Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Why do Arab countries lose wars?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 9>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
erkut View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Persona non Grata

Joined: 18-Feb-2006
Location: T.R.N.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 965 		  Quote erkut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why do Arab countries lose wars?
    Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 08:54

Armys needs well trained soldiers and technology for victory. But if you dont have those you need good tactics. For ex. Vietkong beat the USA because they used geographic advantages and had great tactics.
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979 		  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 07:55
Originally posted by Corlanx

The others manage very well to become strong, in big contrast with arabs, that prefer - like you (arab?) - to yell that others dont allow them to succeed! Efforts of the big to keep the small weak, are not a practice invented by the west or a practice invented yesterday; it was always the practice of the strong; that yet never prevented those really deserving it to win. Thats why pointing to such a truism is nave, and thats why the arabs problem isnt the west, but their own culture and religion that keeps them backward socially!  
 
so again you proven yourself wrong, you admit there is an Effort keeping others weak.  so the "theory" you were joking is correct and you admitted it.
 
yet "those" countries became stronger that the West couldn't keep up the "in-dircet" occupation, yet still a type of western influence still there.
 
while Arab countries JUST became independence ( at the time of these wars), had undemocratic governments either installed or supported by the West or are not ready and prepared to enter wars they Had to enter.
 
your socially backward theory is stupid, Arab had big states and made great success in many Wars with Their religion and culture.
 

Contradiction?
You missed to hint to the contradiction you speak of now. You claimed that Im ignorant about arabic social mentality, but never indicated what makes you think so. Not all what is hurting your feelings is ignorant. 

i already did prove your ignorance about arabic social mentality.
 
you want to hear it again? arab had empires and civilizations and won wars and controlled one of the world's largest empires.
 
losing "recent" wars which came behind each other in short time with a country fully supported by strongest nations in the world that time isnt a proof of "Arab lose wars because they are socially backward"
 
Arabs and their Social life and culture did not come yesterday as your "israel".
 
oh lets talk about Jews and their social life, when was the last time Jews had a country or won a war before the creation of modern Israel?
 
 
Ha-ha-ha! MORE THAN A THOUSAND YEARS AGO! You catch the sense of this phrase?

Worse for you, when they started to build the empire they were not at all socially advanced, at least to the level of those conquered!!! We can discuss that too. What to say about comparing the social elevation of them at that time, with the general social elevation today, that they fail still to match!!! (statistics as proof)  

who is talking about Advancement? or you want to jump into another argument and forget about the first? it doesnt work with me .
 
they won wars? yes, they built Empires? yes, they had developed their own civilization? yes.
 
and dont come up with they borrowed or their scientists were not arabs and the rest of the bla bla bla which is irrelevant.
 
all civilizations took something from each other and developed it.
 
if Persians were mentally superior as you are hinting then how could arab rule them? by aggression? really? a few Arabs would control a millions in population Empire with great history by aggression?
 
try looking for better lies.
 
 

Simply to answer! In order to build on empire you dont need to be socially advanced, but just to have something that unite and gives you the impulse for aggression; mongols, huns, and the exemples are many . . .  Roma conquered military Greece, but Greece "colonized" culturally Roma; arabs/muslims conquered Persia and Byzantine empire, but they were colonized culturally by these great civilization, with their scholars, with their science and with their art and architecture. In fact, the very existence and apparition of islamic empire was the effect of these big cultural centres.

Exactly that happened with the very aggressive nomadic arabs that once united by Muhammads religion, had all this ingredients for military success; the cultural, scientific and social skills they get them from their victims, i.e. persians and byzantines.  

bla bla bla, with loads of false statements,
 
first you said they lose wars because they are mentally and socially backward.
 
now you saying they did not lose wars because they were aggressive.
 
aggressive or not, they won wars or not? yes.
 
then your socially backward theory is wrong.
 
unlike Mongols Arab did succeed in spreading their religion and culture to a wider region and their rule lasted longer than the mongols, and they built cities and laws and trad more.
 
you contradict yourself and prove yourself wrong each time, and that isnt a sign of anything else but ignorance.
 
