SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsForeign Affairs Discussion Group


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: marcos who wrote (159342)3/20/2005 5:18:39 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 281497
 
I am quoting from memory from Oren's Six Days of War, a sober and well-reviewed historian, which gives higher numbers. Even your account mentions something about "7 Egyptian divisions". Okay, which is it, 7 or only 2? While quoting figures, have you got any for the Israelis? Were those greater or smaller, hm?

As for logistics, well Egyptian logistics weren't exactly their strong suit throughout, that's one reason they lost so badly and so fast.

Nasser thought he had enough. He also thought he had a functional ally in Syria, which didn't turn out to be true either. As for Nasser's ordering an attack on May 27th but calling it off, check Oren, he lists his sources, chiefly the now open Soviet documents.

Note that the 1967 conflict was fought entirely on arab muslim land, and not at all on the six point something per cent of Palestine legitimately acquired by zionists pre-1948 ..... this was also true of the 1956 conflict, the 1973 conflict, and almost entirely the case in the 1948 war

So you take the irridendist position, along with Hamas, that Israel doesn't exist inside any borders? Neither the UN partition nor its own declaration of independence (followed by its victories in 48, 56, 67, 70, and 73) have any force to make Israel a country? The Israelis should be killed or driven out of the Middle East?

Just want to be clear here.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (159338)3/20/2005 5:29:33 PM
From: Ish
   of 281497
 
<<For once why don't you stop trying to re-write history on this thread...you might begin to get some respect from your fellow SI'ers......maybe...>>

I think Nadine is usually more on the money than most of the posters on SI.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Orcastraiter who wrote (159341)3/20/2005 5:32:24 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 281497
 
Powell was always in favor of overwhelming force. Rumsfeld likes light and fast. There were plenty of other generals that said more troops were needed. The primary need for the large number of troops was to maintain securit

This is a popular meme, but I am far from sure that those few, those very few, commentators who are competent to weigh in on it have done so. Most of the military voices backing it are old Army types who don't have experience in the force that was clearly needed and missing, the kind of engineering/military police force that Tom Barnett calls 'SysAdmin'.

Clearly the force that was used was plenty to win the conventional war without the often-predicted 'quagmire' or 'Stalingrad-on-the-Tigris'. Just as clearly, the US failed to establish security after going in, though whether this was a failure of mere numbers, or of anticipation and planning and not numbers is not at all clear to me. The US did not anticipate the orgy of looting when Saddam fell (did the Parisians strip the Louvre when they were liberated?), and did not have the ruthlessness to shoot the looters whom they had just liberated from Saddam. That set a bad start, and there was a clear failure to nip the AQ/Baathist insurgency in the bud before it could get started. But would more American boots have done the trick? or would they merely have presented more targets for the insurgents? It seems to me that the essential nature of the problem - that the Iraqi government fell apart with the fall of Saddam, and needed to be reconstituted on quite different lines, would have remained the same. And that's a slow process however you do it.

Clearly defined mission.

Overwhelming force.

Exit strategy.


Mission: regime change, install a functioning democracy
Overwhelming force: check
Exit strategy: as soon as there is a functioning democracy with its in troops, we leave.

Looks like the Powell doctrine to me. What is it about the Powell doctrine that makes you think it all has to happen inside six weeks or so? There's been a lot of progress in two years, and I would be the insurgency will peter out in the next year or so. If the country has a consitution and a functional government in two years, and the US leaves, that looks like an exit strategy to me.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (159343)3/20/2005 5:41:19 PM
From: marcos
   of 281497
 
On number of divisions, i really have no idea, anyway there would remain the question of how many men in each division .... on total numbers of egyptian forces in the Sinai, i strongly suspect your figure of 800,000 comes direct from zionist propaganda and has no basis in fact .... somewhere there will exist an authoritative work on the order of battle, close to accurate and with all combatants' bullshit discounted, so pending a review of that let's agree to disagree on likelihood of each other's figures

In your last paragraph you start up with the right of conquest in 48-56-67-73 and then jump straight to 'should be killed or driven out', in the present tense .... how remarkably typical of your faction .... it's a bit transparent though, Nadine, surely you must realise this? ... it's always the same old argument, 'those people don't like us, therefore we should take that land of theirs over there' ..... 'no no, we don't want all the land, just the land next to "Ours"'

You wanna be clear, very well - i support wholeheartedly 'the right of Israel to exist', providing always that this will apply to individuals freely choosing to identify themselves as israelis, and that they are in no way violating the rights of other individuals

The current problem is where Israel is choosing 'to exist' today, on the lands of other peoples .... as they say in real estate, there's three basic factors, location, location, and location.



Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: marcos who wrote (159346)3/20/2005 5:50:55 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 281497
 
That the Israelis should be killed or driven is, present tense, the position of Hamas today. From your frequent descriptions of how most of Israel in 48 and 67 was "arab muslim", I gather you don't think Israel is the legitimate sovereign entity now. One wonders what you have against christian arabs, who used to be a big minority in Palestine. Also, most of the land that became Israel was government owned, who do you think should have gained control of it in 1948? The Arabs rejected partition and bet on being able to wipe out the Zionists. They lost.

The current problem is where Israel is choosing 'to exist' today, on the lands of other peoples

You are referring to what Hamas calls the "occupation of 1948" right, and the rest of the world calls the 1967 borders?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (159345)3/20/2005 5:55:13 PM
From: Orcastraiter
   of 281497
 
The Powell doctrine was NOT adhered to and here's why:

1. Clearly defined mission.

According to you the defined mission was to bring democracy to Iraq. I never heard the administration say that was the mission once. That is part of Mission Creep...which is antithetical to having a clearly defined mission...and this is a mission that is defined before the war...not the mission you make up as you go along.

The defined mission was to remove Saddam, and to get the WMD. Everything else we're doing there is mission creep.

2. Overwhelming force.

Check? I don't think so. When overwhelming force is used casualties go down over time...not up. We're undermanned. It's directly responsible for the increase in casualties.

3. Exit strategy.

The exit strategy was never clearly defined. That was a complaint of many right out of the blocks. The only exit strategy that we have now is a result of the mission creep that has occurred.

The president never said after we establish democracy in Iraq we'll withdraw the troops.

What is clear is that very little was clearly defined at the outset of the war. They have been making it up ever since.

And there's another plank to the Powell Doctrine that I left off before:

4. Establish a broad coalition.

We never accomplished this. Not one Arab nation. Only one country of the old european allies...England. The rest of the coalition were small contributions from small nations that were trying more to gain favor with the US than to help Iraqis.

Orca

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: teevee who wrote (159340)3/20/2005 6:15:01 PM
From: Noel de Leon
   of 281497
 
"Since when do we negotiate with despots bent on mass murder and the destruction of another country?"

USSR, China, Serbia are examples.

Here is an excerpt from a conservative point of view.

"The solution is far from evident. Takeyh, the professor of national security studies, notes that in the past where there have been cases of “nuclear reversal,” such as in South Africa, it has happened due to a change in the region’s strategic environment.

The Middle East hardly falls into that category. Iran is unlikely to give up its nuclear deterrence as long as Israel remains a nuclear power. Israel is unlikely to cede its nuclear capability as long as it feels threatened by the Arab/Islamic world and as long as Pakistan holds on to its bomb. Pakistan, of course, points to India, also a nuclear power. India looks at Pakistan and across the Himalayas and sees nuclear-armed China and says it would never give up its cherished membership to the elite nuclear club.

In his campaign stops, President Bush keeps reiterating that the world is a safer place because of his actions. Yet looking at the state of world affairs it is very difficult to agree with him. The dead-ended Mideast peace talks, Saudi Arabia’s internal turmoil, continuing Islamist terrorist threats, the vulnerability of American troops in Iraq, and the question of Iran’s nukes all contribute to maintaining tensions at an all-time high.

Barring a solid and lasting peace settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the countries of the Middle East are far from nuclear disarmament. If anything, nuclear proliferation is only likely to increase as states like Saudi Arabia find that they, too, need to defend themselves against a nuclear-armed Iran. Recent reports have indicated that Saudi Arabia is looking to lease Pakistan’s nukes. The arms race of the Cold War may be dead, but the race for hot weapons has never been so alive."
amconmag.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Orcastraiter who wrote (159348)3/20/2005 6:16:47 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 281497
 
The defined mission was to remove Saddam, and to get the WMD. Everything else we're doing there is mission creep.


