kelpdiver 2 #101 May 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe Soviets quite successfully occupied all of Eastern Europe for over 4 decades. Really? How successful where they in the areas they weren't wanted, like, Afghanistan? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Soviet Union kind of go out of business? I dunno. I might not know about history, but I thought I heard somewhere the Soviet Union no longer existed. relevancy? Their splintering had little to do with this other bit. 45 years of successful occupations of Poland, Hungary, Czech, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and East Germany. These were the buffer lands to protect mother Russia against more attacks by the Western world (WW1, the Allies efforts to stop the Red takeover, WW2, and a bunch of wars in the 19th Century, most notably Napoleon.) And how many times did the West attack in this 45 year time frame? Afghanistan wasn't about occupation or a buffer state. It was about promoting a communist government that took over in 1978, just as Vietnam was about the US trying to prevent such a takeover. QuoteQuoteChina has been been doing just fine these days. And 99% of the territory occupied by China wants to be occupied by China. How's it going in Taiwan and Tibet? Seems to be going fine from the Beijing perspective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #102 May 29, 2011 QuoteQuote . . .is climbing over the fence, and pulling out rifles . . . And if any country had crossed Israel's borders before the first shot in 1967 was fired, you might have a point. They hadn't, so you don't. Let's get back on point, since you seem to prefer to debate a strawman analogy. Faloxi wrote: "1967 war broke after the Egyptians moved troops into the demilitarized Sinai, blockaded Israel's access to the red sea, kicked out the UN peace keepers and publicly announced that it was going to destroy Israel. " Do you wish to counter any of these as statements of fact? If not, then I think you should reread post #90 in the thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #103 May 29, 2011 QuoteAnd if any country had crossed Israel's borders before the first shot in 1967 was fired, you might have a point. They hadn't, so you don't. And again, by violating the terms of the armistice the effective status was a state of war. Shooting is not the only way to start a war. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #104 May 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnd if any country had crossed Israel's borders before the first shot in 1967 was fired, you might have a point. They hadn't, so you don't. And again, by violating the terms of the armistice the effective status was a state of war. Shooting is not the only way to start a war. another way is to declare you're a new state (but you happen to be on someone else's land)...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
billvon 2,434 #105 May 29, 2011 >On the contrary, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible lists all the prophecies, >as well as the promises of God, and when they were fulfilled. True. Of course, it's easy to prove promises were fulfilled in hindsight. Even Harold Camping said that his recent end of the world prophecy DID come true - we did in fact experience judgment day in May, Jesus is now here and the physical end of the world will come in October. After October, I suspect he will have a new reason that his October date was actually correct through a new re-interpretation of his words. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #106 May 29, 2011 >And again, by violating the terms of the armistice the effective status was >a state of war. Shooting is not the only way to start a war. Actually, yes, armed aggression is the way you start a war. Until then you're just making noise and signing declarations. Indeed, take away aggression and you've got something we call diplomacy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #107 May 29, 2011 bit of background... QuoteTHE POLITICAL BACKGROUND The Six-Day War had its roots in the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) by the Arab League in 1964. While Arab national armies had already been defeated twice by Israel (in 1948 and 1956), the creation of the PLO allowed Palestinian nationals to attack Israel directly and without support from the weakened Arab states in their quest to destroy the Jewish state and create a Palestinian homeland. In 1965 the PLO began attacking Israel from bases in Egypt and Jordan. Despite the fears of Egypt and Jordan that the aggression might lead to a general war, the PLO attacks increased in number and scale, from 35 in 1965 to 41 in 1966 and 37 in the first four months of 1967. Furthermore, tensions had been steadily rising between Israel and Syria over Israel’s National Water Carrier irrigation project, which channeled water through the Jordan River for use in Israel. A Syrian project begun in 1964 attempted to divert the flow of water; Israel responded in 1965 by bombing the Syrian diversionary project. In retaliation, Syria bombarded Israeli villages and farms in the northern part of the country. A particularly deadly attack on April 7, 1967, provoked Israeli retaliation and six Syrian MiG fighters were shot down. The Soviet Union, a major patron and ally of both Egypt and Syria, issued warnings on May 13 (now known to be false) that Israel was preparing for an invasion of Syria, prompting Syria to invoke its mutual defense pact with Egypt. The reasons for the Soviet deception are still unclear. Some believe that the Soviets hoped the increasing U.S. involvement in Vietnam would prevent their assisting Israel, creating an opportunity to seriously damage Israel and bolster Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser’s power and prestige. It is also possible that the Soviets hoped Israel would prevail and remove Nasser from the scene, to be replaced by a more stable and predictable leader. Either way, despite assurances from UN observers that there were no signs of Israeli troop buildups or preparations for invasion on the Israeli-Syrian border, both Syria and Egypt accepted the Soviet warnings and initiated plans for an invasion of Israel. http://what-when-how.com/social-sciences/arab-israeli-war-of-1967-social-science/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 #108 May 29, 2011 Quote>And again, by violating the terms of the armistice the effective status was >a state of war. Shooting is not the only way to start a war. Actually, yes, armed aggression is the way you start a war. Until then you're just making noise and signing declarations. Indeed, take away aggression and you've got something we call diplomacy. 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 "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #109 May 29, 2011 QuoteThe withdrawal of the UN troops was quickly followed by an Egyptian blockade of the Strait of Tiran, Israel’s only supply route to Asia and the main shipping lane for oil from Israel’s largest supplier. Israel had made it clear that any attempt to close the strait would be considered cause for war and, following the 1956 Suez Crisis, had been given assurances by the United States and the United Nations that Israel had right of access to the Strait of Tiran. However, when Israel asked the major world powers to enforce those assurances, Great Britain and France reneged. The United States offered to form an international armada to break the Egyptian blockade, a proposal Israel accepted, although it was expected to take several weeks to assemble the armada and despite the worsening situation in the Sinai and Golan Heights. http://what-when-how.com/social-sciences/arab-israeli-war-of-1967-social-science/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
quade 3 #110 May 29, 2011 Question: Who is "what-when-how"?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #111 May 29, 2011 don't know 'who' they are but the historical info they present (which we're debating at the moment) seems to be reliable comparing to the several other sites i've just taken a look at. if the info is not correct then falfoxori can refute it from his own sources...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 #112 May 29, 2011 QuoteQuestion: Who is "what-when-how"? I have no idea who this website is but i'd take anything that dude posts as questionable at best... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #113 May 29, 2011 QuoteFaloxi wrote: "1967 war broke after the Egyptians moved troops into the demilitarized Sinai . . ." Sure. Please show me, in writing, where it says Egypt was not allowed to have any troops on its land in the Sinai on 4 June 1967. I'd like to look at the document. The actual document, not simply someone's interpretation of it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #114 May 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI truly believe the U.S. should choose sides wisely. A Muslim leader is not likely to make the wise choice. If that's not a non-sequitur I don't know what is. What are the chances of the US even coming close to having a Muslim leader any time in the next few decades? You mean after this one? Once the door has been cracked open it can never be closed. Sorry dude, you're going to have to fight that one out with your fellow right wing crazy, the one who started this thread. It doesn't matter how much you hate him, Obama can't be both a Muslim and a radical follower of black liberation theology. Why don't you guys talk it out between you and come back when you've decided which lie to run with?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #115 May 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI truly believe the U.S. should choose sides wisely. A Muslim leader is not likely to make the wise choice. If that's not a non-sequitur I don't know what is. What are the chances of the US even coming close to having a Muslim leader any time in the next few decades? You mean after this one? Once the door has been cracked open it can never be closed. Sorry dude, you're going to have to fight that one out with your fellow right wing crazy, the one who started this thread. It doesn't matter how much you hate him, Obama can't be both a Muslim and a radical follower of black liberation theology.Quote Is that a quote from Malcolm X? Elijah Muhammad? Louis Farrakahn? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #116 May 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI truly believe the U.S. should choose sides wisely. A Muslim leader is not likely to make the wise choice. If that's not a non-sequitur I don't know what is. What are the chances of the US even coming close to having a Muslim leader any time in the next few decades? You mean after this one? Once the door has been cracked open it can never be closed. Sorry dude, you're going to have to fight that one out with your fellow right wing crazy, the one who started this thread. It doesn't matter how much you hate him, Obama can't be both a Muslim and a radical follower of black liberation theology. Is that a quote from Malcolm X? Elijah Muhammad? Louis Farrakahn? Black Liberation Theology is the name of a specific religious movement and that movement is Christian. It does not refer to any old combination of religion and civil rights activism.