Wars and Conflicts permalink
IDF and Arab armies
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
the IDF has been undefeated in all conflicts with the numberically superior arab enemies
Were they simply better trained and equipped than their adversaries? could anyone recommend books on the military history of the wars?
i also read that following the formation of the state and the first conflict< the idf or israel had a lot of volunteers from world war two who were outraged at what happened during the holocaust and feared another and supported them against the arabs
did this play a crucial role in the conflict?
didnt the arabs fight against the turks or with them during both world wars so were just as combat experienced? -
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
You simply cannot compare Israel to any Arab country. Israel was created with the blessings (whether loudly proclaimed or whispered) of the likes of USA, Britain, France and USSR. The country created received an influx of WWII refugees, people that were hunted by Nazis during the war, willing to set roots there (in a land tightly related to their religion), work and make it prosperous - these were often highly skilled people coming from industrialised countries (jewish in europe had traditionally been of the most educated groups of people), of course not to mention that they received all the support they could not only their diaspora but directly from some of the aforementioned countries so as to become part in the region's geopolitics (and of course they pay a rather high price for that till today).
On the other hands Arab countries were randomly chopped up lands of muslims by Britain and France (two countries that aided so much the establishment of Israel) , ex-citizens of the Ottoman Empire, mostly Arabs but then a high number of other people (Arabs too have a large number of sub-tribes) - Kurdish being the largest non-Arab, non-Turkish group, groups of people largely illiterate, of some old culture maybe but then for many centuries too simplified culture (in the absence of the previous east-west commerce), people that had largely missed the renaissance let alone the industrial revolution... people that forgot even to sail and trade with nearby India and Indonesia when Europeans were going there not only to trade but even colonise, after having half circumnavigated the word! And no, in terms of war Arabs had to wage serious war for more than 1000 years - they had simply lost the knowledge of doing so. Their fight against the Ottomans was nothing more than regional low ranking guerilla warfare (nowhere near the Greek national revolution that was the culmination of a really long series of revolutions and revolts) and they got their independence only when Europeans chose so.
So while Israel enjoyed the influx of skilled population together with a huge support from major countries, Arab also recently created and equally artificial as Israel countries struggled to develop some national coherence, policies, their place in the international scene especially in relation to the oil in their region, a thing till then useless for them, so usefull for westerners... and of course... army...
If one compared the equipment that Israel receives with the equipment that Arab countries received so far it would be highly ridiculous. Israel out of nothing had even the nuclear bomb landing prêt-a-porter with little Israeli effort in tie and money (and now we blame Iran for struggling all by itself to learn and make it, why really? Is Israel, China or Pakistan better handlers of the bomb?) while every top weapon appearing in US, UK or France was next day in the hands of Israelis for the simple reason that the latter serves as a referee for the former in the region.
So what could Arabs do in face of all that? Battle with their weapons always 2 generations older than the Israeli? Bought briefly and with little support, minimal spare parts and brief or often no training at all? Arab soldiers simply became sitting ducks for Israelis.
Do not get this wrong, I am not positioned over the one or ther other. But comparisons of Arabs and Israelis is really out of space, we talk about the opposite things. Because the difference in military organisation does not end there as Israel enjoys also top secret info sharing meaning that Arabs know little to nothing of what Israelis are up to but Israelis most of the times have timely information, something very basic for successful warfare.
For all the above you do not need any book to tell you anything. Israeli soldiers inside a Merkava tank will always be better than kalasnikof-armed Arabs outside. If the kalasnikof-armed get their hands on a stinger-like weapon then Israel will not send Merkavas but hit with missiles from far, as simple as that. Proof of a better army? Well anyone would be that good under such circumstances.
However all is not as black for Arabs. In the Yom Kipour 1973 war when Arab countries joined forces to hit Israel all around, they seem to have success and if the likes of US-UK did not intervene and Israel was left all alone, it might had been as bad as going into non-existence with Israelis once again abandoning the lands there. Israel's forces have their limits too. Afterall one cannot expect from the citizens of such a small country to live like ancient Spartans and take joy in seeing their children getting slaughtered in a permanent war. It is a really complicated situation there and speaking about military comparisons is really not fitting at all. -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
I would not get the Israel-Syria-Egypt paradigm. Just get an easier one. Greece and Turkey.
After the WWII and during the 1950s when both countries became NATO members, USA - even back then trying implicitly to maintain a low-medium tension between them too (who cared about cold war) - sold/gave 10 weapons to Turkey and 9 to Greece maintaing some balance. In the 1960s onwards the balance dropped gradually to 10 for Turkey and 7 for Greece to arrive in the end of the 1980s to give 10 for Turkey, 5 to Greece.
Turkey not only gets weapons at better prices but has always the lead in technology since it receives new technological updates at least 5 to 8 years before Greece. On the top of that Turkey has agreements to assembly locally even aircrafts like F-16. In contrast, Greece has to pleade even for getting second hand crap quality spare parts.
The difference? Back in 1950s Turkey big population or no big population simply could not even dream of making war against Greece. In the 1960s it tried to invade Cyprus (and British were not that much against that, actually it was them that pushed for Turkish involvement there after having inflamed artificial tensions on the island to fight off Greek opposition and successful guerill warfare they could not fight off in the 1950s), the result of the invasion was to remain in their shores ad they could not invade facing a bunch of guerilla Cypriots that all alone defended the island.
In the 1973 it was called in to invade Cyprus only after the Greek dictator installed by USA, got changed by another USA-installed dictator deemed as more obedient who took off most of the Greek army and disarmed the rest of the hopeless Greek soldiers (young men of 18 years old serving their national service there), only after US and British airplanes bombed all Greek positions to clear off any random resistance and only after British troops in neutral uniforms had cleared all areas of the landing. Still Turkish army, managed to sink its own ships and bring down its own airplanes, certainly proving being one of the most incompetent modern armies around. More interestingly it was then that the first attempt of the Turkish to fly over Greek national airspace over the Aegean resulting in the famous battle between the 2 best Turkish pilots (trainers) in their mid-30s in Phantoms (the top back then) against 2 random 21 year old pilot academy students on earlier types (the one flying-by-eye, without radar), ending up with 1 Turkish pilot eating fish in the Aegean and the other being so scared that turned back putting the afterburner, ending all its fuel, getting hiself ejected and leaving the aircraft crash-landing in a turkish highway (where he thought he could land) killing some 10 people or so... US and Britain had to apply pressure to Greek politicians not to go on war because that would mean a swift and certain defeat of Turkey (that would suffer a complete naval defeat with Greek ships taking Smyrna and Konstantinople in a matter of hours) with Turkish being able to do little about that (Turkey even now cannot attack easily by land into Greece because of the terrain).
Well with all that ample US support, that crap army since the 1980s started getting better, first by learning to fly, then by learning to drop Napalm bombs on Kurdish villages randomly in hope of clearing Kurdish rebels and then since the late 1980s (and the recent non-analogy in the arms supplies) start defying the Greek (and E.U.) airspace having the money (from somewhere) to pay for a huge number of aircrafts to fly and invade the others' airspace, arguably a sign of a capable army.
If you have the money and the big-guys support you can really do anything, even the most incapable can be presented as the best, no doubt on that. -
Message 4
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
Many Israeli men served in the British armed forces during the war not as front line troops until the last stages of the fighting in Italy. Israeli combat Brigades did get experience with the South Africans although this is little known even now.
Those men went home and joined the Palmac defence force who fought a war with Arab nationals up to the end of the mandate.
Those men some with full British training then had up to eight years experience and the will to fight for their beliefs.
Palestine at that time had many absent land lords and a high proportion of the Arabs were only tenants and on subsistence living conditions, why fight for land they did not own?
The Arab legion under Glub Pasha were an elite force if they had pushed on instead of stopping for tiffin so often could have made a difference in the 1948 war.
You have one side that knows they will be wiped out if they lose and one side so sure they could win they did not follow through when given the chance.
In the 1973 war Egypt was winning hands down until they advanced beyond their own air cover and that was a fatal mistake. Had the front commanders obeyed orders to stay under the air cover that would have been a different story.
Well trained soldiers of any nation are very good but then we have the National Service men called up for one campaign and not as well trained, when things get tough the side who know they cannot afford to lose will win out in the end and that was the IDF.
There are a thousand books on the library shelves some supposedly a true record and some fiction, it is often hard to decide which is which as the author puts his own bent on his writing.
Start reading from the initial setting up of the State of Ireal and believe me there was suffering on all sides, it is a nail biting read.
Frank. -
Message 5
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
US and British airplanes bombed all Greek positions to clear off any random resistance and only after British troops in neutral uniforms had cleared all areas of the landingÂ
Care to provide some proof of that? -
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
Who ever cared about the truth? About what the eye witnesses saw and lived through? You know I am Greek so I have had the chance to meet tons of Cypriots - even those British-collaborators (of the worst Cypriots...) do not refuse the involvement of Britain in the events.
