Discussion
Transmitter Man said:
968,
Nice car BTW.
You're overlooking some very recent history.
Israel gave up occupying Gaza and what happened?
Rockets, and plenty of them.
Phil
I think you've got your timelines muddled. Nice car BTW.
You're overlooking some very recent history.
Israel gave up occupying Gaza and what happened?
Rockets, and plenty of them.
Phil
Hamas did not begin firing missiles into Israel until after it had attempted to remove the newly elected leadership by force in a U.S.- and PA-supported coup. No significant rocket fire occurred until two years after Hamas was elected, during which time Israel continued its siege on Gaza and its ever-tightening stranglehold on the West Bank.
968 said:
I think you've got your timelines muddled.
Hamas did not begin firing missiles into Israel until after it had attempted to remove the newly elected leadership by force in a U.S.- and PA-supported coup. No significant rocket fire occurred until two years after Hamas was elected, during which time Israel continued its siege on Gaza and its ever-tightening stranglehold on the West Bank.
?????? I think YOU'VE got your timelines muddled! Hamas did not begin firing missiles into Israel until after it had attempted to remove the newly elected leadership by force in a U.S.- and PA-supported coup. No significant rocket fire occurred until two years after Hamas was elected, during which time Israel continued its siege on Gaza and its ever-tightening stranglehold on the West Bank.
Hamas gained electoral victory in 2006? So no missiles until 2 years later, 2008?
Timeline:
2003 123 rockets fired at Israel.
2004 276 rockets fired at Israel.
2005 286 rockets fired at Israel.
2006 1247 rockets fired at Israel.
2007 2807 rockets fired at Israel.
2008 3000 rockets fired at Israel.
Grumfutock said:
allnighter said:
top rolling your eyes. Israel's attack on Egypt was not preemptive judging by what Yitzhak Rabin stated in this article.
He stated that, "judging by the seven divisions which he sent to Sinai after the closure of Aqaba, he knew that we would consider his gesture to be a casus belli." In other words, the reason additional forces were sent into the Sinai, was because Nasser feared Israel might attack Egypt.This is also confirmed in point 13 in this link when Nasser conveyed to U.S. president Lyndon Johnson his fears of an Israeli attack.
Nasser added that “your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR*.” *United Arab Republic (Egypt).
The CIA also confirmed that Nasser's military presence in the Sinai was defensive stating: “Armored striking forces could breach the UAR’s double defense line in the Sinai in three to four days and drive the Egyptians west of the Suez Canal in seven to nine days. Israel could contain any attacks by Syria or Jordan during this period” Linky.
Israel sought U.S. support by exaggerating the Arabs' military capabilities according to the CIA which stated:
"Two days later, Tel Aviv muddled this clear intelligence picture by submitting to Washington a Mossad estimate that claimed the Israeli military was badly outgunned by a Soviet-backed Arab war machine. The Israelis may have been trying to exploit the special relationship they had with James Angleton, chief of CIA counterintelligence. For years, Angleton had run the Israeli account out of his Counterintelligence Staff, without involving the Directorate of Plans's Near East Division. That unusual arrangement may have given Tel Aviv a sense that Washington accorded its analyses such special import that US leaders would listen to its judgments on Arab-Israeli issues over those of their own intelligence services."
"Helms had the Office of National Estimates (ONE) prepare an appraisal of the Mossad assessment, which was ready in only five hours. ONE flatly stated: “We do not believe that the Israeli appreciation . . . was a serious estimate of the sort they would submit to their own high officials.” Rather, “it is probably a gambit intended to influence the US to . . . provide military supplies . . . make more public commitments to Israel . . . approve Israeli military initiatives, and . . . put more pressure on [Egyptian President] Nasser.” ONE further concluded—contrary to Tel Aviv's suspicions—that “the Soviet aim is still to avoid military involvement and to give the US a black eye among the Arabs by identifying it with Israel”; Moscow “probably could not openly help the Arabs because of lack of capability, and probably would not for fear of confrontation with the US.” It was this latter ONE judgment that caused Dean Rusk to remark to Helms, “if this is a mistake, it's a beaut.” The same judgment triggered an order from the president to Helms and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Earle Wheeler to “scrub it down.” Helms returned to CIA headquarters and told the Board of National Estimates to produce a coordinated assessment by the next day."
"Informed by these assessments, President Johnson declined to airlift special military supplies to Israel or even to publicly support it. He later recalled bluntly telling Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, “All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them.”"