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #117 May 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe withdrawal of the UN troops was quickly followed by an Egyptian blockade of the Strait of Tiran, Israel’s only supply route to Asia and the main shipping lane for oil from Israel’s largest supplier. Israel had made it clear that any attempt to close the strait would be considered cause for war and, following the 1956 Suez Crisis, had been given assurances by the United States and the United Nations that Israel had right of access to the Strait of Tiran. However, when Israel asked the major world powers to enforce those assurances, Great Britain and France reneged. The United States offered to form an international armada to break the Egyptian blockade, a proposal Israel accepted, although it was expected to take several weeks to assemble the armada and despite the worsening situation in the Sinai and Golan Heights. http://what-when-how.com/social-sciences/arab-israeli-war-of-1967-social-science/ Just for context, the paragraph just prior to yours (above, same source): "On May 15, 1967, Egypt began moving troops into the Sinai Peninsula and massing them near the Israeli border. This was followed on May 18 by a Syrian mobilization that moved forces into position along the Golan Heights. On the same day President Nasser demanded that the United Nations Emergency Force, which had been stationed in the Sinai as a buffer between Israel and Egypt since the 1956 war, be withdrawn. United Nations Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand, in spite of a prior promise to take any such request before the UN General Assembly. " ...and just after: "On May 30, responding to pressure for Arab unity, Jordan joined the military alliance between Egypt and Syria. This, along with the entrance of Iraq into the alliance on June 4, brought the combined size of the Arab armies to approximately 465,000 troops, 2,880 tanks, and 810 aircraft. Against that force the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) mustered 275,000 troops (including reservists), 1,100 tanks, and 200 planes. Israel’s demographics (a relatively small population of around 2.3 million in 1967) and military structure (a small standing army backed by large numbers of reservists who could be called into duty when needed) made it difficult for the army to stay mobilized for long periods of time without doing massive damage to the domestic economy. Faced with hostile armies seemingly gearing up for war on all sides, the closure of a major shipping route, and the prospect of a troop mobilization with no immediate end in sight, Israel chose to launch a preemptive strike." It seems that Israel was forced into making a proactive decision within a very short window of opportunity. A misstep here could have meant the demise of Israel, and given the recent history of aggressive behavior against them it seems that they made the correct decision ...and got a few acres of high and dry land for their trouble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jgoose71 0 #118 May 29, 2011 Quote Quote >And again, by violating the terms of the armistice the effective status was >a state of war. Shooting is not the only way to start a war. Actually, yes, armed aggression is the way you start a war. Until then you're just making noise and signing declarations. Indeed, take away aggression and you've got something we call diplomacy. 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 Apparently if someone is getting ready to attack you, you should just have the U.N. right them a letter telling them how angry they are.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TEvacFETvM"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #119 May 30, 2011 OK, I'm a little curious as to why you cited the who-where-when article when it is largely non-supportive of your position on this topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #120 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuestion: Who is "what-when-how"? I have no idea who this website is but i'd take anything that dude posts as questionable at best... so you can't refute it - did israel accept the us offer of an armada or not? if you don't know look it up and get back to us with some facts and not endless reruns of your opinion...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 #121 May 30, 2011 i tried to find a fairly neutral source for some background info. i can't tell from the article whether it is pro israel or pro palestine - just background facts. for instance i didn't know of the russian involvement. it seems they were egging egypt into war with misinformation as a way of bringing pressure to bear on the us (who were then getting entangled in vietnam). here's a bit more about the 'suez crisis': QuoteThe Suez Crisis, also referred to as the Tripartite Aggression, was an offensive war fought by France, Britain, and Israel against Egypt beginning on October 29, 1956. Less than a day after Israel invaded Egypt, Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to both Egypt and Israel, and then began to bomb Cairo. In a short time, and despite Israeli and British denials, considerable evidence showed that the two attacks were planned in collusion, with France as the instigator, Britain as a belated partner, and Israel as the willing trigger. Anglo-French forces withdrew before the end of the year, but Israeli forces remained until March 1957, prolonging the crisis. In April, the canal was fully reopened to shipping, but other repercussions continued. The attack followed the President of Egypt Gamel Abdel Nasser's decision of 26 July 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal, after the withdrawal of an offer by Britain and the United States to fund the building of the Aswan Dam, which was in response to Egypt's new ties with the Soviet Union and recognizing the People's Republic of China during the height of tensions between China and Taiwan. The aims of the attack were primarily to regain Western control of the canal and precipitate the fall of Nasser from power, whose policies were viewed as potentially threatening the strategic interests of the three nations. The three allies, especially Israel, were mainly successful in attaining their immediate military objectives, but pressure from the United States and the USSR at the United Nations and elsewhere forced them to withdraw. As a result of the outside pressure Britain and France failed in their political and strategic aims of controlling the canal and removing Nasser from power. Israel fulfilled some of its objectives, such as attaining freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran. As a result of the conflict, the UNEF would police the Egyptian-Israeli border to prevent both sides from recommencing hostilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisisstay 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 #122 May 30, 2011 looks like israel won the war on the first day... QuoteThe Six-Day War officially began on June 5 when Israel launched a surprise attack on the Egyptian air force. The Israeli air force caught the vast majority of Egyptian planes on the ground and destroyed more than three hundred fighters, bombers, and helicopters in less than two hours. After decimating the Egyptian air force, Israel turned its air power against Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, destroying another 107 planes. Israeli losses totaled twenty aircraft, twelve pilots killed, five wounded, and four captured. The preemptive Israeli raids essentially decided the course of the war, leaving Israel with total air superiority. Israeli ground forces could operate without fear of air attack and enjoyed unchallenged air support. http://what-when-how.com/social-sciences/arab-israeli-war-of-1967-social-science/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 quade 3 #123 May 30, 2011 Quotelooks like israel won the war on the first day... Some people may have said the same type of thing after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Of course, they would have been wrong. What the passage you quoted says to me is something entirely different. 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. Attached are maps showing where the Egyptian forces were located in Egypt's Sinai and the subsequent attacks. Source: Department of History, U.S. Military Academy Quote In 1938 the predecessors of what is today The Department of History at the United States Military Academy began developing a series of campaign atlases to aid in teaching cadets a course entitled, "History of the Military Art." Since then, the Department has produced over six atlases and more than one thousand maps, encompassing not only America’s wars but global conflicts as well. In keeping abreast with today's technology, the Department of History is providing these maps on the internet as part of the department's outreach program. The maps were created by the United States Military Academy’s Department of History and are the digital versions from the atlases printed by the United States Defense Printing Agency. We gratefully acknowledge the accomplishments of the department's former cartographer, Mr. Edward J. Krasnoborski, along with the works of our present cartographer, Mr. Frank Martini.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tkhayes 140 #124 May 30, 2011 for every 'disenchanted' democrat who no longer supports Obama, I will find you a 'disenchanted' republican who has finally realized that yes indeed, they will cut your social security check and slash Medicare/medicaid so that we can continue to fight wars and subsidize banks and rich people. Rick Scott, just elected 5 months ago has the lowest approval rating ever here in Florida. My answer to that? "Hey YOU elected him, you dumb-asses". Now you got it - good luck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #125 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuestion: Who is "what-when-how"? I have no idea who this website is but i'd take anything that dude posts as questionable at best... so you can't refute it - did israel accept the us offer of an armada or not? if you don't know look it up and get back to us with some facts and not endless reruns of your opinion... I 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". The US simply offered to help form an international "coalition" to force Egypt to allow Israel its legal (and, as your source points out, UN-backed) access to the Strait. Other countries that promised to help begged out and Israel accepted our offer to help enforce their legal passage through the Strait of Tiran (at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba ...we're not even talking about the Suez canal here). Sounds reasonable to me. Within these three paragraphs in that article this point seems to be the least important ...especially since the war didn't last long enough for the armada to "happen" anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 5 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 Go To Topic Listing