Those that came from Keryneia (place of Turkish invasion) all told me of their parents' experiences, mainly the fact that British soldiers (who else would be blond or... sometimes half-caste, only-english speaking in Cyprus?) wearing no-name uniforms? On the other hand you had Greek soldiers that served there who were unarmed by the treacherous Ioannidis US collaborator officers (that got thanked by the... seemingly anti-american anti-dictatorship PASOK socialist governement... as complicated as that!) who clearly saw aircrafts coming from Akrotiri and bombing their sites and in the only case that with some basic weapons a "turkish" airplane was hit and crashed, the pilot - who ejected - was arrested and found to be... British, and a half-caste one (oh yes! he must had been one of the first).
During my study days in England I had the chance to meet a guy whose father was a British military officer serving in Cyprus in the events. More or less he confirmed to me all what I proposed to him (including the inflamming of tensions between the two communities to fight better the Greek resistance) and said his father was not particularly proud about what they did there.
Look, I know that sounds bitter but then that is the truth. That had nothing to do with British people and such, but with british diplomacy was never kind on Greeks either in mainland or Cyprus. And quire frankly it had nothing to do with the Turkish too - it is wrong that nowadays Greeks and Turks fight over this, there were other games being played on their backs.
The British conduct in Cyprus was to protect their own interests in the area and that was avoid at all costs the integration of the island to Greece (something that even the small muslim population was not so much against!!! - now they are fiercely against the Atilla forces but they are less than 20% of the now muslims, most are coloners given freely the homes of the Greeks). -
Message 7
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
So you cant then? Thought so.
-
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
I know I have not explained it full and the role of the British in it. It might not be pleasant for many of the British friends here to hear about the role of their country's diplomacy into that. But I will need really a lot of space to describe one of the most complicated war acts where the invader, Turkey, really has been an initially half-reluctant turned willing puppet
Have you ever wondered why the Turkish did not take the whole island since it was unarmed? Why? Why did they stop in half-a-city, Leukosia? Do you think because they wanted to protect the muslim population? Because the Americans told them so? Well yes but do you think it was to save the Greek Cypriots? Do you seriously believe all that crap they tell us?
As a Greek, the last I would have to drop the blame for the invasion is the Turkish (who get the blame only for their yet once-again barbarity). Trust me, it is really very very complicated. -
Message 9
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Friday, 3rd July 2009
As a Greek, the last I would have to drop the blame for the invasion is the Turkish (who get the blame only for their yet once-again barbarity). Trust me, it is really very very complicated.Â
I would not waste my time on such as this normally but it does need an answer.
In 1949 I was sent to Cyprus from long months in the desert and to me it was paradise. Warm green and civilised, I met and visited both Greek and Turkish Cypriots and was invited to the wedding of two Greek worker from our mess, that was really something.
I quickly realised there were two Islands one for the Greeks and one for the Turks. The Greeks had the good jobs and the money the Turks had the menial jobs and poverty.
At that time there was no trouble apart from a few unruly Greek youths who painted walls, Eocha, whatever that meant and jeered at or on odd occasions beat up Turks. Both lived in separate enclaves in Larnaca where we were stationed. I returned home believing there would be trouble as you cannot keep half of the people down forever.
In 1974 I returned as a WO1 to the Crown Base at Dhekelia to service some American Marines put ashore on the Crown base whilst the Navy cleared the Suez canal of mines and wreckage. Both they and we were unarmed, rather a naked feeling after always carrying weapons.
As is normal the British forces were undermanned and short of stores. There were a lot of British families on the Island and the Crown base defences were not at that time good.
Young Greek Nationals in uniform were swaggering around Larnaca and most towns saying what they would do once they got at the Turks. To us old soldiers they seemed badly trained and undisciplined.
I did get to see the small Turkish contingent in the mountains overlooking Kyrenia and they were highly trained smart and very disciplined men. People forget there were already Turkish troops on the Island at the time.
I flew out just before it started and in doing so saw the RAF force which were Lightening's almost at the end of their life.
The British had no interest in joining into something they had nothing to do with. It came about because for many years the Greeks had held the Turkish Cypriots down, you can only suppress a people for so long then they will break out and that is what happened.
We call it the straw that broke the camels back.
Frank. -
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 3rd July 2009
As I told you it is not so simple to explain.
Referring to the comparisons between Greek and Turkish soldiers it is ridiculous. Anyone knows that the Greeks are traditionally undisciplined and it is exactly for that reason that they were the first army to beat the fascists and the Nazis in the WWII well before the others. What you saw there were 18 years old boys doing their national service. They are disarmed and left to be arrested and murdered by the coward invader. They spat on the faces of the Turkish soldiers who got orders to kill them at face-distance (refer to that Turkish actor's account). We are proud of them.
Turkish soldiers seemed to your layman eyes more disciplined since traditionally they suffer a terrible violence in their military service (a tradition in the Ottoman army too) including wipping and even raping in case of disobedience so no wonder. Their results in war are no more than mediocre (and if analysed, really dissapointing) so really no point in having so much discipline that only results in troubled personalities with violent tendencies.
Referring that "Greeks had the good jobs and muslims the menial" is really a not appropriate comment even if it was 100%. The simple explanation is that muslims were simply illiterate, what would you expect of them to be? Nuclear physics professors or something? They had all the freedom to set up their businesses and do their own things. It was not the Greeks ruling the island you now but the British who were more favourable to Turkish trying their best to "wake them up". Why?
Why? Hmmm... if you ever cared to learn about what happened to Cyprus you would first ask yourself why during the first EOKA there was no much trouble between the overwhelming Greek population and the totally unimportant miniscule muslim minority and it was only in the 2nd EOKA and the appearence of personalities like "Samson" (who real Greek nationalist would ever name himself like that anyway?), a guy 3 times condemned for murder and 3 times freed by the British for amazingly imaginative reasons (read the wikipedia if you want quick info... read and make up your own opinion...) only to inflame totally misplaced tensions between the 2 communities. How on earth muslims were armed? Fro Turkey? Turkey back then did not even know that there were muslims in Cyprus. Ask Turkish Cypriots (the few real ones, not the colonists).
Either we like it or not it was like that. Turkey was a dummy player playing their role in game designed by Britain, aided too by US (but then US had a 2nd role, the 1st was up to Britain).
Why it all happened? Well does the word geopolitics tells you anything? Cyprus like Minor Asia, like the Balkans are all integral part of the Middle East in the minds of anglosaxon diplomats either we like it or not... such events are tightly knit with what happened and happens in the middle east (Israel, Lebanon, Iraq etc.). From there on there is really a lot to be said, but one thing is clear. Cyprus was an issue between Greeks and British, not at all Greeks and Turkish, not at all. If there is one thing I put on the Turks is their usual barbarity and low culture (of all those who rushed to get a free Greek's house in the north part right the next month (disgusting). -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
Get also a timeline of the events in Cyprus :
early 19th century: Greek Revolution - in Cyprus so close to Minor Asia cannot organise anything but thousands of Cypriots join mainland Greeks in the fight.
late 19th century: amazingly, Ottoman Empire sells (!) Cyprus to British. All muslims (most of them working in the Ottoman administration or militia leave the island, a very small number of muslims (mostly converted local Cypriots) wish to remain. There are reports that a number of them wished to re-covert to christianism but local church did not accept them answering that "you converted for profit at our expense and suffer, now you remain muslims like you chose". However relations remain OK since muslims were a tiny unimportant minority, overwhelmingly illiterate and restricted in a few villages.
early 20th century, Balkan wars, and WWI: Cypriot fighters join the struggle in the Balkan wars and WWI. Cypriots consider the British administration as a temporary thing and already think of the next step, i.e. union with Greece.
WWII: Cypriots join forces with British under the promise of independence right after the war. The promise is quickly forgotten under the pretext that "Greece is under civil war" (amazingly a civil war organised by the British who gave rise to the communists during Nazi occupation which they had themselves called in and enabled anyway, and then brought in a capitalist right-wing leadership setting aside the patriotic right-wing and protecting the few "Nazi-colllabos"). In Cyprus too British favour communists as a balance against Unionists since communists (traditionally anti-patriot) were against Union.
1950s: Vote organised by the church. Amazingly even quite many muslims participate. 95% vote in favour to Union with Greece. Calls for independence. British strike down with extreme violence rising up to kill 17 years old boys in the streets and hang them publicly for stone throwing (oh yes, and now you accuse Iran of such methods!). EOKKA is organised by Cypriots (and some Greeks, like Grivas) who fought in the WWII in the side of British under promises unheld. British find it harsh to fight against such an enemy (guerilla fighters with formal military training in the British army and even SAS who enjoy wide public support and even the blessings of the powerful Greek church).
early 1950s, Makarios case (a big case!): British knew since the beginning that in that island it was the church that yielded most of influence. Controlling it would be the key to hold the island. Makarios was a surprisingly fast-rising cleric (wonder why!) who got... a paid training in USA from the World Church Council, something unthinkable (then and now!) for any orthodox priest since such a thing is considered as treason. Makarios returns in late 1940s and under weird conditions gets positioned in the best bishopy of the island. Soon the archibishop "dies", 1 week later the doctor who did the necrotomy "dies" too.. Makarios rises to the position of archibishop. Initially he is not trusted by the Cypriots who are wondering "who is he anyway? where does he come from?", so Makarios to become more popular starts a pro-Union rehtoric that gradually appeals to the people. His exile in Seychelles was the turning point in his popularity (a trick planned by the British). However, EOKKA fighters (and especially Grivas) are not at all convinced knowing more or less what he was. Makarios using his position forces himself into the ranks of the anti-British fighters as-if to join forces. Then, by late 195Os after having become popular for his "anti-British stance" he reveals his tre face by renouncing the pro-Union stance and speaking against Greece and calling now for independence, promised by the British so as to install him as political leader of the island too (some theocracy supported by British - it would not be the first time anyway).
