Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
and then

Why does Jordan want to keep the IDF?

92 posts in this topic

http://www.timesofisrael.com/amman-said-to-back-israeli-demands-on-jordan-valley/

I saw this and it occurred that it should be the last thing Hussein would want UNLESS... maybe he sees the Palestinians as a threat of some kind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordon is an ally of the West, and generally both nations have good terms with each other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the IDF is by far the best military force in the M. East, and certainly the most experienced, I can see how a sufficiently pragmatic leader might be prepared to put long held grudges/principles aside if it meant that they might be in a position to be of use if someone who they might not altogether trust was to turn out to be not altogether trustworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the IDF is by far the best military force in the M. East, and certainly the most experienced, I can see how a sufficiently pragmatic leader might be prepared to put long held grudges/principles aside if it meant that they might be in a position to be of use if someone who they might not altogether trust was to turn out to be not altogether trustworthy.

Certainly IDF has a huge reputation, and well won. But I wonder if these days it would still hold true. remember the debacle in Lebanon in 2006, and they even had a few Merkava IV knocked out by lowly RPG. Been a long time since IDF did any serious fighting against a regular army, 40 years and they were nearly beaten except for some luck, one Egyptian mistake, and General Israel Tal. By the time Syrian situation is resolved in favor of Assad, and it will be, then they will have the experience. Maybe not in armored thrusts and airial combat, but the guys will know how to fight. IDF only trains, and no matter how good, it is very poor substitute for actual combat. In combat they may hesitate before killing their first enemy, it is a big psychological step to do this (button pressing from a distance excepted), Syrian soldiers will not hestitate, and will have high moral after victory over the terrorists. I do not of course suggest Syria will attack Israel, I suggest this will never happen unless they are first attacked by Israel, a more likely possibility.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Principle: People whose civil liberties are being denied should be a threat to those denying them.

Oh but let's engage in groupthink mentality and a million rhetorical excuses between this group and that country and that religion and that ethnic group and history from 700 years ago and Bible stories from 3000 years ago like we don't have any principle at all. Hey aren't Jordanians MOOOOOZLIMS? And they're brown Arabs (Semites) too...ewwwwwwwwwww. Can't let the brown Semites have civil liberties, no! Only the white European ones.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly IDF has a huge reputation, and well won. But I wonder if these days it would still hold true. remember the debacle in Lebanon in 2006, and they even had a few Merkava IV knocked out by lowly RPG. Been a long time since IDF did any serious fighting against a regular army, 40 years and they were nearly beaten except for some luck, one Egyptian mistake, and General Israel Tal. By the time Syrian situation is resolved in favor of Assad, and it will be, then they will have the experience. Maybe not in armored thrusts and airial combat, but the guys will know how to fight. IDF only trains, and no matter how good, it is very poor substitute for actual combat. In combat they may hesitate before killing their first enemy, it is a big psychological step to do this (button pressing from a distance excepted), Syrian soldiers will not hestitate, and will have high moral after victory over the terrorists. I do not of course suggest Syria will attack Israel, I suggest this will never happen unless they are first attacked by Israel, a more likely possibility.

It's an excellent point you make about the IDF soldiers potentially hesitating. They fight somewhat hamstrung due to the fear of being called "criminals" for anything they might do. That hesitation in Lebanon made that little dustup far worse for them than it had to be. They will have to recognize that regardless their attempts they will be blamed so they need to just get the job done. If the enemy is using a civilian home for cover or hiding missile firing positions in mosques then homes and mosques are legitimate targets. Frankly a great portion of southern Lebanon should be reduced to rubble if such a conflict flares again. Hezbollah is part of the government of Lebanon therefore it is LEBANON Israel will be at war with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Principle: People whose civil liberties are being denied should be a threat to those denying them.

I agree 100% with you on that.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100% with you on that.

Yeah, Uncle Yam is all about civil liberties for Palestinians. P'raps if they'd stop trying to kill Israelis they could have an easier time with that... nah, it will never catch on :passifier:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this and it occurred that it should be the last thing Hussein would want UNLESS... maybe he sees the Palestinians as a threat of some kind?

The Palestinian was a threat to the Hashemite Kingdom. And in 1970, Black September occurred. The two sides have merged into one since then. Although now, I haven’t seen any indication of Hamas or Hezbollah influence returning in any strength. But I guess it is always just under the surface. King Abdullah is always at ends with many of the nobels.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly IDF has a huge reputation, and well won. But I wonder if these days it would still hold true.

Absolutely it is.

remember the debacle in Lebanon in 2006,

Debacle? That’s wishful thinking. The IDF hit almost every target they went after. They had totally crippled the country and isolated pockets of Hezbollah and segregated the civilians to keep them out of harms way. They could go just about anywhere with impunity. The intel they gained alone was valuable. We may never know what all was done or found. And they could easily do the same thing to any neighboring country. If a nation like Saudi Arabia decided to help, Israel could do the very same to Iran. But by the same token, Saudi Arabia would pull their support right before Israel could claim total victory. Saudi Arabia is still Muslim. They’d want to see Iran taken down a few pegs, but not conquered.

and they even had a few Merkava IV knocked out by lowly RPG. Been a long time since IDF did any serious fighting against a regular army, 40 years and they were nearly beaten except for some luck, one Egyptian mistake, and General Israel Tal.