Remove Saddam and leave whoever was left to fight for succession? Is that what you thought the mission was? Hardly. In fact, it was Powell who warned repeatedly of Iraq, "You break it, you own it." In short, setting up the successor government - the successor IRAQI government, since we weren't trying to colonize Iraq - was always part of the mission.

Check? I don't think so. When overwhelming force is used casualties go down over time...not up. We're undermanned. It's directly responsible for the increase in casualties.

Our casualties have not been going up on a per diem basis and are currently going down. And what, btw, is your military expertise?

The exit strategy was never clearly defined. That was a complaint of many right out of the blocks

By whom? The original hope was to decapitate the regime, run the country with the CPA and lower level functionaries until the new democracy could be set up, at which point we would begin to draw down our troops. Clearly the collapse of the old regime and the insurgency interfered with that plan, but it's still the plan.

Like I said, there is nothing about the Powell doctrine that says it has to get done in six weeks or else. The exit strategy is simple: the Iraqi democracy defends itself and US troops go home.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (159347)3/20/2005 6:25:35 PM
From: marcos
   of 281497
 
The position of Hamas is no more radical than that of the überzionists who would cheerfully take it all and bury the palestinians with those armoured D9s and smile, knowing themselves to be the Chosen People .... 'Gott mit Uns', in hebrew and arabic both, lord save us from these whackenstaatians

No, Israel's presence on all its currently occupied land is not legitimate .... doh ... as a nuclear-armed fait accompli du jour, it must be dealt with by other nations, so by custom and usage it can maybe over time pretend to acquire some of the trappings of legitimacy, it will however remain a fact that it is camped out on the lands of other peoples

'Also, most of the land that became Israel was government owned, who do you think should have gained control of it in 1948?'

A more accurate question is, Who do i think should have ethnically cleansed this 'government owned' yet arab-inhabited land, and looted the possessions of its arab inhabitants? ... the answer would be, Nobody that really wanted to later claim 'legitimacy' .... those people had human rights, the inadequacy of turkish/british land tenure systems aside

'Arabs rejected partition' - so did a large slice of zionists, and guess who attacked who, and on whose lands the great majority of battle took place, and where the great majority of casualties fell .... hmmm, that situation has been remarkably consistent throughout, hasn't it ...

In the last bit here, i am referring to all land that Israel now occupies that was not legitimately acquired by zionist interests prior to 1948 ... or perhaps, if this applies anywhere [it may in some few cases], lands legitimately acquired since, bought at market price from willing sellers, without any hint of duress, expressed or implied ... which would not, of course, include your above 'government owned' yet arab-farmed land whose rightful holders were robbed and chased away.

[edit] - missed this bit about christians arabs - 'One wonders what you have against christian arabs, who used to be a big minority in Palestine'

How silly, never have i said anything against christians there ... nor the legitimate long-term presence of what they call the Old Yishuv, the orthodox jews of Jerusalem .... your Israel, by the way, has indulged itself in much persecution of christians, there is considerable on this on the net.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Noel de Leon who wrote (159349)3/20/2005 6:34:50 PM
From: teevee
   of 281497
 
Barring a solid and lasting peace settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the countries of the Middle East are far from nuclear disarmament. If anything, nuclear proliferation is only likely to increase as states like Saudi Arabia find that they, too, need to defend themselves against a nuclear-armed Iran. Recent reports have indicated that Saudi Arabia is looking to lease Pakistan’s nukes. The arms race of the Cold War may be dead, but the race for hot weapons has never been so alive."

and THAT is exactly why the Bush Doctrine has become the bedrock of FP....I can tell you with confidence that the nuclear showdown between Pakistan and India a couple of years ago was even closer to launch than the cuban missile crisis. How anyone can even begin to consider a group of hot head fundamentalist mullahs bent on the destruction of infidel nations becoming a nuclear power is dreaming in technicolor. MAD worked during the cold war because rational leadership was in control. MAD won't work in the moslem world and should the mullahs in Pakistan ever get control of that nuclear arsenal, god help us all....

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10