Note: it is interesting to visit the wikipedia Makarios case to see how much is written in English (largely the British side view) and how little is written in Greek (ridiculously little for such an important figure - obviously a mere show of his statue among Greeks).
early 1960s: it is the period that Grivas gets a distance from the the struggle (obviously Makarios plays a role there), weird figures like Samson appear (arrested repeatedly and even accused of murder and condamned and everytime was leaving like a gentleman from the British police - merely unthinkable when 17 years old boys were hanged publickly for... stonethrowing). Samsons actions all focus in creating tensions with the tiny muslim minority which all that time was fed with information by the British that Greeks are moving agains thtem (big lie - Greeks had to face the powerfull British oppressor, not to lose time fighting a few poor muslims who would not mind that much even in the event of a union with Greece) - interestingly enough, muslims found access to weapons and the chance to form their own militia (obviously there was no Greek arming them, these muslims had no contacts with abroad, it was the British, no big secret about it). At the same time Britain pleades Turkey to wake up and protect the muslims, naming Turkey "protector of muslims against "Greek oppression".
1960s: the islands' independence with Makarios, an agent priest as a head is obviously some kind of sad joke. British declare Greece and Turkey as protection forces - a trick singlehandedly to implicate the Turkish army in the island (Turks till then were not interested). Unionists are always the majority of the island's population (the rest being Makarios followers, communists and of course the "British-collaborators" - people that made businesses out of the British presence), still pushing for Union but then EOKKA (under Makarios blessings) get completely derailed into community-clashes among christians and muslims. British use this to implicate even more the Turkish who already plan invasion in 1966 - but practically cancel it in the face of a handfull of Cypriot fighters waiting them in the north shores (Turkey did not even possess navy to do a proper invasion).
--- Note: Funnily neither the British nor the Turks mention this failed invasion today. In Greek school history books also this is not mentioned (which is very suspicious - it is known that poat-dictatorship Greek politicians' positions were treacherous in this case).
Late 1960s: In Greece US via its affiliated network of politicians (Mitsotakis, Papandreou etc.) creates actions pushing for dictatorship. Out of the chaos, Papadopoulos rises in 1967 - not the first choice of the US who would want someone from the navy (probably royalist) but still Papadopoulos is an OK case since he is of no experience and easily manipulable, i.e. he does the job. British agent Makarios uses the pretext of the dictatorship in Greece to fight against pro-Unionists. Papadopoulos does not make a move in Cyprus, however retains an enlarged force of the "Greek protection forces" (he had to declare much of the army retired but put back a number of them as... "tourists"). British continue to have plans for the division of the island failed in 1966, then tried to save Turkey from enterring a war with Greece in 1967 (in a case of a war in 1967 Turkey would get slaughtered as it had no navy and no airforce and even their land forces were not comparable to the Greek ones, only being larger in numbers).
1970s, final stage of the drama: it is clear that Papadopoulos would retain the status quo, doing nothing much about Cyprus, but then it was getting clear that he was also falling out of favour with US that was already in talks with Greek royalist admirals (adrmirals? sounds like Venezuala eh?) to bring him down. In the face of Yom Kipour war in 1973 and the refusal of Papadopoulos to agree with active participation of the US bases in Crete in the war (which happened anyway) Americans briefly prepare his replacement in a very funny way - they aided left-wing people albeit led by figures like Maria Damanaki (a communist? a socialist? she was an admirals' daughter!) leading an as-if rebellion in the university joined by strikes that brought down Papadopoulos and brought up Ioannidis (today it is imposed in Greece to celebrate that tragic event of replacing a bad dictator with a worse as the "struggle for democracy" - simply degrading but the majority of stupid Greeks are far from realising - only now a larger part of the newer generation starts realising the big lie). Ioannidis did absolutely nothing else than 1) take out most of the Greek forces, disarm Cyprus when Turkish were being prepared for their first naval invasion (first perhaps since the... 1500s invasion of Rhodes!!!!), all that with full knowledge of Britain and US. Then in the summer of 1974 following US orders Ioannidis orders a joke, an as-if annexation of Cyprus and the installation of - George Clooney? what else? Guess who? - Samson in leadership. Turkish army that could not even invade the space outside their camp were suddenly all-ready to attack the island of Cyprus, fully supported by the British (and US) who not only provided info and active support but also went to the extend of bombing the remaining few Greek bases with a handfull of weapons held by isolated Greek soldiers who were left without leadership as the generals (what no colonels this time?) had ordered their retreat in Greece leaving the lower ranks alone there to do whatever...
Note: A Greek freemason declared that of all military people in the US-prepared Greek junta (and these were not generals but colonels, i.e. second class officers) no-one was a freemason, the only one was Ioannidis who belonged to the London's masonic lodge"... quite intereresting, quite obvious where he got orders this weird and very obscure figure!!! Note that Ioannidis was the one that got most of the allowances in prison to the extend of people wondering if he ever served in prison or if he only enterred in just to show his face in as-if he served.
Note also: 1 colonel responsible in Cyprus who disarmed the soldiers, locked the weapons and gave orders of no resistance to Turkish had returned to Greece and funnily... in 1981 under the socialist governement of PASOK (pseudo-anti-american, of course all this a joke since Papandreou was also a US citizen!!!) he got to rise to the position of general as a big thank you of Americans to his role in Cyprus!!!
So, only after having done repeated blunders (as sinking their own ships, bringing down their own airplanes and shooting their own forces out of commplete terror) the Turkish advanced gradually covering half of the island stopping only where the British told them to do so. They completely ethnically cleansed their part of the island and gave all the houses and properties of the Greeks to Turkish families from Turkey as a proof for the status of culture that still persists in our days in Turkey. Right after that, all by magic, the democracy returns in Greece (normally under such circumstances, it is the army that takes over but see... what other natural thing happened ever there?), Greek politicians fighting to get to the top accept everything the British and the Americans wanted for Cyprus - i.e. the sold it and of course they established a fantastic theory where all fault was on the shoulders of the dictatorship which from 2 different dictatorships became 1 unique dictatorship... brought down by the Polytechnic university school revolt (an amazing lie)... and of course by congratulating with higher positions all these military people that betrayed Greece in these events. Funnily, the politicians that returned to Greece after dictatorship were of the same familied that returned along with the British in WWII to provoke the civil war (nice way e? leaving outside the country and returning to get power? quite indicative). This is of course the reason why a majority of Greeks and Cypriots nowaday still do not know the truth.
So in a few words that is the story. Very ugly. Either you like it or not that is basically the truth as being understood by the events and of course the 1000s of local peoples' stories who were present in the events. -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
And I am getting to the core of your question - where can I bring proof of British involvement in the Turkish invasion...
Are you crazy or something? What do you ask me to bring here? Do you think that the British or Americans will come out and say "Yes it was us that aided the Turkish"? "It was us that bombed the forces of another NATO country"????
But it is exactly that what happened. Cypriots had to face the Turkish, the age old enemy and oppressor of Greeks. It was the Turkish army that took their homes and killed their own people. But these people declare firmly to have been cleared out in the first phase of the invasion by english-speaking forces of a mix of blond, Indian and half-caste people wearing unsigned uniforms. Were these Turkish or something? Or extra-terrestrials? Or were they pouring out of the numerous British bases on the island?
The Greek soldiers mentioned clearly that they saw aircrafts coming from the British bases bombing them and in one famous incident where 1 Greek base had a anti-aircraft machine-gun left armed (obviously forgotten by the treacherous higher ranking officers that did not have the time to disarm them all) and with that they brought down a "turkish aircraft", then rushed in to catch the pilot that had managed to eject only to find that he was a British pilot and actually a half-caste one!!!
It is known that the Turkish army passed near all British outposts where they got all the help including refuelling - since Turkish had not brought with them any tanker to refuel so they used the friendly British bases. Here, British bombed Greek bases, they wouldn't give a bit of petrol for the Turkish?
On their own the Turks back then would had never been able to stage such an invasion. They had only 10 ships in shape compared to the more than 50 of Greeks, and 10 ships they could not handle anyway. Their airforce was comparable to third world countries airforces despite the recent purchases (virtually presents from US) of modern aircrafts. Till then the Turks had not the time to take complete advantage of the full US support in terms of armaments (the 10/7 approach had started only some years ago and still the ample US support had not started to show results).