 
 Dont jump to conclusion! Your obsession with me labeled as racist, because I say something contradicting your national pride or lack of knowledge, is all what you succeeded to prove till now. I'm not a rasist, because I don't believe that arabs (or any other ethnicity) is hereditary or genetically impaired. All the civilized were backward, and all the backward will get their social elevation in the future. I'm just saying what we see today: the arabs are prevented to develop socially by a mix of religious dogma and tribal traditions. That's not big deal! Europeans too were in this situation, impeded by christianism as an intolerant religion and by their germanic or slavic tribal traditions. Their history is terrific and sad . . .  What makes the differene now with the arabs is that they are impeded by these factors in a period when the whole world modernize in a frantic rythm . . . That's a danger for them and for the whole world too.
 
i dont see you providing any proofs of what you claim here.
 
and all that is a theory totally ignoring western effect and colonisations.
 
all we need is education by keeping our tradition and religion or not, its education which we lacked specially in the peninsula and we have all the required natural resources and the population.
 
interior conflicts (many created by the west) and democracy and education and the rest of the requirement for a developed advanced nation is not impeded nor contradicted by social life nor religion.
 
 
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 05:04

Originally posted by azimuth

My dear, more naive is exhibiting here cheap conspiracy theories . . .  The west is trying to keep weak ANYONE else that can pose a threat to its supremacy; that's not impeding others, like russians, chinese, hindus, latin-americans, to emerge as world powers w/o western desire that things evolve like that. Grow up!
 

lol who said they are not impeding others? you are the naive one.

The others manage very well to become strong, in big contrast with arabs, that prefer - like you (arab?) - to yell that others dont allow them to succeed! Efforts of the big to keep the small weak, are not a practice invented by the west or a practice invented yesterday; it was always the practice of the strong; that yet never prevented those really deserving it to win. Thats why pointing to such a truism is nave, and thats why the arabs problem isnt the west, but their own culture and religion that keeps them backward socially!  

Prove it my friend . . .  Claiming something and stopping only to that, anyone can do! Even children!

i dont see you provided any proofs, but as a fool you are you again did contradict yourself and it will interesting to read how you will "explain" it.
  

Contradiction?
You missed to hint to the contradiction you speak of now. You claimed that Im ignorant about arabic social mentality, but never indicated what makes you think so. Not all what is hurting your feelings is ignorant. 

you saying Arab lose wars because they are backward socially at the same time you admit Arab built empires more than a thousand years ago.!
 

Ha-ha-ha! MORE THAN A THOUSAND YEARS AGO! You catch the sense of this phrase?

Worse for you, when they started to build the empire they were not at all socially advanced, at least to the level of those conquered!!! We can discuss that too. What to say about comparing the social elevation of them at that time, with the general social elevation today, that they fail still to match!!! (statistics as proof)  

how would they built empires if they are "socially backward?
  

Simply to answer! In order to build on empire you dont need to be socially advanced, but just to have something that unite and gives you the impulse for aggression; mongols, huns, and the exemples are many . . .  Roma conquered military Greece, but Greece "colonized" culturally Roma; arabs/muslims conquered Persia and Byzantine empire, but they were colonized culturally by these great civilization, with their scholars, with their science and with their art and architecture. In fact, the very existence and apparition of islamic empire was the effect of these big cultural centres.

Exactly that happened with the very aggressive nomadic arabs that once united by Muhammads religion, had all this ingredients for military success; the cultural, scientific and social skills they get them from their victims, i.e. persians and byzantines.  

it seems that your racism would be proven sooner than i thought, what you call "smart" argument turned to be "stupid", maybe because you are somehow backward specially about history.!

Dont jump to conclusion! Your obsession with me labeled as racist, because I say something contradicting your national pride or lack of knowledge, is all what you succeeded to prove till now. I'm not a rasist, because I don't believe that arabs (or any other ethnicity) is hereditary or genetically impaired. All the civilized were backward, and all the backward will get their social elevation in the future. I'm just saying what we see today: the arabs are prevented to develop socially by a mix of religious dogma and tribal traditions. That's not big deal! Europeans too were in this situation, impeded by christianism as an intolerant religion and by their germanic or slavic tribal traditions. Their history is terrific and sad . . .  What makes the differene now with the arabs is that they are impeded by these factors in a period when the whole world modernize in a frantic rythm . . . That's a danger for them and for the whole world too.



