muff528 3 #126 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuote.....To me it says that on June 5, Egypt was nowhere near ready for what hit them, which also sort of implies they weren't in the "is climbing over the fence, and pulling out rifles" mode some would like us to believe... What the heck is "nowhere near ready"? Should Israel have allowed all of the co-belligerent countries to get their troops and equipment in place? Should they have waited until all of the aggressors declared their "readiness" and that the war may now begin? I doubt that the Arab aggressor countries were very concerned about whether Israel was "ready" for war or not. Given the very small distances Israel had no choice. It is only about 100 or so miles from Israel across the Sinai to the Suez and the Red Sea. That's no meaningful distance at all for the air forces. And Egypt was only one of a coalition of other countries which were "ready". It's 9 miles from the West Bank to the Mediterranean. A surprise advancement from there would have cut Israel in two. Like the article also said, just the buildup alone would have required Israel to maintain a state of readiness that could not have been sustained economically for very long. I have to believe that the Arab countries knew this as well. Israel was forced into a "first" strike. In Israel's precarious situation the notion that they must wait until the first bullet crosses the border is ridiculous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #127 May 30, 2011 QuoteThat's no meaningful distance at all for the air forces. the opposition air forces had been decimated so that threat had gone...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #128 May 30, 2011 QuoteA surprise advancement from there would have cut Israel in two. but there was no surprise advancement...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #129 May 30, 2011 Quotejust the buildup alone would have required Israel to maintain a state of readiness that could not have been sustained economically for very long. so the egyptian plan was to defeat israel economically...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #130 May 30, 2011 QuoteIsrael was forced into a "first" strike. or they led the opposition countries into a position where a first strike could be seen as 'acceptable' by its allies - feigning weakness until they were ready...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #131 May 30, 2011 QuoteI don't see anything odious here. Why would Israel's acceptance of help from its allies be a "bad" thing that would require some "denial". help from the world's superpower (backed by the un) was on its way. israel was not alone and never had been...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #132 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteThat's no meaningful distance at all for the air forces. the opposition air forces had been decimated so that threat had gone... Yes, afterwards. They weren't decimated when the decision was being made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #133 May 30, 2011 Quote...we're not even talking about the Suez canal here. you agree that israel launched a surprise attack on egypt in 1956...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #134 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteA surprise advancement from there would have cut Israel in two. but there was no surprise advancement... Israel made sure that wasn't going to happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #135 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat's no meaningful distance at all for the air forces. the opposition air forces had been decimated so that threat had gone... Yes, afterwards. They weren't decimated when the decision was being made. the opposition air forces were no longer a threat - israel was secure. why did they then launch a ground attack?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #136 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuotejust the buildup alone would have required Israel to maintain a state of readiness that could not have been sustained economically for very long. so the egyptian plan was to defeat israel economically... Yes, militarily and economically ...and not just Egypt. And not just a plan ...it was in the process of being made to happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #137 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteA surprise advancement from there would have cut Israel in two. but there was no surprise advancement... Israel made sure that wasn't going to happen. they may have been wrong that it was going to happen at all. in which case they started a war for... what?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #138 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteIsrael was forced into a "first" strike. or they led the opposition countries into a position where a first strike could be seen as 'acceptable' by its allies - feigning weakness until they were ready... That would have been a stupid strategy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #139 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotejust the buildup alone would have required Israel to maintain a state of readiness that could not have been sustained economically for very long. so the egyptian plan was to defeat israel economically... Yes, militarily and economically ...and not just Egypt. And not just a plan ...it was in the process of being made to happen. you assume militarily - but no shots had been fired. perhaps the egyptian plan was just to increase pressure economically. as you admit this would have probably worked...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #140 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat's no meaningful distance at all for the air forces. the opposition air forces had been decimated so that threat had gone... Yes, afterwards. They weren't decimated when the decision was being made. the opposition air forces were no longer a threat - israel was secure. why did they then launch a ground attack? Israel has not been secure since its inception. I really don't see a point continuing with arguing these same points over and over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #141 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIsrael was forced into a "first" strike. or they led the opposition countries into a position where a first strike could be seen as 'acceptable' by its allies - feigning weakness until they were ready... That would have been a stupid strategy. no, that's a perfectly acceptable military strategy - if israel was sure of its air power - lead the opposition until they are where you want them to be. they knew russia wanted a war - just had to be patient...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #142 May 30, 2011 'Israel has not been secure since its inception' it had the backing of the un and the world's superpower - of course it was secure. not safe perhaps - but secure...