That is why the main concern of the British and Americans was only to contain Greece and arrange it so no it does not attack Turkey in an event of attack the Turkish would simply be massacred by the Greek airforce and by the numerous Greek ships - they would simply see losing Konstantinople and the control of Bosporous and Smyrna. Even if they would go on to take all the unprotected island of Cyprus (and of course kill all the population there as they usually do), they would have to abandon to save whatever they could save in Western Minor Asia and Eastern Thrace, places where the Turkish army could not counter-attack the Greeks (no navy and no airforce for the Aegean, only land army in Eastern Thrace, more than Greeks but they had to cross a river and attack... in the mountains them from the planes - highly non-practical).
Had Greece been led by a normal leadership, the act would be war and Turkey would have to cede back to a position worse than before (and of course forget Cyprus where they anyway had absolutely no interests!!! still in 2009 they are losing money out of it). But it was not a case between Greece and Turkey but a case between British and their efforts to contain the Greeks (like they had implicitly done in WWII and WWI in very imaginative ways).
I am sure that you are not at all in position to understand the above but then you simply have to accept the above as facts. Any other explanation that you may bring ranges from naif to an effort to avoid admitting in shame the responsibilities of British administration and diplomacy to downright evil e.g. all those British enjoying the freedom to buy cheap property in north Cyprus which are the homes of the Cypriot refugees - a bit of shame would be handy. We know that Turks have not the culture to think that it is not that nice to go leave in a refugee's house, but then what we can say about those British that do the same? No wonder the only in Europe loves the Turkish is some of these British... -
Message 13
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
they were the first army to beat the fascists and the Nazis in the WWII well before the others.Â
So the French stopping the Italians in 1940 doesn't count?
And how does the conquest of Greece in a less than a month count as beating the Nazis? -
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
I got your heart heavy with all the above? Get a litle story too... (I wish not to enter in a discussion in the above to to leave anyone that was ever interested to see for himself... I know that not most but all of you simply lack the basis and the sources to study the issue of Cyprus correctly).
So. A famous incident that happened during the British-US aided Turkish invasion of Cyprus clearly showed the conditions in the two armies and what could be the result of a possible war between the two countries.
It was the first major breech of Greek airspace in the Aegean, 2 Turkish Phantoms enterred fully armed and inside them the 2 best Turkish pilots, trainers with lots of hours of experience. Against them 2 older generation aircrafts rose from a base in Peloponesos and inside two... cadets, students at the final year of the pilots' school. Sounds funny? This is real event! And not only that but imagine that the 2nd Greek pilot had his aircraft with a faulty radar so he flew it blind and thus remained a bit up and a bit back from th efirst one. The Turkish trainers and the Greek students meet up, Greek rookies were thinking only of a dog-fight (Greek forces were given clear orders that a war was not the case still despite what was going on in Cyprus). The Turkish pilots thought there was 1 Greek aircraft, easy game. So 1 of the Turkish pilots fires a missile only to see the Greek pilot avoiding it, and then realising with terror that there was a 2nd Greek aircraft up which dived against him with its machine gun open. The Turkish pilot was ripped in pieces inside his plane. The 2nd Turkish pilot (note again, a weathered trainer!!!), got so scared that he turned instantly and put his after-burners to the full... eastwards... out of his terror he forgot to close them to save some fuel, he finished all his fuel and tried to glide-land on a Turkish road, finally deciding to eject and let the aircraft crash, which it did killin gof course some 10 or so people down. Under the whole events in Cyprus, Greeks spoke never of that event, the pilots were told not to speak, Turks on the other hand declared that 2 aircrafts of them engaged 2 Greek and shot down 1 of them and chose a second pilot to give awards next to the first. One of the usual.
No the story does not ends here. 10 years later, the Turkish started having more confidence in the Aegean breeching the Greek airspace (with full US support of course, otherwise it is impossible for them). In a the meeting there were present Greek and Turkish representatives. It was accidentally the afterburner-killer Turkish pilot, then a higher ranking officer... a legened!!! (the only that had engaged ""successfully"" the Greeks)... and next to him the Greeks, one of them a quite young representative... a pilot trainer ... accidentally one of the 2 pilots of that fight, the one that had avoided the missile... of course the ""legend"" could not had imagined this (... that he, himself a trainer, became... after-burned chased by a... student)
...so the ""legend"" opened a discussion re-telling the event saying how they had shot down the Greek aircraft in 1974 and that they would do it anytime they enterred the Greek airspace.
... and the Greek replied simply "Yes, I know, you were flying at that altitide, angle, your guy just on your right etc.... but please tell me this: you tell me all that but then do you really think you are siting and speaking next to a ghost or something?
...the ""legend"" became all red-faced, stood up and went out of the room and he famously never appeared in the dinners that dollowed.
You can still believe that the Cypriot invasion was organised by Turkish to "protect" the muslism from the Greek junta and of course the Turkish can still revere their ""legend"". No problem about that, what can we do anyway? That is the reality. -
Message 15
Posted by wiseraphael (U9522166) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
Wasn't this thread about the IDF and the Arabs?
I'm fascinated to read what a world power Greece is, how she beat the Nazis(!) and how two faced the British are.....but you're on the wrong page.
By the way Nikolaos, if you want the Turks sorted out, as the Greeks obviously can't, why don't you ask the IDF to intervene??!! -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
And now after the whole package presentation my full reply to Frank.
Frank you were a soldier so nobody in position to have a clearer picture. Your clear preference of the Turkish binded with the fact that you, yourself said "we came to see the Turkish fighters", you admit of British being in full contact with Turkish fighters, normally an illegal force on the island. So what did you do them? Arrest them? Or did go partying with them?
And who kept the muslims down really? Was it the Greeks? I am sorry but up to the 1960s is was the British ruling the island. When they left of course they did not forget to leave the muslims fully armed to create their militia thus diverging the Greek actions against the British to aim the muslims. Divide and conquer. You can say whatever you like to hide your shame, in your case I would not even mention I served in Cyprus. Just out of shame you should do this. -
Message 17
Posted by wiseraphael (U9522166) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
I repeat...why are you talking about Cyprus when the thread is about IDF and the Arabs?
-
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
Wiseraphael, discussions often diverge but you can always bring it to the initial one no problem. You do not have to be ironic, the power of a country is not in its military but in its political-financial position in the world and of course its relation to the big guys.
So what is your opinion? Are you coming here to say to us that Greeks were more favoured than the Turkish by the British and Americans or something?
For your information the IDF is in alliance with Turkey and of course gave full political support for the Turkish invasion. While Israelis as people feel much more close to Greeks than Turkish (despite leftish Greeks were taught to sympathise with the plight of Palestinians) the Israeli diplomacy judges that any retread of the Turkish occupation force from Cyprus (something that the first who ask that are the ... original muslim Cypriots - for your info!!!) will have severe implications in their struggle to maintain as many as possible from the lands of the still non-existing Palestinian state.
You are also wrong on the British. Yes they were traditionally 2 faced, but in that case, they had turned only their 1 face. The divide and conquer applied only in the case of armying and organising the muslim militia to provoke ethnic clashes in the island so as to implicate more Turkey in. Beyond that they struggled to contain Greeks not to attack for the obvious aforementioned reason. -
Message 19
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
Hi Nic
By the way I answered you in the post of the three conquerers.
<quote>Note: A Greek freemason declared that of all military people in the US-prepared Greek junta (and these were not generals but colonels, i.e. second class officers) no-one was a freemason, the only one was Ioannidis who belonged to the London's masonic lodge"... <quote>
Rubbish an officers value has mostly nothing to do with his amount of brass.I have meet generals that was b...y useless and brilliant captains.
The Carnation revolution of Portugal 1974 was mostly lead by captains was they 4th rater.
Furthermore your more or less open statement that an officer is better if he is a freemason is just laughable.
You are a man of learning and quite often show great insight.The Muslim world and especially the Turks are altough like a red cape before a bull for you,when you just blunder on in blind anger.
Like Frank was I on Cyprus under those days when Samsons thugs tried to force Enosis(unifikation with Greece).
I was their primarly on RN from Libanon where I was posted but was ordered to stay with our battalion in Cyprus when the troubles started.
Samsons people where the same ugly mob of bandits,that I later have seen in former Yougoslavia and Congo.
IMPO was their only two things too do in this situation on Cyprus.
Let the western states under UN or NATO flag move in,in force.Or stand aside and let the Turks do the.
For obvious reasons was the first solution untinkable.
About uniting Cyprus did the Greek Cypriots decline this in the reeferendum prior to the joining of the EU,a thing that in my eyes should have void their claimant.
Your friend
Hasse -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
Hasse, your references are understandable but really have no touch with reality.
Is it so harsh for you to understand that there where:
1) In the early 1950s, Greek EOKKA fighters fighting the British
2) By late 1950s Greek as-if EOKKA fighters including Sampson (who just like Makarios was an agent) who served the British interests by pretending to be anti-British but all they did was to take distances with Greeks and randomnly start a fight with the muslims - that is where your mobs appear.
Is is so difficult to understand that in 1950s there was more tension that in the 1960s and 1970s and more guns and fights but it was all about Greeks and British and no muslims harmed while in the 1960s it ended up as low-range gang fighting between Greeks and muslims who somehow right from the first moment of independence had "found" lots of arms (remember Pakistan India perhaps? hmmm).