Edited by Corlanx - 31-Jul-2006 at 05:19
Back to Top
cattus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803 		  Quote cattus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 04:08
I removed your last link because it was unnesessary and very graphic.

I have seen your clip above before about propaganda and journalism on Palestine and it has nothing to do with this discussion. So please stop posting those in this thread. Unless you think that Arabs losing wars is just a big smoke screen.lol
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 02:40
Dear neutral(!) moderator, can i learn why my writings are disturbing YOU? Why truths are disturbing you? Why always deleting my messages? Here is forum, if YOU have to tell somethings write after me and explain your thoughts. NOT DELETE!!!
If i write something mistake just tell and explain what is mistake? NOT DELETE!!! Got it?
 
So, lets see why they lost
First; Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696
 
 
These are enough for understanding people, if not enough it's easy to continue!
 
 
 


Edited by Glenn - 31-Jul-2006 at 02:46
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979 		  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 15:20
Originally posted by Corlanx

My dear, more naive is exhibiting here cheap conspiracy theories . . .  The west is trying to keep weak ANYONE else that can pose a threat to its supremacy; that's not impeding others, like russians, chinese, hindus, latin-americans, to emerge as world powers w/o western desire that things evolve like that. Grow up!
 
lol who said they are not impeding others?
 
you are the naive one.
  
 
Prove it my friend . . .  Claiming something and stopping only to that, anyone can do! Even chidren!  
 
i dont see you provided any proofs, but as a fool you are you again did contradict yourself and it will interesting to read how you will "explain" it.
 
you saying Arab lose wars because they are backward socially at the same time you admit Arab built empires more than a thousand years ago.!
 
how would they built empires if they are "socially backward?
 
it seems that your racism would be proven sooner than i thought, what you call "smart" argument turned to be "stupid", maybe because you are somehow backward specially about history. !
 
 
I undestood already your message: You are not pleased with no one presence that is not unconditionally pro-arab (your agenda here?); but following the rules of civilization you use on this english forum, better you drop all these repeated exhortings to me that spell like "go my boy and leave the forum"  . . .  and focus on arguments and knowledge, that's serving you and your image better!
 
your conclusions aren't of importance to me, i made my position clear enough in the other discussion.
 
and you focus in your business and don't worry about  mine.
 
again read the forum's Code of Conduct if you care to post here more.
 
 
 
 


Edited by azimuth - 30-Jul-2006 at 15:22
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 12:58
They need a military tradition. Yugoslavia has better trained pilots than the Iraqis (according to the western pilots that faced both), because Yugoslavia has had a tradition.
 
Just ask yourself why; and try to not answer thinking only to the last decades, but beyond, and ask you why someone has the need to be trained and is not training, and why someone is in need for training and has to resort to extern help for that.
 
 
I am not sure for Egypt (notice that until the camp David agreement Egypt was receiving money from the west), but for Syria I'm pretty sure. Syria IS poor and doesn't have any big oil reserves. Check it if you want.
 
egypt is receaving today as in the past aid. And normally such a country should not resort to extern aid in order to survive . . .
Syria is exporting oil!!! There scores of countries that survive, and more than survive, w/o oil exports; from this point of view, Syria is richer than many others . . . There is no one guilt that they choose to keep a socialist regime that was abandoned by the whole world . . .
 
 
 
The american support to Israel is unconditional.
The soviets did not strongly support any arab states. They were 'clients' as you said. Not allies. There has also been little support from the rest of the west towards arab states, what are you talking about? Indifference is the proper word perhaps for the european attidute.
 
You have right if judging a certain period, but not right when judging the last decade. And I remember that american aid for the jewish state was used as a pressure for keeping israel into the frame of american policy in middle east.
 
 
 
 
Did Greece have any choice as NATO member? Egypt was free to choose between M60 and T62, looking only the prices.
 