jakee 1,259 #116 May 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI truly believe the U.S. should choose sides wisely. A Muslim leader is not likely to make the wise choice. If that's not a non-sequitur I don't know what is. What are the chances of the US even coming close to having a Muslim leader any time in the next few decades? You mean after this one? Once the door has been cracked open it can never be closed. Sorry dude, you're going to have to fight that one out with your fellow right wing crazy, the one who started this thread. It doesn't matter how much you hate him, Obama can't be both a Muslim and a radical follower of black liberation theology. Is that a quote from Malcolm X? Elijah Muhammad? Louis Farrakahn? Black Liberation Theology is the name of a specific religious movement and that movement is Christian. It does not refer to any old combination of religion and civil rights activism.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #117 May 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe withdrawal of the UN troops was quickly followed by an Egyptian blockade of the Strait of Tiran, Israel’s only supply route to Asia and the main shipping lane for oil from Israel’s largest supplier. Israel had made it clear that any attempt to close the strait would be considered cause for war and, following the 1956 Suez Crisis, had been given assurances by the United States and the United Nations that Israel had right of access to the Strait of Tiran. However, when Israel asked the major world powers to enforce those assurances, Great Britain and France reneged. The United States offered to form an international armada to break the Egyptian blockade, a proposal Israel accepted, although it was expected to take several weeks to assemble the armada and despite the worsening situation in the Sinai and Golan Heights. http://what-when-how.com/social-sciences/arab-israeli-war-of-1967-social-science/ Just for context, the paragraph just prior to yours (above, same source): "On May 15, 1967, Egypt began moving troops into the Sinai Peninsula and massing them near the Israeli border. This was followed on May 18 by a Syrian mobilization that moved forces into position along the Golan Heights. On the same day President Nasser demanded that the United Nations Emergency Force, which had been stationed in the Sinai as a buffer between Israel and Egypt since the 1956 war, be withdrawn. United Nations Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand, in spite of a prior promise to take any such request before the UN General Assembly. " ...and just after: "On May 30, responding to pressure for Arab unity, Jordan joined the military alliance between Egypt and Syria. This, along with the entrance of Iraq into the alliance on June 4, brought the combined size of the Arab armies to approximately 465,000 troops, 2,880 tanks, and 810 aircraft. Against that force the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) mustered 275,000 troops (including reservists), 1,100 tanks, and 200 planes. Israel’s demographics (a relatively small population of around 2.3 million in 1967) and military structure (a small standing army backed by large numbers of reservists who could be called into duty when needed) made it difficult for the army to stay mobilized for long periods of time without doing massive damage to the domestic economy. Faced with hostile armies seemingly gearing up for war on all sides, the closure of a major shipping route, and the prospect of a troop mobilization with no immediate end in sight, Israel chose to launch a preemptive strike." It seems that Israel was forced into making a proactive decision within a very short window of opportunity. A misstep here could have meant the demise of Israel, and given the recent history of aggressive behavior against them it seems that they made the correct decision ...and got a few acres of high and dry land for their trouble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #118 May 29, 2011 Quote Quote >And again, by violating the terms of the armistice the effective status was >a state of war. Shooting is not the only way to start a war. Actually, yes, armed aggression is the way you start a war. Until then you're just making noise and signing declarations. Indeed, take away aggression and you've got something we call diplomacy. 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 Apparently if someone is getting ready to attack you, you should just have the U.N. right them a letter telling them how angry they are.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TEvacFETvM"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #119 May 30, 2011 OK, I'm a little curious as to why you cited the who-where-when article when it is largely non-supportive of your position on this topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #120 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuestion: Who is "what-when-how"? I have no idea who this website is but i'd take anything that dude posts as questionable at best... so you can't refute it - did israel accept the us offer of an armada or not? if you don't know look it up and get back to us with some facts and not endless reruns of your opinion...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 #121 May 30, 2011 i tried to find a fairly neutral source for some background info. i can't tell from the article whether it is pro israel or pro palestine - just background facts. for instance i didn't know of the russian involvement. it seems they were egging egypt into war with misinformation as a way of bringing pressure to bear on the us (who were then getting entangled in vietnam). here's a bit more about the 'suez crisis': QuoteThe Suez Crisis, also referred to as the Tripartite Aggression, was an offensive war fought by France, Britain, and Israel against Egypt beginning on October 29, 1956. Less than a day after Israel invaded Egypt, Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to both Egypt and Israel, and then began to bomb Cairo. In a short time, and despite Israeli and British denials, considerable evidence showed that the two attacks were planned in collusion, with France as the instigator, Britain as a belated partner, and Israel as the willing trigger. Anglo-French forces withdrew before the end of the year, but Israeli forces remained until March 1957, prolonging the crisis. In April, the canal was fully reopened to shipping, but other repercussions continued. The attack followed the President of Egypt Gamel Abdel Nasser's decision of 26 July 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal, after the withdrawal of an offer by Britain and the United States to fund the building of the Aswan Dam, which was in response to Egypt's new ties with the Soviet Union and recognizing the People's Republic of China during the height of tensions between China and Taiwan. The aims of the attack were primarily to regain Western control of the canal and precipitate the fall of Nasser from power, whose policies were viewed as potentially threatening the strategic interests of the three nations. The three allies, especially Israel, were mainly successful in attaining their immediate military objectives, but pressure from the United States and the USSR at the United Nations and elsewhere forced them to withdraw. As a result of the outside pressure Britain and France failed in their political and strategic aims of controlling the canal and removing Nasser from power. Israel fulfilled some of its objectives, such as attaining freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran. As a result of the conflict, the UNEF would police the Egyptian-Israeli border to prevent both sides from recommencing hostilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisisstay 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 #122 May 30, 2011 looks like israel won the war on the first day... QuoteThe Six-Day War officially began on June 5 when Israel launched a surprise attack on the Egyptian air force. The Israeli air force caught the vast majority of Egyptian planes on the ground and destroyed more than three hundred fighters, bombers, and helicopters in less than two hours. After decimating the Egyptian air force, Israel turned its air power against Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, destroying another 107 planes. Israeli losses totaled twenty aircraft, twelve pilots killed, five wounded, and four captured. The preemptive Israeli raids essentially decided the course of the war, leaving Israel with total air superiority. Israeli ground forces could operate without fear of air attack and enjoyed unchallenged air support. http://what-when-how.com/social-sciences/arab-israeli-war-of-1967-social-science/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
quade 3 #123 May 30, 2011 Quotelooks like israel won the war on the first day... Some people may have said the same type of thing after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Of course, they would have been wrong. What the passage you quoted says to me is something entirely different. 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. Attached are maps showing where the Egyptian forces were located in Egypt's Sinai and the subsequent attacks. Source: Department of History, U.S. Military Academy Quote In 1938 the predecessors of what is today The Department of History at the United States Military Academy began developing a series of campaign atlases to aid in teaching cadets a course entitled, "History of the Military Art." Since then, the Department has produced over six atlases and more than one thousand maps, encompassing not only America’s wars but global conflicts as well. In keeping abreast with today's technology, the Department of History is providing these maps on the internet as part of the department's outreach program. The maps were created by the United States Military Academy’s Department of History and are the digital versions from the atlases printed by the United States Defense Printing Agency. We gratefully acknowledge the accomplishments of the department's former cartographer, Mr. Edward J. Krasnoborski, along with the works of our present cartographer, Mr. Frank Martini.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 140 #124 May 30, 2011 for every 'disenchanted' democrat who no longer supports Obama, I will find you a 'disenchanted' republican who has finally realized that yes indeed, they will cut your social security check and slash Medicare/medicaid so that we can continue to fight wars and subsidize banks and rich people. Rick Scott, just elected 5 months ago has the lowest approval rating ever here in Florida. My answer to that? "Hey YOU elected him, you dumb-asses". Now you got it - good luck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #125 May 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuestion: Who is "what-when-how"? I have no idea who this website is but i'd take anything that dude posts as questionable at best... so you can't refute it - did israel accept the us offer of an armada or not? if you don't know look it up and get back to us with some facts and not endless reruns of your opinion... I 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". The US simply offered to help form an international "coalition" to force Egypt to allow Israel its legal (and, as your source points out, UN-backed) access to the Strait. Other countries that promised to help begged out and Israel accepted our offer to help enforce their legal passage through the Strait of Tiran (at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba ...we're not even talking about the Suez canal here). Sounds reasonable to me. Within these three paragraphs in that article this point seems to be the least important ...especially since the war didn't last long enough for the armada to "happen" anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