Hasse, my friend, you refer to Greek mobs and forget the muslim mobs, while you refer to Serbian (I guess here) mobs but forget the Croatian and muslim mobs that killed equally, so I was wondering do you take a clear position in this? It is easy to arm the smaller group to create problem then let the bigger counter-attack and then attack the bigger for "unprovoked violence" against the weaker and run to save them. I place here a suggestion in cases in ever interested you to find out. These things happened over and over again and in the Jugoslav wars in cases like the slaughter of Srebrenitsa (I have read all accounts and it is nothing like the slaughter they taught us - it was an organised event by the Dutch troops who protected armed muslims in their excursions against Serbian civilians, then when enervated Serbians called in the Serbian militia and attacked the Dutch left them to die - stupid muslims thought that they would be protected by the Dutch till the end, note that Serbians killed only men suspected of having held arms during the raids not women no underage children, still harsh but nowhere close to the slaughter now history books sell, written on accounts of anxious Dutch to cover up their responsibilities).
Yes, the Turks are the red cloth to the bull in the Greeks... and Armenians, and Assyrochaldeans and Bulgarians and Kurdish and and...practically every people they lived next to them... for the simple reason they were so violent as to have killed more than 3 million people and ethnically cleansed whatever lands they possesed to downright 100% - one of the very few modern nations that managed to do so (Croatians did it too in the Yugoslav wars). Judging from the world's reactions it seems ethnically cleansing is quite very acceptable and ethical and finds lots of support under ridiculous excuses of "mobs".
If you have just 5 minutes to care to read I would just advice you a very quick scann of the wikipedia, the "Nikos Sampson" site in english, describing his lifetime. Then tell me your views, what do you think about him and his works. Did he really work for the Greeks? Were his actions serving any Greek right?
It is an interesting story - if you really get to the conclusion that this man was a read-deal nationalist trying to fight for Cyprus I would be very very suprised, or at least think that you have no idea about what makes an "agent". An agent is nothing close to James Bond but a man taking orders "from above", usually working in the other side and being constantly aided in his work. When all others die at the first round he survives all battles and even captivity with relative ease so as to get on until work is done, then he retires nicely to some cool place to live his life as best as possible always finding the money (while not working that much) to do things others cannot without stealing banks or having inherited fortunes. That is the story of an agent.
You have to realise that Cyprus is too important as an island to belong to any other country apart to no-one else but the British and the Americans. And in practice the island still belongs to them. Turkeys' input was that exactly. I never accused Turkish of the invasion - I only accused them of their good-old barbarism (and I am not hiding the wrongdoings of the Greek Cypriot mobs on the island, led by agents of course, as I will not remain silent to the wrongdoings of the muslim Cypriot mobs who were of course dragged and armed to enter a fight with their neighbours). Turkish had been as dummies as the Greeks had been. They gained nothing out of it other than tarnishing even more their name (since they yet once again did not avoid the slaughters, the killings of 3000 POWs - 18 years old boys serving their national service accidentally found on islands), ethnically cleansing half the island and giving other peoples' houses to a pityfull mass of poor desperate people from Turkey who of course became the people that the muslim Cypriots hate most of all - note that muslim Cypriots would much rather join Greece than have all that (they self confess that).
As for who was the freemason and not, please take notice to my words. I view freemasons as a very enlarged and fragmented network of no specific sympathies and ideas - they are there mostly for the personal/group profit. However freemasons due to their organisation provide a good means of international connections and often become a highway of spies and agents. Now this Greek freemason wanted to explain - quite naively - that Greek freemasonry was against the US-organised junta and that there was no colonel freemason apart Ioannidis. That does not mean I imply that non-freemason colonels where "good" or something, Papadopoulos to get on power he had to sabotage Greek tanks with suger (to have better control using his own working ones!), a downright treason against the nation. But what it tells us - and that is why it was quite naif from that guy to admit so - is that the only colonel that was freemason was Ioannidis, the one that actually took power after the 1973 Polytechnic school "leftish rebellion" (led by people like "leftish" Maria Damanaki daughter of... royalist admirals who were not anti-junta but anti-Papadopoulos - so leftish she was!) a rebellion prepared by the US. And did Ioannidis do? He created the circumstances preparing the Turkish invasion. The fact that he was the only to be freemason and belonging to the London's lodge is not something to be overseen, it is clear where he could get at least his info, let alone orders too! Because what Ioannidis did was on orders, it was clearly not any of his policies (unlike the others, he did not have any policies, nor he was a nationalist Greek, nor he had any ideology, he was merely a "career man"). The fact that he was a freemason is also very important if one thinks that Ioannidis, the worst of all, the traitor of the nation was the one that spent the least time in prison despite having the same sentence as the others. Simple as that: he served his masters and he got rewarded. -
Message 21
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
Do not know who wrote this... but on most points it is not that far from reality:
as to where muslim cypriots had found the guns...
""...In 1931 this led to open revolution. A riot resulted in the death of six civilians, injuries to others, and the burning of the British Government House in Nicosia. In the months that followed about 2,000 people were convicted of crimes in connection with the struggle for union with Greece. Britain reacted by imposing harsh restrictions.[citation needed] Military reinforcements were dispatched to the island, the constitution suspended,[citation needed] a special "epicourical" (reserve) police force was formed consisting of only Turkish Cypriots to fight Cypriot revolutionaries in order to internally divide the Cypriots,[citation needed] press censorship instituted, and political parties banned.[citation needed] Two bishops and eight other prominent citizens directly implicated in the struggle against Britain were exiled. In effect, the governor became a dictator,[citation needed] empowered to rule by decree. Municipal elections were suspended, and until 1943 all municipal officials were appointed by the government.[citation needed] The governor was to be assisted by an Executive Council, and two years later an Advisory Council was established; both councils consisted only of appointees and were restricted to advising on domestic matters only..."""
So now you know what means divide and conquer. Also note that most of the 2,000 people mentioned as arrested they were murdered briefly (British would spend no much time in judging who did what, we were in the 1930s, it was all about Greeks, a lesser race compared to the racially superior Anglosaxons so no problem... that reaction remained well till the 1970s when British forces could not be moved to save civilians and let them die in front of their eyes...
In fact if you read more you will realise the depth of the crimes commited - and that I am really going here very very soft on that event. -
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
It is also quite... refreshing to read - besides reading where muslims did find their weapons and become the protectors of the British on the island - of who really spoke first of the division of the island into north and south. It also very interesting to read about the unbelievable plans of the British to as-if propose to... their own agent Makarios (!) plans of as-if Union with mainland Greece! Reminds us of the unbelievabme "Coffee Avnan" plan some years ago... another as-if propositions that all Turkish Cypriots rushed in to vote yes since it legalised the properties they have stolen on their names. Greek Cypriots voted against it (despite main parties in Greece treacherously spoke for it, Karamanlis, Papandreou - note these two come from two British-fed families so no wonder!!!) and thus they retained a last of integrity. As long as Turkey does not return the lands and properties to the rightfull owners, there is no solution and the north part can as well remain what it is right now... it is not up to the Cypriots to do anything but to the north side / the very few (and quite poor) properties of Turkish Cypriots are always empty in the south waiting for them to come back (unless any Turkish Cypriot would leave his 200m² villa taken from some Greek in the north part to go back to his humble 45m² in the south). Turkish coloners from Turkey would never go back anyway.
So solution there is not. It can remain like that as well, always there to teach us that these things are sorted out by war and not talks - who knows in the next war the international scene might be less favourable to Turks, they have been only so lucky the last 100 years. -
Message 23
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
Frank you were a soldier so nobody in position to have a clearer picture. Your clear preference of the Turkish binded with the fact that you, yourself said "we came to see the Turkish fighters", you admit of British being in full contact with Turkish fighters, normally an illegal force on the island. So what did you do them? Arrest them? Or did go partying with them?Â
I had no preference for Greek Or Turk, all armies liaise at some time and we had trained with Greek as well as many other European troops.
I met civilian Greek and Turkish Cypriots and liked both.
You state the Muslims are illiterate, I found them as reasonably educated with views on the world affairs which we discussed as I did with the Greeks, they wanted to hear English spoken by and Englishman to further their understanding of the language.
Two points the Turks had a small number of troops on the island to protect the Turks from Eoka in 1974,
The Greek Junta in effect had already invaded the island and removed Makarios.
I did visit the Turkish soldiers above Kyrenia, three of us in civilian clothes unarmed and on the invitation of one of their officers. We stayed two hours and then went on down to Kyrenia for a nice long weekend break.
I have no idea how we managed to re arm their forces with one small car and three men who were on a weekends leave.
As this thread is now ell of subject and it is obvious you have a lot of eggs to break on the subject of Cyprus I now withdraw from posting here.
Please note I did not and never will hit the triangle, free speech was hard won by real soldiers in two world wars.
Frank. -
Message 24
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
Free speech and the army are two things totally out of space to each other. Anyway, trust me I work in a highly complex technology project right now and have no visibility, thus I would not expect a foreign soldier to know anything that occured back then.