Well, I'm to occupied here to answer that question: in fact, just in 2 words, the greeks were the lucky guys of the modern history . . . in  big contrast with my country and many easter euorpean countries. A country w/o any industrial tradition, that did benefit and still is benefiting of western aid having only one atout: geography! From this point of view, the greeks are for Europe what the arabs are for the world: they are just lucky, w/o any merit . . . 
And is nauseating to see to which point they are obsessed with antiamericanism . . . 


Edited by Corlanx - 30-Jul-2006 at 12:59
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028 		  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 05:33
Gah!!
I didn't know that the Egyptians are SO close to the US. If it is true what you say (and there is no reson to not believe you), then yeah, Egypt has an army that certainly can stand against the IDF.

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.
Back to Top
Gundamor View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568 		  Quote Gundamor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 12:40
Egypts miltary is much improved and somewhat modern. They co produce M1A1 tanks with The U.S. and have almost 1000 of them. Their airforce uses around 200 F-16s and other modern type aircraft. The U.S. also helps train their military introducing to them to alot of their doctrines of war. Looking at the current efficiency of the IDF if Egypt was to stand up and play a firm role it would worry alot of people. Though since 1975 the U.S. has been paying Egypt 1.3 billion dollars a year in military aid and 815 million dollars a year in econimic aid to pretty much look the other way.
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028 		  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 06:59
Sorry, but is very, very simplistic! They was "on their own" Smile Well, it seems you think that armies (and nations) need some kind of "nurses", and that continuously . . .
They need a military tradition. Yugoslavia has better trained pilots than the Iraqis (according to the western pilots that faced both), because Yugoslavia has had a tradition.
Another example. After WWII, there was a civil war in Greece. The US helped us with material and training. Greek pilots have been ever since then trained by american pilots. Until mid '80s, the Greek air force was ruling the Aegean, even though it was smaller than the Turkish. The turkish pilots were afrad to come out. There was a clear difference. Why? Because until the mid '80s (I think 1986), the Turkish pilots were trained on their own. They were given good aircraft, but no instructions. Ever since 1986 the training of turkish pilots has increased dramatically.
The same goes for Israel and Arab states. The arab states had decent equipment, but no training. The Israeli air force was unmatched in the area, even though it was neither the largest nor the most advanced (speaking of the 1967 and 1973 wars).
Oh yes!? How that? Egypt as oil exporter, as exceptional travel destination (a bounty from the ancient . . .) and with Suez canal taxes (another bounty, this time a recent one Wink Merci la France!), plus some billions gift from U.S. government annually, it is exactly in the position to be considered as not having many sources of wealth. LOL I think you're kidding, brother, or you don't know what you are talking about . . .
The same for Syria: I woluld like a lot that my country possesing the oil resources of Syria . . .
I am not sure for Egypt (notice that until the camp David agreement Egypt was receiving money from the west), but for Syria I'm pretty sure. Syria IS poor and doesn't have any big oil reserves. Check it if you want.
Oooooh! It seems that "scandalous" for you is only the support of israel, all the rest (soviet and western support for arab states) is ok (or worse, ignored by you)! Confused
I guess now that I know what kind of "political analyst" you are, my greek neighbour.
The american support to Israel is unconditional.
The soviets did not strongly support any arab states. They were 'clients' as you said. Not allies. There has also been little support from the rest of the west towards arab states, what are you talking about? Indifference is the proper word perhaps for the european attidute.
Yes, they were just client states of the two blocks . . .
There was actually an organization of the 'independents' in which many arab states participated, as well Yugoslavia etc (and Cyprus). These states did not belong to neither pact. If they have been clients of some, well still that's different. Did Greece have any choice as NATO member? Egypt was free to choose between M60 and T62, looking only the prices.
And what the ... has Israel to do with all this?
Israel has had the US diplomatic support after every war.

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 17:30
Originally posted by erkut

Their soldiers bad educated and their weapons sucks!
 