And as usual a totally biased and incomplete version of events.He stated that, "judging by the seven divisions which he sent to Sinai after the closure of Aqaba, he knew that we would consider his gesture to be a casus belli." In other words, the reason additional forces were sent into the Sinai, was because Nasser feared Israel might attack Egypt.This is also confirmed in point 13 in this link when Nasser conveyed to U.S. president Lyndon Johnson his fears of an Israeli attack.
Nasser added that “your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR*.” *United Arab Republic (Egypt).
The CIA also confirmed that Nasser's military presence in the Sinai was defensive stating: “Armored striking forces could breach the UAR’s double defense line in the Sinai in three to four days and drive the Egyptians west of the Suez Canal in seven to nine days. Israel could contain any attacks by Syria or Jordan during this period” Linky.
Israel sought U.S. support by exaggerating the Arabs' military capabilities according to the CIA which stated:
"Two days later, Tel Aviv muddled this clear intelligence picture by submitting to Washington a Mossad estimate that claimed the Israeli military was badly outgunned by a Soviet-backed Arab war machine. The Israelis may have been trying to exploit the special relationship they had with James Angleton, chief of CIA counterintelligence. For years, Angleton had run the Israeli account out of his Counterintelligence Staff, without involving the Directorate of Plans's Near East Division. That unusual arrangement may have given Tel Aviv a sense that Washington accorded its analyses such special import that US leaders would listen to its judgments on Arab-Israeli issues over those of their own intelligence services."
"Helms had the Office of National Estimates (ONE) prepare an appraisal of the Mossad assessment, which was ready in only five hours. ONE flatly stated: “We do not believe that the Israeli appreciation . . . was a serious estimate of the sort they would submit to their own high officials.” Rather, “it is probably a gambit intended to influence the US to . . . provide military supplies . . . make more public commitments to Israel . . . approve Israeli military initiatives, and . . . put more pressure on [Egyptian President] Nasser.” ONE further concluded—contrary to Tel Aviv's suspicions—that “the Soviet aim is still to avoid military involvement and to give the US a black eye among the Arabs by identifying it with Israel”; Moscow “probably could not openly help the Arabs because of lack of capability, and probably would not for fear of confrontation with the US.” It was this latter ONE judgment that caused Dean Rusk to remark to Helms, “if this is a mistake, it's a beaut.” The same judgment triggered an order from the president to Helms and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Earle Wheeler to “scrub it down.” Helms returned to CIA headquarters and told the Board of National Estimates to produce a coordinated assessment by the next day."
"Informed by these assessments, President Johnson declined to airlift special military supplies to Israel or even to publicly support it. He later recalled bluntly telling Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, “All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them.”"
Grumfutock said:
You make no mention of the PLO attacks on Israel in the lead up to war, no mention of the Syrian/Egypt mutual defense pact
Yes Defense pact, kinda proves my point.Grumfutock said:
no mention of the Egypt/Jordan defense pact,
Again, it's da defense pact in case Israel attacks one, the other will help to defend it.Grumfutock said:
no mention of the false reports Egypt received from Russia of an impending Israeli attack on Syria, no mention of Egyptian forces expelling the UN from Sinai
When the IDF attacked the village of As-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank, and the Jordanians units were beaten back King Hussein of Jordan criticized Nasser for not coming to his aid and "hiding behind the UNEF skirts" and seeing this was interpreted on many levels as:1. Having the UNEF forces in Sinai is a clear sign of what was seen at the time as a great leader Nasser's cowardice (as was insinuated by King Hussain) in the face of a potential Israeli military threat.
2.Israel refusal to allow UNEF forces on its territory was interpreted by Nasser and other Arab leaders as belligerence which evidenced by many minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbours especially Syria.
Looking at point 1 & 2 and further warnings (not from the USSR) , but from U.S. state department, as linked to above, which warned the Egyptian ambassador to the U.S. about a potential conflict between Israel and the UAR, it is understandable that Nasser felt not only threatened by Israel, but also criticised by his Arab allies, and expelling the UNEF forces & deploying troops to the border, is a legitimate move to defend his country against a potential Israeli invasion.
"The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 228 unanimously deploring "the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the action of the Government of Israel on 13 November 1966", censuring "Israel for conducting "a large-scale and carefully planned military action against Jordanian territory" in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan" and emphasizing "to Israel that actions of military reprisal cannot be tolerated and that, if they are repeated, the Security Council will have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against the repetition of such acts."[61]". Linky
You seem to either overlook evidence presented to you, or you have access to more privileged intelligence than the CIA at the time.
