communication established. This is a religious divide. The president thinks people we see in bondage want to be as free as we Americans. In fact, many of them regard us as the ones in bondage and, in their religion, they see themselves as free. They regard our ways as decadent and our culture corrupt. They want no part of it. They are welcome to their 7th-century ways, but they are not welcome to impose those ways on the rest of the world.

In order to feel superior, one must be able to look down on others. It is difficult for these fanatics who have never invented, discovered or created anything but chaos and bloodshed to look up from the bottom of their pile of rubble to see that the world has long ago passed them by.

Their region of the world has taken in huge amounts of money from petroleum sales to the developed world. Has that money been used to upgrade people from their squalid lives? Have great universities been constructed, cures for diseases discovered, products invented to benefit all humankind, music composed and art created that the world envies and admires? They have not, so they blame their miserable existence on the Jews and the West who have done such things and more.

Unable to cope with their failings and to justify their guilt, they seek to bring others down to their level. They will not be stopped by diplomatic appeals, or reason. They have taken up the sword and they must be made to die by the sword in sufficient numbers that even they will see the futility of their ways and be forced to engage in less warlike pursuits.

As Amir Taheri notes, the stakes could not be higher: "The mini war that is taking place between Israel and Hezbollah is, in fact, a proxy war in which Iran's vision for the Middle East clashes with the administration in Washington. What is at stake is not the exchange of kidnapped Israeli soldiers with Arab prisoners in Israel. Such exchanges have happened routinely over five decades. The real issue is who will set the agenda for the Middle East: Iran or America?"

Right now, America doesn't appear to be in the lead.

I've thought he was a neandrathal more than once. That's why I'm surprised, and sorta pleased, to note that I was partly wrong. Does his thinking have value?
Is this a trick question? OF COURSE Vietnam was way different than WW2. The way the boys down at the Chestbeaters Union Hall want to sneer at any mention of Vietnam, IMHO, is that they want to ignore probably the leading example of proud, stubborn, arrogance leading us to disaster. No worries, we might have found a new winner in that category in the Mess 'o Potamia.

Hanson is an interesting guy. I'll read that one later. They carry him in the SF Chron about once a week. Clearer thinker than most chestbeaters but he's in love with military might a tad much, IMO.

I didn't read that much of Pat's book, but the introduction is not bad. We essentially were isolationist, in Europe anyway, long enough for everyone else to get beat up enough so that we could be well poised and at optimum strength at war's end.

Isolationist vs. Medding intruder? Which is worse? Discretion is the better part of valor.

That's cute. Did you think of that one on your own??

Read the Iraqi PM's speech before congress today, it's linked below the Hansen peice.

No, that's been used on the Daily Show for the last couple of years.

I don't get these unreal expectations of the Iraqi PM (are we talking Malaki? [sp]) If the guy came out and supported Israel and condemned Hezbollah, he'd need to double or triple his bodyguard quotient, and one of them might do him in. These congess people who are giving him a hard time about that apparently don't reside in the real world.

Yeah, right. And we want peace:

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=278953

PLEASE!

cmac,
How dare ye question the (Greatest Generation):D the label self applied by a bunch of old farts who really screwed things up. How trite, self promotion without shame, we are the greatest of all generations bar none and all of our sins have been absolved....kinda like a military investigation of itself, funny, they never find to have done any wrong.

On the UN observer issue, more accurate data is coming forth now regarding the strike on the outpost. My earlier estimates (7 hours before CNN) were somewhat inacurate, the volume of calls between the UN and IDF was 10 not 12, the strikes was actually more than orginally estimated, 17 precision munitions as stated, and 12 shells (I was not aware of the 12 shells). The history of the conflict between the UN and IDF is also well captured in the following articles.

I'm trying to obtain before and after satelite shots of the area, since some like maps, this will be the best illustration of my earlier objections to this act. The UN post, as all UN posts are located in a clear high-ground area, not surrounded by other local buildings, (kinda hard to have an observation post from which you cannot see anything), thus the isolation and good line of sight around it in all directions. So a map will show a solitary UN building all white emblasoned with UN symbols all by itself in an open field. How could this have been a mistaken target? 29 mistakes each following a command control process? the only building in the area which has always been a UN post since put there? This was a big mistake and will cost them dearly in the public eye if the IDF continues it's denial.

Here are the articles:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=74290
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/26072006/2/world-un-peacekeepers-called-israel-10-times-ask-bombing-halt.html

To be fair balanced, each article comes from different sides Lebanon and Israel)