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #143 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuote...we're not even talking about the Suez canal here. you agree that israel launched a surprise attack on egypt in 1956... well?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #144 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote...we're not even talking about the Suez canal here. you agree that israel launched a surprise attack on egypt in 1956... well? Seems that Egypt brought that upon themselves, too. Just a continuation of the war started by the Arabs in '48. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #145 May 30, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote ...we're not even talking about the Suez canal here. you agree that israel launched a surprise attack on egypt in 1956... well? Seems that Egypt brought that upon themselves, too. Just a continuation of the war started by the Arabs in '48. back into your shell then (see how i led you on that my position was weak and then launched a surprise attack - works in debates too stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #146 May 30, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote ...we're not even talking about the Suez canal here. you agree that israel launched a surprise attack on egypt in 1956... well? Seems that Egypt brought that upon themselves, too. Just a continuation of the war started by the Arabs in '48. back into your shell then (see how i led you on that my position was weak and then launched a surprise attack - works in debates too I'm pretty sure that you'll find that my position has never changed. Israel has been under relentless attack by its neighbors (and from others) since its beginnings. Sometimes economic tactics (blockade, denial of access to ports, closing the Suez Canal, etc.) as well as overt and covert military attacks which would include the classic country vs country scenario and guerilla and terrorist attacks. Even the use of "civilians" for carrying out attacks and for use as shields seems to be OK with everyone. Foreign nationals, under the guise of "humanitarian" missions help facilitate the illegal transfer of weapons into "Palestinian" territories, perhaps knowingly. The Arab practice of placing Palestinians in concentration camps and then blaming Israel is just another tactic ...and the Palestinians are just another "bullet" to be used against Israel. All the while they whine and carry on about how Israel is being the bad guy here. I simply don't buy it. If the existence of Israel was simply accepted in 1948 none of this would have happened. Israel has every right to defend its existence against overwhelming odds and has done a very good job of it so far. A lot of people don't like it but .... You and others tend to parcel the conflicts into episodes of discrete "shooting wars" (1948, 1956, 1967, etc.) which are seen as unrelated events, each with its own set of circumstances. To me it is all one effort to exterminate Israel. There's the difference that can't be reconciled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,112 #147 May 30, 2011 >If the armistice terms is no military presence in the Sinay, UN peace >keepers and free access, moving troops where they are not allowed is >armed aggression. No, it's not, it's moving troops. Now, if you use those troops to, say, destroy a bunch of homes and kill the people inside (as Israel did in 1952) then that WOULD be armed aggression. THAT's how you violate an armistice and start a war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #148 May 30, 2011 QuoteIsrael has been under relentless attack by its neighbors (and from others) since its beginnings. same as pretty much every other state - how many wars has europe had amongst its numerous countries? you're not special. you're not being picked on. remember it was palestine that was attacked and 'wiped out of existence'.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #149 May 30, 2011 QuoteThe Arab practice of placing Palestinians in concentration camps. presumably we're talking about the gaza strip here...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #150 May 30, 2011 If moving troops close to the border and blockading is against the terms of the armistice, doing so violates the armistice. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 6 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
dreamdancer 0 #127 May 30, 2011 QuoteThat's no meaningful distance at all for the air forces. the opposition air forces had been decimated so that threat had gone...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #128 May 30, 2011 QuoteA surprise advancement from there would have cut Israel in two. but there was no surprise advancement...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #129 May 30, 2011 Quotejust the buildup alone would have required Israel to maintain a state of readiness that could not have been sustained economically for very long. so the egyptian plan was to defeat israel economically...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #130 May 30, 2011 QuoteIsrael was forced into a "first" strike. or they led the opposition countries into a position where a first strike could be seen as 'acceptable' by its allies - feigning weakness until they were ready...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #131 May 30, 2011 QuoteI don't see anything odious here. Why would Israel's acceptance of help from its allies be a "bad" thing that would require some "denial". help from the world's superpower (backed by the un) was on its way. israel was not alone and never had been...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #132 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteThat's no meaningful distance at all for the air forces. the opposition air forces had been decimated so that threat had gone... Yes, afterwards. They weren't decimated when the decision was being made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #133 May 30, 2011 Quote...we're not even talking about the Suez canal here. you agree that israel launched a surprise attack on egypt in 1956...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #134 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteA surprise advancement from there would have cut Israel in two. but there was no surprise advancement... Israel made sure that wasn't going to happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #135 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat's no meaningful distance at all for the air forces. the opposition air forces had been decimated so that threat had gone... Yes, afterwards. They weren't decimated when the decision was being made. the opposition air forces were no longer a threat - israel was secure. why did they then launch a ground attack?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #136 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuotejust the buildup alone would have required Israel to maintain a state of readiness that could not have been sustained economically for very long. so the egyptian plan was to defeat israel economically... Yes, militarily and economically ...and not just Egypt. And not just a plan ...it was in the process of being made to happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #137 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteA surprise advancement from there would have cut Israel in two. but there was no surprise advancement... Israel made sure that wasn't going to happen. they may have been wrong that it was going to happen at all. in which case they started a war for... what?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #138 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteIsrael was forced into a "first" strike. or they led the opposition countries into a position where a first strike could be seen as 'acceptable' by its allies - feigning weakness until they were ready... That would have been a stupid strategy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #139 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotejust the buildup alone would have required Israel to maintain a state of readiness that could not have been sustained economically for very long. so the egyptian plan was to defeat israel economically... Yes, militarily and economically ...and not just Egypt. And not just a plan ...it was in the process of being made to happen. you assume militarily - but no shots had been fired. perhaps the egyptian plan was just to increase pressure economically. as you admit this would have probably worked...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #140 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat's no meaningful distance at all for the air forces. the opposition air forces had been decimated so that threat had gone... Yes, afterwards. They weren't decimated when the decision was being made. the opposition air forces were no longer a threat - israel was secure. why did they then launch a ground attack? Israel has not been secure since its inception. I really don't see a point continuing with arguing these same points over and over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #141 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIsrael was forced into a "first" strike. or they led the opposition countries into a position where a first strike could be seen as 'acceptable' by its allies - feigning weakness until they were ready... That would have been a stupid strategy. no, that's a perfectly acceptable military strategy - if israel was sure of its air power - lead the opposition until they are where you want them to be. they knew russia wanted a war - just had to be patient...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #142 May 30, 2011 'Israel has not been secure since its inception' it had the backing of the un and the world's superpower - of course it was secure. not safe perhaps - but secure...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #143 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuote...we're not even talking about the Suez canal here. you agree that israel launched a surprise attack on egypt in 1956... well?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #144 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote...we're not even talking about the Suez canal here. you agree that israel launched a surprise attack on egypt in 1956... well? Seems that Egypt brought that upon themselves, too. Just a continuation of the war started by the Arabs in '48. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #145 May 30, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote ...we're not even talking about the Suez canal here. you agree that israel launched a surprise attack on egypt in 1956... well? Seems that Egypt brought that upon themselves, too. Just a continuation of the war started by the Arabs in '48. back into your shell then (see how i led you on that my position was weak and then launched a surprise attack - works in debates too stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #146 May 30, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote ...we're not even talking about the Suez canal here. you agree that israel launched a surprise attack on egypt in 1956... well? Seems that Egypt brought that upon themselves, too. Just a continuation of the war started by the Arabs in '48. back into your shell then (see how i led you on that my position was weak and then launched a surprise attack - works in debates too I'm pretty sure that you'll find that my position has never changed. Israel has been under relentless attack by its neighbors (and from others) since its beginnings. Sometimes economic tactics (blockade, denial of access to ports, closing the Suez Canal, etc.) as well as overt and covert military attacks which would include the classic country vs country scenario and guerilla and terrorist attacks. Even the use of "civilians" for carrying out attacks and for use as shields seems to be OK with everyone. Foreign nationals, under the guise of "humanitarian" missions help facilitate the illegal transfer of weapons into "Palestinian" territories, perhaps knowingly. The Arab practice of placing Palestinians in concentration camps and then blaming Israel is just another tactic ...and the Palestinians are just another "bullet" to be used against Israel. All the while they whine and carry on about how Israel is being the bad guy here. I simply don't buy it. If the existence of Israel was simply accepted in 1948 none of this would have happened. Israel has every right to defend its existence against overwhelming odds and has done a very good job of it so far. A lot of people don't like it but .... You and others tend to parcel the conflicts into episodes of discrete "shooting wars" (1948, 1956, 1967, etc.) which are seen as unrelated events, each with its own set of circumstances. To me it is all one effort to exterminate Israel. There's the difference that can't be reconciled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #147 May 30, 2011 >If the armistice terms is no military presence in the Sinay, UN peace >keepers and free access, moving troops where they are not allowed is >armed aggression. No, it's not, it's moving troops. Now, if you use those troops to, say, destroy a bunch of homes and kill the people inside (as Israel did in 1952) then that WOULD be armed aggression. THAT's how you violate an armistice and start a war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #148 May 30, 2011 QuoteIsrael has been under relentless attack by its neighbors (and from others) since its beginnings. same as pretty much every other state - how many wars has europe had amongst its numerous countries? you're not special. you're not being picked on. remember it was palestine that was attacked and 'wiped out of existence'.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #149 May 30, 2011 QuoteThe Arab practice of placing Palestinians in concentration camps. presumably we're talking about the gaza strip here...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #150 May 30, 2011 If moving troops close to the border and blockading is against the terms of the armistice, doing so violates the armistice. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