The CIA was not only correct about Israel's intentions, but also about her capabilities.
Grumfutock said:
You talk of the 7 Egyptian division being "defensive". you do realise that those 7 divisions amounted to 100,000 troops, 930 tanks and 1,100 pieces of artillery, this was half the Egyptian army? You ignore the fact that whilst this force may not of been capable of assaulting Israel successfully on its own, if you combine it with the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi forces, numbering over 300,000 and massed on Israels other borders, you have a force more than capable of attack. It out numbered Israel by over 2-1 in everything. We will ignore the pilots, combat aircraft and support supplied by Pakistan and seven other Arab nations.
With Russia providing false intelligence reports to Nasser telling him of Israel troops massing on the Syrian border then he would of quiet logically of believed that these 7 divisions would be more than capable of attacking and penetrating a very weakly held border. Remember this force was a very mobile one and made up of armoured units, not something you generally do if you want to defend.
As always the situation is far more complex than you are trying to project and the Arabs far more culpable than you would have us believe.
I refer you to the extensive CIA appraisal of both parties' military capabilities and the conclusion it came to, namely "The evidence was on the CIA's side. Israel could not prove its case that the Arab armies would trounce it." https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-o...With Russia providing false intelligence reports to Nasser telling him of Israel troops massing on the Syrian border then he would of quiet logically of believed that these 7 divisions would be more than capable of attacking and penetrating a very weakly held border. Remember this force was a very mobile one and made up of armoured units, not something you generally do if you want to defend.
As always the situation is far more complex than you are trying to project and the Arabs far more culpable than you would have us believe.
Edited by Grumfutock on Thursday 4th September 08:12
What you are repeating above is the usual rhetoric which was taught in Israeli primary schools, that poor Israel had weak borders, a weaker army and air force, and was surrounded by aggressive enemies. The evidence points to the contrary.
“In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” said Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in his 1982 speech.
Edited by allnighter on Thursday 4th September 14:43
Oh whatever. You are so anti Israeli that reasonable and constructive debate is impossible with you.
ANY nation that is in a border dispute with others countries and discovers the UN troops that are there to enforce the cease fire have been kicked out, then finds over 250,000 hostile troops massing on it's borders from 3 directions, with over 1,100 tanks and thousands of artillery pieces is likely to be a tiny bit suspicious wouldn't you think????
This was not the unprovoked attack you seem to want to present it as. As a nation are you meant to wait before going to war until you are attacked? Ridiculous!
In the 1967 half the Egyptian Army masses on the Israeli border, the entire Jordanian and Syrian armies do the same and you are honestly telling me that Israel should of just sat there? They were not justified in attacking first?
The CIA intelligence estimate is irrelevant. It is your own nations intelligence estimates that matter not another country on the other side of the world that doesn't even pass it on to you! The USA thought we would lose in 1940! They also thought we would lose in 1982! Did it stop us?
Most people look at events and to understand why decisions were made they look at the information known to that person at that time and gauge them in the context of that time, not some paper written 40 years after the event!
So I ask you, which bit of "THEY OUT NUMBERED ISRAEL" do you deem to be wrong? Which bit is the "usual rhetoric which was taught in Israeli primary schools"? Which bit does the "evidence points to the contrary"?
ANY nation that is in a border dispute with others countries and discovers the UN troops that are there to enforce the cease fire have been kicked out, then finds over 250,000 hostile troops massing on it's borders from 3 directions, with over 1,100 tanks and thousands of artillery pieces is likely to be a tiny bit suspicious wouldn't you think????
This was not the unprovoked attack you seem to want to present it as. As a nation are you meant to wait before going to war until you are attacked? Ridiculous!
In the 1967 half the Egyptian Army masses on the Israeli border, the entire Jordanian and Syrian armies do the same and you are honestly telling me that Israel should of just sat there? They were not justified in attacking first?
The CIA intelligence estimate is irrelevant. It is your own nations intelligence estimates that matter not another country on the other side of the world that doesn't even pass it on to you! The USA thought we would lose in 1940! They also thought we would lose in 1982! Did it stop us?
Most people look at events and to understand why decisions were made they look at the information known to that person at that time and gauge them in the context of that time, not some paper written 40 years after the event!
allnighter said:
What you are repeating above is the usual rhetoric which was taught in Israeli primary schools, that poor Israel had weak borders, a weaker army and air force, and was surrounded by aggressive enemies. The evidence points to the contrary.