In any conflict, it is normal to lose units even by lowly RPGs. Probably lose more from friendly fire and accidents. It has been a long time but vigilance is a good replacement to maintain the quality of the army. The IDF was a far way from being beaten. But please, believe what you want, Israel’s enemies aren’t underestimating them. At least they shouldn’t be.

By the time Syrian situation is resolved in favor of Assad, and it will be, then they will have the experience. Maybe not in armored thrusts and airial combat, but the guys will know how to fight.

If that were true, without the armor and command of the air, Assad will be looking for Saddam’s spider hole.

IDF only trains, and no matter how good, it is very poor substitute for actual combat. In combat they may hesitate before killing their first enemy, it is a big psychological step to do this (button pressing from a distance excepted), Syrian soldiers will not hestitate, and will have high moral after victory over the terrorists.

There is no substitute for combat experience but it doesn’t take long to gain it. In combat the edge goes to the better trained and disciplined army and good leadership. Add the superiority of the technology (armor, air cover, intel/surveillance, and electronic countermeasures) and it can overcome superiority in numbers provided the tactics and leadership are superior too. Israel has this.

I do not of course suggest Syria will attack Israel, I suggest this will never happen unless they are first attacked by Israel, a more likely possibility.

Israel won’t attack unless Syria threatens attack. And I would guess that Israel has informants on the inside of the Syrian war machine and will be in position to give a heads up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Islam in Saudi Arabia and the Islam in Iran are not the same but long-standing ideological enemies. The problem with an Israeli-Saudi alliance is that it is out of the question. What they tend to do is ignore each other and effectively work toward the same goals (Israeli skill and manpower, Saudi money) through the United States, but Obama has proved to be kinda like Carter and undependable to both of them.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Islam in Saudi Arabia and the Islam in Iran are not the same but long-standing ideological enemies.

That is correct. Just because they are both Muslim doesn’t mean anything. One is Sunni, the other Shiite. One is Arab, the other Persian. Saudi Arabia is perhaps closer to Israel than Iran.

The problem with an Israeli-Saudi alliance is that it is out of the question. What they tend to do is ignore each other and effectively work toward the same goals (Israeli skill and manpower, Saudi money) through the United States, but Obama has proved to be kinda like Carter and undependable to both of them.

Maybe in times past I would agree but today is different. Necessity makes for strange bedfellows. It depends on how long either can wait for Obama to leave office. Iran’s nukes can also be used against Saudi Arabia. As you said, there is no love lost between Iran and Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia feels threatened enough, they may just approach Israel. I’m sure that there are secret, low level talks going on with that in mind.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is correct. Just because they are both Muslim doesn't mean anything. One is Sunni, the other Shiite. One is Arab, the other Persian. Saudi Arabia is perhaps closer to Israel than Iran.

Maybe in times past I would agree but today is different. Necessity makes for strange bedfellows. It depends on how long either can wait for Obama to leave office. Iran's nukes can also be used against Saudi Arabia. As you said, there is no love lost between Iran and Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia feels threatened enough, they may just approach Israel. I'm sure that there are secret, low level talks going on with that in mind.

Unfortunately the common denominator here is a shockingly inept US president. It's scary how quickly things can go so badly due to the choices of an apathetic population in this country. This guy is so wrong headed we may blunder into a world war because of his thuggish outlook.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the common denominator here is a shockingly inept US president. It's scary how quickly things can go so badly due to the choices of an apathetic population in this country. This guy is so wrong headed we may blunder into a world war because of his thuggish outlook.

His thuggish outlook? I thought you were all for intervention in Syria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His thuggish outlook? I thought you were all for intervention in Syria?

I was and am all about decrying the butchery that goes on there because it is inhuman in the extreme and it will certainly spread if not contained. I am not nor ever have been for putting boots on the ground there nor supplying any weapons stronger than rifles or MG's. Destroying Assad's air force would have been nice - it would have leveled the playing field but the truth is there would be no winner that would not then attack Israel and the west -all Muslim don't ya know? And Obama being thuggish is not at all limited to his approach to the M.E. - look at how he deals with anyone who attempts to derail his agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was and am all about decrying the butchery that goes on there because it is inhuman in the extreme and it will certainly spread if not contained. I am not nor ever have been for putting boots on the ground there nor supplying any weapons stronger than rifles or MG's. Destroying Assad's air force would have been nice - it would have leveled the playing field but the truth is there would be no winner that would not then attack Israel and the west -all Muslim don't ya know? And Obama being thuggish is not at all limited to his approach to the M.E. - look at how he deals with anyone who attempts to derail his agenda.