Well, judging by the recent "successes" in southern lebabon tzahal had, I would not risk being too convinced by your verdict! LOL
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 16:46

Originally posted by azimuth

Corlanx you seem to be naive about what you are talking about, mentalities and such !totally ignoring WESTERN efforts in maintaining Arab countries weak (except when fighting each others) and once the "each other fighting" ends the strong part will be weakened again ((IRAQ)),

 
My dear, more naive is exhibiting here cheap conspiracy theories . . .  The west is trying to keep weak ANYONE else that can pose a threat to its supremacy; that's not impeding others, like russians, chinese, hindus, latin-americans, to emerge as world powers w/o western desire that things evolve like that. Grow up!
 
also comparing US and European support to Egypt ( around 70 million in population) with Israel ( 7 million in population) is just pathetic analysis and so biased.
 
I intend no bias here: the discussion was about resources, not aid . . . I just corrected my friend above for ignoring that a rich country like egypt still has support, as if it is necessary for such a country to have support . . .  Just give this country to the chinese and you'll see quickly to which extent this logic is fallacious!
 
 
 
also you ignored the fact that many of the Arab countries that went to wars with your beloved Israel were just got out of western occupations, not prepared in all aspects as other members tried to explain to you.
 
Hey, Israel is not my "beloved", you jumped to conclusions to quickly . . .  I prefer this democratic state to any of arab states, but that's for now; in 10 yrs, or 20, maybe I'll see a democratic arab state, and be sure I will support it . . .
 
you keep talking about social mentality while you seem to be ignorant about it specially Arabic social mentality.
 
Prove it my friend . . .  Claiming something and stopping only to that, anyone can do! Even chidren! 
 
 
please spare us your racism and do it somewhere else. 
 
I undestood already your message: You are not pleased with no one presence that is not unconditionally pro-arab (your agenda here?); but following the rules of civilization you use on this english forum, better you drop all these repeated exhortings to me that spell like "go my boy and leave the forum"  . . .  and focus on arguments and knowledge, that's serving you and your image better!


Edited by Corlanx - 28-Jul-2006 at 16:54
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919 		  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 15:23
I think arabs are lazy no offence Mabey lazy isn't the right word but they like to slack. Sometimes that great like they are good traders
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
erkut View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Persona non Grata

Joined: 18-Feb-2006
Location: T.R.N.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 965 		  Quote erkut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 15:12
Their soldiers bad educated and their weapons sucks!
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979 		  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 14:59
Corlanx
 
you seem to be naive about what you are talking about, mentalities and such !
 
totally ignoring WESTERN efforts in maintaining Arab countries weak (except when fighting each others) and once the "each other fighting" ends the strong part will be weakened again ((IRAQ)),
 
also comparing US and European support to Egypt ( around 70 million in population) with Israel ( 7 million in population) is just pathetic analysis and so biased.
 
also you ignored the fact that many of the Arab countries that went to wars with your beloved Israel were just got out of western occupations, not prepared in all aspects as other members tried to explain to you.
 
you keep talking about social mentality while you seem to be ignorant about it specially Arabic social mentality.
 
please spare us your racism and do it somewhere else.
 
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 13:35
Originally posted by xristar

My arguments are simple.
The arab armies of modern times (I assume we reffer to them), have not been successful, not because they were disunited, or because there were any serious social reasons. The arab societies have had no problem of waging war, they actually wanted a lot the wars they had (most times). They have no discipline problems.
My oppinion is the arab societies are good enough to support good militaries.
Why did then the arab armies fail? Because if you study the arab wars 1) there was a serious training gap 2)there was also a difference in equipment quality 3) arab diplomacy had no serious allies.
 
All these factors you suggest here are hinting to the very social unbalances I stressed before.
 
 
1)Why training was not good? Because as I said, the arab armies were on their own. They were given plenty of equipment (which they payed), but they weren't give any training. The soviets sent some trainers between 1967 and 1973, and they helped to increase the level of training, but they could not complete their job, because the arab countries wanted to keep equal distance from USSR and USA (especially Egypt).
 
Sorry, but is very, very simplistic! They was "on their own" Smile Well, it seems you think that armies (and nations) need some kind of "nurses", and that continuously . . .
 
 
2) there are some rich and some poor arab countries. The rich are the ones with oil, the poor are the ones without. In general the oil producer countries are (or have been made) pro western. So, that leaves the rest independent arab countries without oil. Syria and Egypt do not have many sources of wealth.
 
Oh yes!? How that? Egypt as oil exporter, as exceptional travel destination (a bounty from the ancient . . .) and with Suez canal taxes (another bounty, this time a recent one Wink Merci la France!), plus some billions gift from U.S. government annually, it is exactly in the position to be considered as not having many sources of wealth. LOL I think you're kidding, brother, or you don't know what you are talking about . . .
The same for Syria: I woluld like a lot that my country possesing the oil resources of Syria . . .
 
 
Apart from the soviet support they had for a brief time after 1967, they have had to buy weapons on full prices. That's why Syria now has many T55 and a few T72 tanks, both types obsolete.
Israel on the other hand has also not many resources, but with the scandalous support of the US thay always have much and good equipment.
 
Oooooh! It seems that "scandalous" for you is only the support of israel, all the rest (soviet and western support for arab states) is ok (or worse, ignored by you)! Confused
I guess now that I know what kind of "political analyst" you are, my greek neighbour.  
 
3)Arab countries (for which we are talking) were always independent.
 
LOL
 
They have not belonged to either the Warsaw pact or the NATO.
 
 
Yes, they were just client states of the two blocks . . .
 
They have had no big allies. They were alone on the fields of diplomacy, with a few independents on their side only. Not like Israel of course...
 
And what the ... has Israel to do with all this? Shocked 


Edited by Corlanx - 28-Jul-2006 at 13:45
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613 		  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 12:21
to follow on from xristar the tech gap between the isreali's and the arabs back in the 50's to late 60's wasnt big atall. the difference was in the traing and the tactics and leadership that resulted from this.

Edited by Leonidas - 28-Jul-2006 at 12:22
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028 		  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 12:10
My arguments are simple.
The arab armies of modern times (I assume we reffer to them), have not been successful, not because they were disunited, or because there were any serious social reasons. The arab societies have had no problem of waging war, they actually wanted a lot the wars they had (most times). They have no discipline problems.
My oppinion is the arab societies are good enough to support good militaries.
Why did then the arab armies fail? Because if you study the arab wars 1) there was a serious training gap 2)there was also a difference in equipment quality 3) arab diplomacy had no serious allies.
1)Why training was not good? Because as I said, the arab armies were on their own. They were given plenty of equipment (which they payed), but they weren't give any training. The soviets sent some trainers between 1967 and 1973, and they helped to increase the level of training, but they could not complete their job, because the arab countries wanted to keep equal distance from USSR and USA (especially Egypt).
2) there are some rich and some poor arab countries. The rich are the ones with oil, the poor are the ones without. In general the oil producer countries are (or have been made) pro western. So, that leaves the rest independent arab countries without oil. Syria and Egypt do not have many sources of wealth. Apart from the soviet support they had for a brief time after 1967, they have had to buy weapons on full prices. That's why Syria now has many T55 and a few T72 tanks, both types obsolete.
Israel on the other hand has also not many resources, but with the scandalous support of the US thay always have much and good equipment.
3)Arab countries (for which we are talking) were always independent. They have not belonged to either the Warsaw pact or the NATO. They have had no big allies. They were alone on the fields of diplomacy, with a few independents on their side only. Not like Israel of course...
 

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.
Back to Top
Corlanx View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Corlanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 08:49
Originally posted by xristar

Don't go too far Corlanx. No, democracy does not have to do with military success. If you do not value enough the red army, you got to value the wehrmacht.
I agree with Sparten, that the problem of the arab armies should not be seeked in social reasons, but simply in practical reasons, such as money.
 
Well, changing exemples from red army to wehrmacht, but not discussing the fate of both this armed forces, or others, for me is not really "too far". For a while, any army pumped with money and food can have succeses, but in the long run, when abandoning the focus on ephermeral succeses, what happens?
So, still not convinced by your arguments (what arguments?), but in any case, les convinced of my own opinion too (seeing so many people rejecting my arguments).Ouch
Back to Top
Giannis View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 25-May-2006
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493 		  Quote Giannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 07:57

Not even money, it's all about training and commanding. If you have well trained soldiers and capable officers, you can succed against a well-equiped army.
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.081 seconds.