Now, whether muslims were of average literacy, that is really "discussable"(and everyone knows the truth so no need to speak about 1-2 people we met here or there). The truth is that the initially 5% insignificant minority of muslims at the beginning of the 20th century had risen due to the over-streched families to 18% (still a relatively small minority) always remaining massively in a low status provoking social problems (ghettos and such) out of their illieracy and high unemployement with their only hope of getting a proper job as "armed security guards of the British" (thus the friendliness with the British)... you know how these things go... -
Message 25
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
Elkstone. (re OP)
could anyone recommend books on the military history of the wars?Â
For an historical background (from a rather pro-Zionist stance) try:-
The Israeli Defence Forces and the Foundation of Israel.
by Ze'ev Drory. (this seems to be available on the web, or at least enough of it to allow you to decide whether to buy it)
For the major wars, try:-
Michael Oren's "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East" (2003)
The Yom Kippur War: The Arab-Israeli War of 1973. by Simon Dunstan.
There's an excellent book on the Israel action in Lebanon but I can't remember it at present.
It'll come back to me as soon as I sign-out..
Were they simply better trained and equipped than their adversaries?Â
I think that is it, in nutshell.
Czech arms were important in Israel's (self announced) birth as a nation.
From the 1960's on Israel has had access to low cost (or virtually free) hi-tech US weapons.
As Nik has mentioned, Edward Teller gave them the H-bomb.
We all know about Phantoms, F-16s and those deep-penetration bunker busting bombs, not to mention US old-stock white-phosphorus shells at give-away prices on low-interest loans. -
Message 26
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
Were they simply better trained and equipped than their adversaries?
Quoted from this messageÂ
I think that is it, in nutshell.
Czech arms were important in Israel's (self announced) birth as a nation. Surely, you don't believe that in 1948 IDF, or whatever they called it at the time, was better equipped than 5 Arab armies, including the Arab Legion. Essentially, the war was not between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab militias, but between Jewish militias and the 5 Arab armies. It is absolutely true that without the weapon smuggling from Czechoslovakia facilitated by Robert Maxwell (borne as Lev Hoch) the Jews would have been slaughtered to the last person. I understand that many Brits have a chip on their shoulder about this: after all, they by and large equipped and trained the opposition, but please. And, Nik, please, don't rub this in. -
Message 27
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
you only have to look at the Yom Kippur war to see just how good the IDF forces are
no matter what a c--k up the allowing of the undetected initial assault was
look how they fought back - and this in a conflict where the egyptian infantry fought well
st -
Message 28
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Sunday, 5th July 2009
I would ask you to consider three things.
1) Israel already had an army the Palmac which was mainly Haganah the least worrying of the terrorist groups which included Irgun and Stern.
2) Israel already had a small navy of vessels with trained crews. They also had smuggled planes including Fortresses and some Spitfires.
3) The Arab nations attacking Israel did so peace meal they were not working together but as separate entities with no overall command.
On the 14Th of May 1948 the Arabs attacked but not in unison. Ben Gurion promptly arrested the leaders of Stern and Irgun, a lot of those men then joined in the fighting with Haganah.
Israel put over 100,000 men quite well equipped by the standards of the area at the time.
They were all under one command although front commanders had an open door to exploit situations and some broke every rule in the book turning a deaf ear to orders for them to stop.
Those columns were mainly self contained and by cutting across Arab supply lines they denied the resupply of many Arab units.
Each Arab country made their own peace deal with the Israeli government and as each country withdrew it left those still fighting out on a limb.
The IDF was a well trained and in some cases well equipped army acting under a common command system so troops could be moved quickly from front to front as needed. Add the fact they had short lines of supply and it is all answered.
A United Arab attack would have been a far different outcome.
Frank. -
Message 29
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Sunday, 5th July 2009
[On the other hands Arab countries were randomly chopped up lands of muslims by Britain and France (two countries that aided so much the establishment of Israel) , ex-citizens of the Ottoman Empire, mostly Arabs but then a high number of other people (Arabs too have a large number of sub-tribes) - Kurdish being the largest non-Arab, non-Turkish group, groups of people largely illiterate, of some old culture maybe but then for many centuries too simplified culture (in the absence of the previous east-west commerce), people that had largely missed the renaissance let alone the industrial revolution... people that forgot even to sail and trade with nearby India and Indonesia when Europeans were going there not only to trade but even colonise, after having half circumnavigated the word! And no, in terms of war Arabs had to wage serious war for more than 1000 years - they had simply lost the knowledge of doing so. Their fight against the Ottomans was nothing more than regional low ranking guerilla warfare (nowhere near the Greek national revolution that was the culmination of a really long series of revolutions and revolts) and they got their independence only when Europeans chose so.]
I found the above by Nik quite interesting. The Arabs had a historical reputation for being a 'warrior' people and empire builders. During the medaeval times they conqured and ruled from Spain to the far east. That was with the birth of Islam under Muhammad, and helped to take Europe out of the dark ages, with their maths, physics etc which was needed to build those fine cities and temples etc.
So wondered what went wrong if they could not defeat a small new nation set up right in the middle of their homelands, when they had a vast empire before. the previous post by remefrankmee
did shed light on the tactics and was helpful. Some Israeli/zionist fanatics use the conflict to illustrate Israel superiority over the inferiour arabs almost in cultural/racial terms, but that is not the case.
So after Islam was established, and Spain overthrew Islam and bacame Christian, the next major power in Islam became the Ottomans. So they ruled and controlled the rest of the lands once ruled by Arabs?
It was noted how Arab ruled north African countries were later colonised by European powers, France, italy, Britain. So yes, maybe some former empires 'forgot' for want of a better word, how to wage wars and build empires. No doubt similar to the once great Romans? I heard it was an Englishman, Lawrence of Arabia that helped to build Arab nationalism to revolt against the turks. They were disparate groups by then and not empire builders following birth of islam -
Message 30
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Sunday, 5th July 2009
the IDF has been undefeated in all conflicts with the numberically superior arab enemiesÂ
Elkstone,
I would not disagree with anything you say though that was not the original question.
Vast tracts of Arab lands were owned by absent landlords who quite literally kept the local populations in squalor.
There were many issues causing conflict including people being forced off their lands for many years before the mandate ended.
I tried to give the answer to why did the IDF win the first of those wars, apart from Suez the rest I had to research, the answer to the other wars is it was not easy at all. The Arabs fought well in some places were well led but it was always the none unification of command that beat them in the end. All soldiers know you can only have one command and one leader.
We have only to look at the first Iraq war to see how that works, one overall American General with the rest of the coalition under him.
As to the rest of the historic reasons, who knows? the world is full of if only's.
Frank.
"Oh" and yes it was Lawrence of Arabia, read the Seven Pillars of Wisdom. -
Message 31
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 5th July 2009
remefrankmee it was always the none unification of command that beat them in the end Perhaps, it's that nagging question, "what if we really do push the Jews into the sea, what's next?" in the back of their heads. The so-called Black September events showed the Hashemites that it might not be such a wonderful prospect for them.
-
Message 32
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Monday, 6th July 2009
I'm glad this thread has settled down and got itself on-topic, because it is a major myth put about by the Arabs that they are always beaten by superior technology when this is often not the case.
In '47, the Zionists were a rag-bag of ex-army types like Major Herzog, young kibbutznik idealists and mentally ill psychopaths like Begin. They were disco-ordinated and ill-equipped.
In the air in particular, the Egyptians had Griffon-Spitfires whereas Maxwell and co's Del-boy deals ahd delivered perhaps the worst fighter aircraft of the monoplane age, a Czech copy of a Spitfire with a Jumo engine from out of a JU88 German bomber. Too much torque and more unstable than a one-winged Sopwith Camel. It went well with the home-made Sten Guns fashioned from bits of old pipe.
Contrary to the myth, Israel had no US-supplied arms until 1970. The 1967 War was conducted with a French-built air force and WWII surplus Sherman tanks far inferior to the Soviet equipment they faced. By 1973 they had some good Britsh Centurions, but these were well armed and armoured but let down by their Leyland bus engines which broke down regularly and for which the Heath Govt. refused to supply spares on the grounds that they were being 'used for military purposes'.
The success of the 67 surprise attack on Egypt was thanks to the defence radars being switched off because Nasser was on his way back from a conference and did not trust his forces not to have a pop at him by accident or design. This attitude also peremated the rank structure where nobody was ever told anything and promotion was based on patronage rather than ability rather like the Mid-19thC British army.
At the front line, Arab armies have long suffered from the poor training of their private soldiers, again partly so they could not mount any coups, and also a cultural problem connected with a pervasive fatalism which when they are confident leads them to fire wildly and shout in teh beleif that god will guide the bullets to the hearts of their enemies, and when they are on the back foot their morale soon collapses in the face of the carefully cultivated image of the IDF as a super-professional force which it is not and has never been, being mostly an army of reservists.