On the subject of O'Bam, the way he deals with anyone who threatens his agenda? Like the ruthless way he dealt with the Republicans when, out of what was basically petulance, they shut down the Government for a couple of weeks? Yes, that really showed how utterly ruthlessly tyrannical he was. It seems to me that, (sorry if I'm trying to find you inconsistent again :unsure2:), you often describe him as hopeless and ineffectual, except when he's utterly ruthless and tyrannical. Can you have it both ways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of O'Bam, the way he deals with anyone who threatens his agenda? Like the ruthless way he dealt with the Republicans when, out of what was basically petulance, they shut down the Government for a couple of weeks? Yes, that really showed how utterly ruthlessly tyrannical he was. It seems to me that, (sorry if I'm trying to find you inconsistent again :unsure2:), you often describe him as hopeless and ineffectual, except when he's utterly ruthless and tyrannical. Can you have it both ways?

As usual, oh wise one, you frame things as black and white when life is mostly gray. One can easily be both - in different situations - but then you knew that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, oh wise one, you frame things as black and white when life is mostly gray. One can easily be both - in different situations - but then you knew that.

But you've been saying for so long that Islam, en masse and per se, is an existential threat to the civilised world. Not just particular countries like Iran, but Islam as a whole because their Holy Book commands them to destroy the unbelievers. If that isn't putting things in black and white, I don't know what is.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you've been saying for so long that Islam, en masse and per se, is an existential threat to the civilised world. Not just particular countries like Iran, but Islam as a whole because their Holy Book commands them to destroy the unbelievers. If that isn't putting things in black and white, I don't know what is.

I surrender Colonel! I am wrong! I have always been wrong on everything (in your opinion) Please have mercy.

It seems to have become a sort of quest with you to point out every error no matter how slight, that I make. If you find my opinions inconsistent and feel the need to trumpet that to the world then enjoy. Sadly, it really matters to no one anyway :(

eta: The western world's political structure is so self deluded by the insanity of political correctness that we will probably load the guns for the next dictator - hoping to save him the trouble and possibly keep him happy even if just for a little while longer. My how we have changed in just a couple generations. We actually have begun to believe the nonsense that freedom is free. Maybe when it is completely gone we will fight for it again.

Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Jordan, like every other country in the region, was against Palestinian statehood from the very beginning, these presumptuous questions that always get asked about "the Arabs", errrr the neighbors, baffle me. If what they thought mattered in the first place, the world would be a much different place. So it requires accepting the status quo and in the defense of that, we don't care what these nations feel about Israel or Israeli policy when it happens to be critical; said policies are untouchable and beyond dispute. But the minute these neighbors do something either opposed to Palestinian statehood or otherwise supportive of Israeli policy and it's turned into a valid pretense to continue arguing for the status quo. As if one has to be an Arab Muslim in order to reassess the status quo. As if, why aren't these Muslims helping each other with other groups they're assigned by our puppet masters to be the enemies of. It's the name of the same old game, either ignore (or when discussions occur, condemn) everything found that causes us to reassess our policies, and simultaneously gather and display everything that causes us to support them, as we find here.

Principled thinking has nothing to do with group-think mentality which Israeli government policy is drowning in. If we support Israeli foreign policy and by extension US foreign policy, we support government oppression of human rights and civil liberties. So long as it's not happening to us. So long as they're Muslim and we're not. So long as they're brown. So long as they're adequately vilified in the collective conscience to make us politically comfortable enough in our indoctrinated beliefs. And like other indoctrinated thinking, like 9/11 conspiracy theory as one contemporary example, the adherents of the doctrine don't care what exact mechanism of agreement one relies upon to reach their ordained conclusion, so long as one is picked in order to enable that conclusion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is correct. Just because they are both Muslim doesn't mean anything. One is Sunni, the other Shiite. One is Arab, the other Persian. Saudi Arabia is perhaps closer to Israel than Iran.

Maybe in times past I would agree but today is different. Necessity makes for strange bedfellows. It depends on how long either can wait for Obama to leave office. Iran's nukes can also be used against Saudi Arabia. As you said, there is no love lost between Iran and Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia feels threatened enough, they may just approach Israel. I'm sure that there are secret, low level talks going on with that in mind.

Prophet Mohammed (Sm) teaching is All Muslims are brother.If their stupid leader deny that they are not Muslim.

And I am sure people of Saudi-Arabia trust Iran more than Israel and America

Edited by jeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Uncle Yam is all about civil liberties for Palestinians. P'raps if they'd stop trying to kill Israelis they could have an easier time with that... nah, it will never catch on :passifier:

And uncle AT is all about criticizing and demonizing Islam and Muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prophet Mohammed (Sm) teaching is All Muslims are brother.If their stupid leader deny that they are not Muslim.

And I am sure people of Saudi-Arabia trust Iran more than Israel and America

My observation is that Muslims kill more other Muslims than anyone else.

(That can be read two ways, and I mean both.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My observation is that Muslims kill more other Muslims than anyone else.

(That can be read two ways, and I mean both.)

Correct sir but you forgot to mention the catalyst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct sir but you forgot to mention the catalyst

And what was the catalyst 100 years ago? Or 1000? Sunni and Shia have intermittently been slaughtering each other since the disputed succession not long after Muhammad died. There is no doubt that US involvement has destabilized and roiled that conflict but to act as though the US CAUSED it is ridiculous and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.