Even the CIA report you quote say "The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) are at a numerical disadvantage to the combined strength of it's Arab neighbors in terms of aircraft, armor, artillery, naval vessels, and man power.".So I ask you, which bit of "THEY OUT NUMBERED ISRAEL" do you deem to be wrong? Which bit is the "usual rhetoric which was taught in Israeli primary schools"? Which bit does the "evidence points to the contrary"?
Grumfutock said:
Oh whatever. You are so anti Israeli that reasonable and constructive debate is impossible with you.
Why don't you go the whole hog and call me Anti-Jew? How's that helping your case? I don't call you anti-Palestinian FFS. Grow up!Grumfutock said:
ANY nation that is in a border dispute with others countries and discovers the UN troops that are there to enforce the cease fire have been kicked out, then finds over 250,000 hostile troops massing on it's borders from 3 directions, with over 1,100 tanks and thousands of artillery pieces is likely to be a tiny bit suspicious wouldn't you think????
Actually Nasser was more than happy for the UNEF forces to be on the Israeli side of the border.Some argued that removing UNEF from the border tactically played to Israel's advantage and weakened Egypt's position in hindsight.
Grumfutock said:
This was not the unprovoked attack you seem to want to present it as. As a nation are you meant to wait before going to war until you are attacked? Ridiculous!
Israel was doing the attacking as I mentioned in my previous post which you conveniently overlooked.Grumfutock said:
In the 1967 half the Egyptian Army masses on the Israeli border, the entire Jordanian and Syrian armies do the same and you are honestly telling me that Israel should of just sat there? They were not justified in attacking first?
Yes that is exactly what I am saying based on evidence. Grumfutock said:
The CIA intelligence estimate is irrelevant.... bla bla bla
Yes ok, what you say is always right of course General!Grumfutock said:
Most people look at events and to understand why decisions were made they look at the information known to that person at that time and gauge them in the context of that time, not some paper written 40 years after the event!
More garbage, you have no idea what you're talking about! Grumfutock said:
Even the CIA report you quote say "The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) are at a numerical disadvantage to the combined strength of it's Arab neighbors in terms of aircraft, armor, artillery, naval vessels, and man power.".
So I ask you, which bit of "THEY OUT NUMBERED ISRAEL" do you deem to be wrong? Which bit is the "usual rhetoric which was taught in Israeli primary schools"? Which bit does the "evidence points to the contrary"?
The appraisal was based on capability, preparedness, quality of training, and maintenance, and Israel was more than capable to "defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts … or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth." and that “Israel could almost certainly attain air supremacy over the Sinai Peninsula in less than 24 hours after taking the initiative or in two or three days if the UAR struck first.” So I ask you, which bit of "THEY OUT NUMBERED ISRAEL" do you deem to be wrong? Which bit is the "usual rhetoric which was taught in Israeli primary schools"? Which bit does the "evidence points to the contrary"?
Israel was hardly the 'underdog' that you are trying to portray it to have been, otherwise why did it not allow the UN on its side of the border if it feared the 'numerical disadvantage' as you put it and had borders which were weakly defended? Can you answer that very question?
So let me try to clarify your post!
So you are saying, in all seriousness, that when a nation detects troops massing from 3 enemy countries, who all border your nation and you have recent history of attacking you, that you are NOT justified in launching a preemptive strike????
You are also saying it is garbage that when analyzing history that you don't look at events and to understand why decisions were made they look at the information known to that person at that time and gauge them in the context of that time, not some paper written 40 years after the event????
Is that correct?
perhaps you can explain to me how 50,000 regular troops defend a border, sorry 3 borders, long term, against 250,000 regular troops? They cant! Only answer is to mobilize your reservists. You cant do that long term as they are vital to civilian life.
So you are saying, in all seriousness, that when a nation detects troops massing from 3 enemy countries, who all border your nation and you have recent history of attacking you, that you are NOT justified in launching a preemptive strike????
You are also saying it is garbage that when analyzing history that you don't look at events and to understand why decisions were made they look at the information known to that person at that time and gauge them in the context of that time, not some paper written 40 years after the event????
Is that correct?
allnighter said:
Israel was hardly the 'underdog' that you are trying to portray it to have been, otherwise why did it not allow the UN on its side of the border if it feared the 'numerical disadvantage' as you put it and had borders which were weakly defended? Can you answer that very question?