Sadat's attack in 73 was mounted with superior equipment in both quantity and quality, and was only held off by a massive airlift of hastily repainted US Phantoms and other weapons that marks the start of the strong links between Israel, the congressional Zionist lobby and the military-industrial complex. By teh time of the 1982 war, the IDF has F-15 Eagles and Shrike anti-radar missiles that destroy the Syrians in return for barely a scratch. -
Message 33
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 6th July 2009
JB-on-Sea Sadat's attack in 73 was mounted with superior equipment in both quantity and quality, and was only held off by a massive airlift of hastily repainted US Phantoms and other weapons that marks the start of the strong links between Israel, the congressional Zionist lobby and the military-industrial complex Wow. The congressional Zionist lobby and the military-industrial complex - that's mouth full, not to mention the number of people that would have to be involved, the lack of coherent agenda and logistics. IDF did not have time for all this giving the gravity of the situation. John Loftus wrote that he knows exactly what saved Israel in 1973, because he witnessed it first hand at Fort Benning, GA. He claims that, on orders by Alexander Haig (bypassing all his chain of command, including Kissinger and Nixon himself) 40 Israeli field-grade commanders arrived there for training on the newest top-secret anti-tank wire-guided TOW missiles. At the same time, Loftus said that Haig "was stripping every TOW missile off the eastern sea board of the United States and from Germany and shipping them to Israel...Al Haig's missiles arrived in time to blunt the next Egyptian offensive. Israeli intelligence learned that Egypt's armored divisions would attack the Milta and Gidi passes in the Sinai - the last line of Israeli defense in the South - on October 14. The opening of the final Egyptian assault on Israel turned into a route as the Arabs' tank force was cut to ribbons." (J. Loftus and M. Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews, pp 316-317)
-
Message 34
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Monday, 6th July 2009
re message 31 by suvorovetz:
[Perhaps, it's that nagging question, "what if we really do push the Jews into the sea, what's next?" in the back of their heads. The so-called Black September events showed the Hashemites that it might not be such a wonderful prospect for them. ]
Could you elaborate? If the did win, wouldnt the region be redrawn up, with another refugee problem? There would not be mass extermination of Israelis like the zionists would want everyone to believe, or was that just their propaganda -
Message 35
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 6th July 2009
SUV (26)
Greetings.
I agree that 1947-1948 is the key period here but I'm not sure that I agree with all you say in this quote from your M26:-
Surely, you don't believe that in 1948 IDF, or whatever they called it at the time, was better equipped than 5 Arab armies, including the Arab Legion. Essentially, the war was not between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab militias, but between Jewish militias and the 5 Arab armies.Â
I think we need to remember, that upto the second world war, mandated Palestine was ethnically two thirds Arab and one third Jewish, with a few Christians. (1,269,000 Arabs; 678,000 Jews)
Between 1900 and 1939 Jews went from 4% to 28% of the population.
Remember that Jewish settlers were quite happy to accept the land distribution set out in the Peel Commission map of 1937.
See:-
In general terms the British authorities recognised that the Arabs had a legitimate grievance about the high rate of mass immigration of Russian and East European Jews but the Americans (especially Truman, who needed the Jewish vote) forced the British to acquiesce. Once Truman had won the election he had a sudden bout of conscience about the shameful treatment of the Arabs of Palestine.
Ironic that when the SS St Louis carried 900 German Jews to Florida in 1939, the US refused to let them land and told them to go back to Germany and Hitler. (Shades of hypocrisy there!)
What happened to turn an Arab land into "The Jewish Â鶹ԼÅÄland" of Israel, in the space of two years, was not a war on conventional lines, with heroic dog-fights and bold sea assaults, but a nasty little struggle for ethnic cleansing, on the lines of the Serbs in Bosnia or Krajina, during the break-up of 'former Yugoslavia'.
Before Israel came into being a rather dodgy group of psychopathic Zionist terrorists and thugs (Begin, Shamir et al.) were bullying Arab villagers from their homes along the Tel Aviv to Jerusalem road (see Deir Yassin Massacre:-
and blowing-up the King David Hotel, killing Britons Arabs and Jews. They also murdered Lord Moyne.
The Arabs had their own bullies and sadists too, but at least they were fighting to prevent their land falling to a colonial settler invasion.
The fact that the Palestinian people lost that fight and have faced humiliations of every sort ever since, does not remove justification for their cause nor make their argument for a homeland any less legitimate, as President Obama made crystal clear in his speech in Cairo of June 4th:
...So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.(Obama 4th June 2009)Â .
(PS for Elkstone. The best book on the IDF in Lebanon, in 1982, is the award winning 'Pity the Nation' by Bob Fisk) -
Message 36
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 6th July 2009
There would not be mass extermination of Israelis like the zionists would want everyone to believe, or was that just their propaganda I am rather making my assumption based on the Arab nationalist propaganda; the fact that Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Arab Nazi made an SS General and arguably the greater Jew hater than Hitler himself, was the inspiration behind the Arab nationalist movement; and what happened to Jewish settlers in the areas run over the advancing Arab armies.
-
Message 37
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 6th July 2009
Pilot The fact that the Palestinian people lost that fight and have faced humiliations of every sort ever since, does not remove justification for their cause nor make their argument for a homeland any less legitimate, as President Obama made crystal clear in his speech in Cairo of June 4th I thought you know me well enough not to try such a blunt bait and switch on me. Whatever sides we are taking, this thread is about equipment and training, not about politics of this conflict.
-
Message 38
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 6th July 2009
Whatever sides we are taking, this thread is about equipment and training, not about politics of this conflict.Â
Err, so which bits of your message 36 have to do with "equipment and training"?
My point was that the sudden creation of Israel was achieved in a dirty war of ethnic cleansing and hidden bombs in civilian targets. A low-tech war of throat-slitting and vileness, in the main.
You take a pro-Zionist stance, one which has dominated contemporary histories of the region for 60 years.
I'm merely reminding readers that the old order is changing, thanks in part to Obama's speech. -
Message 39
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 6th July 2009
Err, so which bits of your message 36 have to do with "equipment and training"? My message 36 is the reply to message 34. Your message 35 is the reply to message 24 or there abouts. Do you follow my drift here?
My point was that the sudden creation of Israel was achieved in a dirty war of ethnic cleansing and hidden bombs in civilian targets. A low-tech war of throat-slitting and vileness, in the main. I disagree. But, more to the point, as the facts clearly show, the Jews did not have any superiority in the military equipment in 1948.
I'm merely reminding readers that the old order is changing, thanks in part to Obama's speech. And I am merely doing Andrew's job here by reminding you that this statement is out of place here, on this thread. -
Message 40
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 6th July 2009
SUV
My message 36 is the reply to message 34. Your message 35 is the reply to message 24 or there abouts. Do you follow my drift here?Â
Yes, of course. I'm replying to your messages because I wish to engage in a dialogue with you, on this issue. I am not replying to posters who have already made points I might have wished to make myself. I have been absent from the web for a while so I did not have the chance to respond to your M24 at the time of its posting. I apologise if this appears to take the 'stream' out of context but you made an important point in M24 and I used M35 to respond.
My point was that the sudden creation of Israel was achieved in a dirty war of ethnic cleansing and hidden bombs in civilian targets. A low-tech war of throat-slitting and vileness, in the main.
(me)
I disagree. But, more to the point, as the facts clearly show, the Jews did not have any superiority in the military equipment in 1948 (SUV)Â
I welcome your disagreement as this can lead to a discussion which might blow away some of the dust and misconceptions from history.
In defence of my earlier statement, that the 1947/1948 period of the Palestine mandate, which was soon to become Israel,(a period first introduced here by you) was characterised more by low-tech atrocity rather than by resolution of conflict on the basis of the sophistication of arms, I offer a brief quote from the Red Cross report on the Deir Yassin massacre carried out, the previous night, by the Irgun:-
The gang [the Irgun detachment] was wearing country uniforms with helmets. All of them were young, some even adolescents, men and women, armed to the teeth: revolvers, machine-guns, hand grenades, and also cutlasses in their hands, most of them still blood-stained. A beautiful young girl... showed me hers still dripping with blood; ... This was the "cleaning up" team, that was obviously performing its task very conscientiously.
...I found some bodies, cold. Here the "cleaning up" had been done with machine-guns, then hand grenades. It had been finished off with knives, anyone could see that ... as I was about to leave, I heard something like a sigh. I looked everywhere, turned over all the bodies, and eventually found a little foot, still warm. It was a little girl of ten, mutilated by a hand grenade, but still aliveÂ
Now, that, in my view, shows that the weapons used to intimidate a civil population into fleeing their homes (as 500,000 Palestinians did in the days after Deir Yassin) need not be modern at all. A cutlass is an old but fearsome weapon to the unarmed.
After Deir Yassin, the Irgun commander announced:-
"As in Deir Yassin, so everywhere" (Ron David Arabs and Israel p115)
Chaim Weizman, the first president of Israel, is on record as saying (re: the massacre at Deir Yassin) "It was a miraculous clearing of the land" (David, R 2001, ibid).
My point is that this attack is simple, old-fashioned, low-tech, murderous ethnic cleansing. It was the key moment in the defeat of the Arabs by the Jewish settlers.
The same technique was used as used by the IDF in Lebanon in 1982 ( see Robert Fisk, "Pity the Nation"). And yes, it was also used by Saddam against Jews in Iraq or by the US Cavalry against native American 'Indians'.
You are quite right to point out that many Arabs are anti-Jewish. If you were a Palestinian Arab, or Christian, whose homeland had been 'occupied' (Obama's word) wouldn't you be? -
Message 41
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
Pilot In defence of my earlier statement, that the 1947/1948 period of the Palestine mandate, which was soon to become Israel I counted that you used the name Deir Yassin five times in your "argument". I understand that you blame the Jews for the alleged attrocities committed in Deir Yassin and elsewhere. I refuse to argue with you about this because it is not the topic of this thread at all. The topic of this thread is the equipment. The war of 1948 was fought between the Jewish militias and 5 regular Arab armies, the latter being equipped with better weaponry for the most part. There is absolutely nothing in your post even remotely addressing this.
-
Message 42
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
JB-on-Sea,
By 1973 they had some good Britsh Centurions, but these were well armed and armoured but let down by their Leyland bus engines which broke down regularly and for which the Heath Govt. refused to supply spares on the grounds that they were being 'used for military purposes'Â
Not correct, the Centurion had the Rolls Royce Meteor some of which were built by Rover.
A lot of the Army vehicles were using Meteor engines a down tuned Merlin and a wonderful engine. I saw the first Mk3 in Egypt in late 48 it was there for desert testing and many after. We had no problems with engines unlike the BL Multi fuel which was rubbish. We later had upgraded Mk 1's as AVR's then Mk 2-3, turret removed and housing for a winch with separate engine. This was at first a bedford truck engine then changed.
The Centurion operated in Vietnam with the Australians and was still in use with some armies in 1990's.
I believe the IDF still use them as ARV's and we had BARV's built on Centurion chassis.
Frank. -
Message 43
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Can i raise a controversial point without descending into a slagging or point scoring match?
How did each side treat civilians and POWs? Were there abuses at one point, but in later conflicts were there a miniumum standard of treatment with no slaughters or ill treatment? Were they both as bad as each other or was one side allegedly worse which provoked tit for tat treatment? during peace treaties, did they both sign accords guaranteeing humane treatment of civilians and pows? -
Message 44
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Can i raise a controversial point without descending into a slagging or point scoring match? Oh, brother. I don't think you can. This is going to be ugly.
-
Message 45
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Yes I think civilian casualties is a subject even less relevant to my side issue of Cyprus I had opened earlier (those who know, they understand why Cyprus is related to that issue).
Anyway, Suvorovetz I was really puzzled as to why you mentioned Arab forces as better armed (at least at times) than the Israeli forces. Earlier I was answered a bit ironically to my comment on the notable superiority of Greek forces over Turkish forces that would little chance back in 1974, especially in sea & air), something easily established anyway. However you come after me and claim that Israelis have been really some short of superheros being about 1 million and fighting the 10s of millions of... intrinsically inferior Arabs that failed to beat them... despite having better weapons. Ok, I might exagerrate in paraphrasing you (and do not like doing), but really it is easy to get a picture of that kind.
I think you (and we) have not discussed in the role of information on war, especially modern military information. Is it too much to say that US, Britain or France keeps little secret of Israel? Not out of love but out of the fact that Israel does there for them jobs they would not like to admit for themselves (today we should speak mainly about Americans, but in the 40s, 50s and early 60s France and Britain were still into it a lot one way or another). Bad tongues go even further and joke that there is nothing the CIA knows that Mosad is not aware of but when CIA wants to know about something they will go to ask Mosad. Bad tongues maybe but really who can claim that all the Arab countries information services together can make up for the 1/10th of Mosad? Honestly, it will not be me.
Hence, Israeli airforce can do amazing things like bomb targets through the most tiny corridors of Egyptian or Syrian defense systems even if employing... blind and deaf pilots when Arab pilots will have to fly circles around before bombing any target being of course decimated by the anti-aircraft weapons they are not aware Israeli has - despite Israels relative small size and easy geography.
Leave aside battle-info, speaking about weapon supplies. Israel from the very beggining had all the help fro meverywhere for the development of weapons locally. No Arab country has any major production of any notable weaponry system. Egyptians or Syrians have to depend on a mix of weapons (mainly Russian) depending more on politics and what is "allowed" for them to buy (at expensive rates) rather than on what they really need, while from there on they might receive as well minimal spare parts and training of staff... the usual... (it is other countries suffering of such, let alone the likes of Syria, a country that most of the west prefers it to remain isolated and acts so as to keep it like that!).
From there on, leaving aside information services and supplies even talking about weaponry alone, I cannot think at any moment that Israel found itself with worse weapons than any neighbouring state. We talk about Israel that became hysterical out of principle or... out of habit... even when... friendly Cyprus (not even bordering and by no means any threat now or in future) bying the S300 (one of the best weaponry systems of our times) - and it is not Israel of course, but those that push from the back! Guess how much Israel cares not to be left more than 1 month with a system less advanced than the latest purchase of Syria or Egypt (purchased after the same suppliers). You know capitalism does not work exactly in all markets.
It is therefore not all about the Israelis and the Arab states! It is the providers that care most and arrange so. The same providers (US and Russia) that provide Syria or Egypt or even the likes of Iraq and Iran for their own games of course. Had arms race in Middle East been a bit less ocntrolled so as to support Israel, despite the fighting spirit of Israelis (and they proved to be a highly capable army whatever the circumstances), they would soon perish, that is the law of physics. When Israel prevails it is not thanks to its army but thanks to a massive engine that pushes from behind. Israelis seem to profit from that but actually also pay the heavy price (as Palestinians are left with no other option than to send their children blow themselves up in cafes killing the Israeli children) and have their name tarnished on the top of that... a big mess for all parties and certainly not the most suitable topic as a comparison of armies and such in my opinion. -
Message 46
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
From there on, leaving aside information services and supplies even talking about weaponry alone, I cannot think at any moment that Israel found itself with worse weapons than any neighbouring state. Think 1948 for starters.
-
Message 47
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
That is exactly what I am doing!
-
Message 48
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
One of the reasons why Israel was so successful in 1967 is because of the pre-emptive strike on Egypts' airforce.
They had correct intelligence that all the pilots and ground crew had a coffee break at 8.00am, which is when the IAF made their lightning strike on the air fields with almost 100% accuracy in destroying the aircraft and no-one was killed, because they were all having breakfast. -
Message 49
Posted by Old Hermit (U2900766) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
#46
Yes and in 1948 the Arab states also had some covert support from the British. -
Message 50
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Elkstone (43)
You ask:
1) How did each side treat civilians and POWs?Â
and
2) Were they both as bad as each otherÂ
The answer to 1) is with utter disregard to the rules of war and with extreme sadism.
Let's take Israel's neighbours first:-
Jordan. While notionally pro-Palestine, by 1970 King Hussein was fed-up with Fatah's semi-autonomous 'state within a state'. He ordered the PLO cleared from Jordan. The fighting between 1970 and '71 was bitter and, at first, elements of the Jordanian army supported the PLO with covert help. The PLO were eventually defeated in a nasty cruel war(Hence the birth of 'Black September').
Iraq. Virtually no regard for the rights of prisoners, either civilian or military. Torture was routine. (Andy Mc Nab had his teeth drilled to cause pain and was forced to eat excrement, as a POW in Iraq, in Gulf war one). Medically qualified professionals were involved in torture.
Lebanon and Syria. Various factions use summary execution, torture and kidnap followed by murder for unpaid ransoms. See Brian Keenan's "An Evil Cradling", he was held for many years by a forerunner of Hizbollah.
Egypt. Torture used against POW's, foreign civilians accused of spying and domestic radicals.
All of the above do badly in the 'Amnesty' league tables of human rights abuse.
Israel. Israel uses torture routinely at Al Ansar (Ansar 3) against enemy combatants and home-grown radicals seen as a threat to the state. It employs medical doctors to help in torture, see:
.
Since its birth pains in 1947, Israel's IDF and its forerunner, the Irgun, captured and killed enemies after surrender. See death by hanging of the British Army sergeants, Clifford Martin and Mervyn Paice:
.
When the British reacted with revenge killings of their own, the Irgun sent letter bombs through the UK post.
Although a small country, Israel always manages to come at or near the top of the Amnesty International table for torture and human rights abuses, with 128 press releases and 323 reports detailing Israel's breach of international standards with respect to the treatment of prisoners and detainees. (See the Amnesty web site for details.)
Sometimes Israel uses proxy armies to carry out military excesses on its behalf, as in southern Lebanon and, in 1982, in central Lebanon when the IDF encircled Sabra and Chattilah refuge camps and sent in the 'Christian' Phalange militia to murder all within. The IDF fired flares throughout the night to aid the killers work, only pulling back in the morning when the murdering was done. (For details read "Pity the Nation" by Robert Fisk.)
So, re: your second question:
"Are they as bad as each other?" Yes, they are all beyond the pale.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.