Doesn't that simply define your posts? I notice that you are attempting to assert a position of authority. Well, its not really verifiable as to whether you were a tank commander or a gas station attendant from your posts. I don't see any special insight on display.
And in fact, since you've attempted to assert your personal credibility as a trump, I think that opens the door to looking at your overall posting record, which is really the only thing we can know about you.
The overwhelming majority of your forty or fifty posts since you signed onto this Board have been to Israel or middle eastern threads, where you simply boost Israel relentlessly and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having a Hezbollah mind set or attack them for 'Godwinism' on the flimsiest grounds. I and others have had to call you on this repeatedly.
You've started a total of two (2) threads, including your Vinland opus, for which you offered a single post each. Well, that's not impressive.
So this seems to be what you are: A basically single issue poster drawn to the Israeli/middle east topics with a penchant for personal attacks on other posters, and very little apparent interest or meaningful contribution anywhere else.
With no disrespect, I ask how are you not a troll?
A slightly more careful than average troll, I grant you, whose attacks are deliberately intended to skirt the guidelines, but a troll nevertheless.
This is a wide ranging Board which explores realistic and unrealistic alternative history scenarios and hypotheticals. People argue, often with great passion.
But frankly, your narrow focus, your tactics and your attitude does yourself and everyone else a disservice. Personally, I have no sense that I could have an honest discussion with you. It is clear that your opinions seem to be reflexive and established well in advance, and all I really have to look forward to from you is the next cheap shot. That doesn't appeal.
You are free to put me on ignore, and I am entirely prepared to do likewise.
Dear DValdron:
I have been on this forum for quite a while now, and we had a few arguments, yet IIRC you have never called me a troll. I hope that means you at least believe that I am, infact, an Israeli and that I was, infact, in the IDF. I can attest that Clint has been an IDF tank commander.
I know this because he is my brother.
I would appreciat it if you would stop using cheap insults at his record of posting and actually, you know, started to argue with him on the merit of his posts.
As for the topic at hand, I simply cannot understand how so many of you beleive Israel cant fight a long war, yet almost NONE of you has doubted the arab nations ability to do so. many here believe the arab armies can "pull a russia" and send wave after wave of soldiers (with what weapons? how many tanks, planes, etc? what types? I know the rate at which Israel, Russia, China and the USA can build tanks, and that is no where near WW2 levels.) untill Israel literally runs out of bullets.
Yes, Israel cannot keep its entire reserve force mobilised for a year or more. that is only natural. yet somehow Snake here thinks a country of less then 8 million people getting swarmed by every army in the region at the same time with the intention of either killing or dislocating the entire population is some how a nation of cowards and bullies. or that if Israel loses in such a war then the IDF isnt a very good force because it couldnt win.
then other people get into arguments about nukes, pilot qualities etc and its all so
pointless.
Do any of you have even the first clue about how wars in general are waged in the modern age? what is the difference between the operational doctrine of a Syrian artillery battery and an Israeli one? or the specific loadout of Syrian light infantry? or how about the positioning of Syrian artillery? I could tell you that during the majority of my service I had 119 artillery pieces aimed at my base specifically. I knew which units they were, thier rate of fire etc.
Do any of you know the difference between the MK 3 and MK 4 Merkavas? which one is better suited for desert combat and which one for the Golan?
How many scuds Syria has, thier positions, the nature of combat in an area covered with chemical weapons?
Do you have any idea as to the logistical nightmare that a combined arab force would present, as they would have to bring ammo for so many different weapons etc?
Do you honestly believe they will fight regardless of causalties? even if it gets in the high 10's of thousneds or low hundreds? are you so
racist towards arabs that you view them with such utter contempt, like they were animals or barbarians with no notion of self preservation or even giving a shit about thier own people?
In this scenario Israel is with its back against the wall, it cant give up untill every bullet has been fired and every tank ran out of gas. the arabs have no such impetus. neither can they maintain their forces in the field forever. definatly not in any consentrated manner.