Yep, real easy! The IDF, during peace time, numbered 50,000 so yes, they did have a numerical disadvantage and weakly defended borders. Even when they mobilized and were a full war fighting strength they were out numbered 2-1.perhaps you can explain to me how 50,000 regular troops defend a border, sorry 3 borders, long term, against 250,000 regular troops? They cant! Only answer is to mobilize your reservists. You cant do that long term as they are vital to civilian life.
TheRealFingers99 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Countdown said:
And, for what it's worth, the Arabs didn't start the 1967 war.
No, and the Germans didn't start WW2. After all, we declared war on them. 
Israel's attack in the 1967 war bears a greater resemblance to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Wednesday 3rd September 23:18
I never knew that. Live and learn, eh. No wonder they attacked Pearl Harbour.
This is like arguing about gun control with Americans
or Scottish independence with cybernats
Good banter but ultimately futile.
Let's say that the Arabs agreed Israel's right to exist and stopped attacking her.
then Israel could stop it's tough measures against the Palestinians.
Then the WB and Gaza could be developed into something worth living for rather than dying for.
or Scottish independence with cybernats
Good banter but ultimately futile.
Let's say that the Arabs agreed Israel's right to exist and stopped attacking her.
then Israel could stop it's tough measures against the Palestinians.
Then the WB and Gaza could be developed into something worth living for rather than dying for.
allnighter: re - 1967 - I've been enjoying your revisionist view of history and of course millions of words have been written about the six-day war and there are any number of YouTube videos about the conflict. The Israelis have much to be criticised for - e.g. shooting prisoners, attacking USS Liberty etc. But war is a pretty nasty business and sh*t definitely happens.
There is little doubt that Israel had planned the preemptive strike for years. It knew when each Egyptian pilot was having breakfast and the location of every artillery piece and bunker on the Golan Heights.
Israel knew it would have to strike at some point in time - this year, next year, who knew when? But the certainty of conflict was beyond dispute
But it is absurd to paint the Arabs as surprised innocents when the attack finally came.
Nasser knew that closing the Straits of Tiran would be regarded by Israel as an act of war. So ... guess what he did (closed the Straits of Tiran?
Abba Eban and Golda Meir literally begged Hussein not to get involved. So ... guess what he did? (signed a treaty with Egypt)
Nasser was prodding Israel with different levels of aggression designed to debilitate Israel (e.g. by forcing the mobilisation of the reserves) step by step as a preliminary to outright war.
Hence the pre-emptive strike.
When three nasty blokes have got you cornered in an ally and are telling you they intend toput you in hospital - kill you it's advisable to kick two of them in the nuts has hard as you can before making your escape.
Better to be judged by 12 than buried by six.
There is little doubt that Israel had planned the preemptive strike for years. It knew when each Egyptian pilot was having breakfast and the location of every artillery piece and bunker on the Golan Heights.
Israel knew it would have to strike at some point in time - this year, next year, who knew when? But the certainty of conflict was beyond dispute
But it is absurd to paint the Arabs as surprised innocents when the attack finally came.
Nasser knew that closing the Straits of Tiran would be regarded by Israel as an act of war. So ... guess what he did (closed the Straits of Tiran?
Abba Eban and Golda Meir literally begged Hussein not to get involved. So ... guess what he did? (signed a treaty with Egypt)
Nasser was prodding Israel with different levels of aggression designed to debilitate Israel (e.g. by forcing the mobilisation of the reserves) step by step as a preliminary to outright war.
Hence the pre-emptive strike.
When three nasty blokes have got you cornered in an ally and are telling you they intend to
Better to be judged by 12 than buried by six.
Edited by audidoody on Thursday 4th September 20:30
audidoody said:
When three nasty blokes have got you cornered in an ally and are telling you they intend to put you in hospital- it's advisable to kick two of them in the nuts has hard as you can before making your escape.
Better to be judged by 12 than buried by six.
What an excellent way of putting it! Sums it up exactly except you should also add "whilst 7 others guys egg them on and offer to provided the sticks to hit you with."Better to be judged by 12 than buried by six.
Anybody who has enough points in their IQ to get them a driving ban if they had the same points on their licence knows Israel were forced into an impossible position in the run up to the 6 day war.
We used to have a saying when I played Sunday football, where you came up against Neanderthals who'd be threatening to break your legs as you were shaking hands before kick off ...."get your retaliation in first."
We used to have a saying when I played Sunday football, where you came up against Neanderthals who'd be threatening to break your legs as you were shaking hands before kick off ...."get your retaliation in first."
Grumbly told us Israel likely had nukes in 1969 and 1973.
Why would they need preemptive retaliation when they already had nuclear weapons ?
To continue with the analogy run we have going; You have a .357 Magnum in your pocket, but still kicked them in the nuts and then steal their wallets, that does not sound like self defence, that sounds like a robbery.
Why would they need preemptive retaliation when they already had nuclear weapons ?
To continue with the analogy run we have going; You have a .357 Magnum in your pocket, but still kicked them in the nuts and then steal their wallets, that does not sound like self defence, that sounds like a robbery.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 4th September 21:31
Ayahuasca said:
Let's say that the Arabs agreed Israel's right to exist and stopped attacking her.
then Israel could stop it's tough measures against the Palestinians.
Then the WB and Gaza could be developed into something worth living for rather than dying for.
Let's say that Israel recognised its illegality and they evacuated in shame. That would be the counter proposition to yours.then Israel could stop it's tough measures against the Palestinians.
Then the WB and Gaza could be developed into something worth living for rather than dying for.
What right to exist?
Israel is, and was, an illegal state.
Granted that realpolitik demands a recognition, but let's start from a position of truth.
WB and Gaza as is are simply not big enough to accommodate 1 million returnees.
The 1947 partition is. The Palestinians would grab it with both hands were it offered today.
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Thursday 4th September 21:15
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Grumbly told us Israel likely had nukes in 1969 and 1973.
Why would they need preemptive retaliation when they already had nuclear weapons ?
To continue with the analogy run we have going; You have a .357 Magnum in your pocket, but still kicked them in the nuts and then steal their wallets, that does not sound like self defence, that sounds like a robbery.
Crap analogy. As also stated before, even Israel are not mad enough to use nukes in that situation. The US had them in Korea but did they use them when they got their arses kicked and were facing evacuation from Pusan? You cannot gauge nukes in the same way as any other weapon, but then again PHers probably would use them at the drop of a hat.Why would they need preemptive retaliation when they already had nuclear weapons ?
To continue with the analogy run we have going; You have a .357 Magnum in your pocket, but still kicked them in the nuts and then steal their wallets, that does not sound like self defence, that sounds like a robbery.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 4th September 21:31
Edited by Grumfutock on Friday 5th September 08:03
Grumfutock said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Grumbly told us Israel likely had nukes in 1969 and 1973.
Why would they need preemptive retaliation when they already had nuclear weapons ?
To continue with the analogy run we have going; You have a .357 Magnum in your pocket, but still kicked them in the nuts and then steal their wallets, that does not sound like self defence, that sounds like a robbery.
Crap analogy. As also stated before, even Israel are mad enough to use nukes in that situation. The US had them in Korea but did they use them when they got their arses kicked and were facing evacuation from Pusan? You cannot gauge nukes in the same way as any other weapon, but then again PHers probably would use them at the drop of a hat.Why would they need preemptive retaliation when they already had nuclear weapons ?
To continue with the analogy run we have going; You have a .357 Magnum in your pocket, but still kicked them in the nuts and then steal their wallets, that does not sound like self defence, that sounds like a robbery.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 4th September 21:31
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Friday 5th September 08:10
QuantumTokoloshi said:
It was not the USA in Korea, it was the United Nations. A better example would be the Tet offensive in Vietnam. So crap rebuttal.
Oh now your are arguing over a mere technicality! Apart from 2 battalions of infantry from the UK (which only arrived after half the battle was done) it was entirely and utterly the Americans!Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Friday 5th September 08:10
So again, a crap rebuttal and I rebuff your rebuff with knobs on!
Grumfutock said:
So the state of Israel is illegal? That makes certain points of view way clearer!
How is it legal? Even if you take the UN as the legally empowered, legal enforcing body, then Israel had clearly broken the UN resolution before, during, and the day after the implementation.
Anyway, you don't like the UN!
TheRealFingers99 said:
How is it legal?
Even if you take the UN as the legally empowered, legal enforcing body, then Israel had clearly broken the UN resolution before, during, and the day after the implementation.
Anyway, you don't like the UN!
No I don't like the UN, I think they are a toothless lion and a waste of money. But if Israel is an illegal state then that is the case for Palestine as well. It all spins out from the break up of the Ottoman empire and the award of the British Mandate by the UN (League of Nations as it was then) in 1922. The Arabs were breaking the UN rules from day one, you cant have it both ways. Even if you take the UN as the legally empowered, legal enforcing body, then Israel had clearly broken the UN resolution before, during, and the day after the implementation.
Anyway, you don't like the UN!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff