BF2S Forums oops!! more bad news for you "Where is the WMD'S" crowd

lowing wrote:

good job picking and choosing paragraghs......please don't choose the 6 days war as your shinning example of Israel agression,you will lose.


also..........from your same source on the Suez...........

Meanwhile, the Gaza Strip — a part of the former British mandate, now occupied by Egypt — became a haven for masses of Palestinian refugees and a hotbed for guerilla activity against the fledgling Jewish state. In response, from 1953–1956 the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a number of strikes. These attacks were assisted by the future prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, who interrupted his studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to become the military leader of the first special forces unit of the IDF: the elite Unit 101. This policy of reprisals was a major source of internal dispute between hawks, led by David Ben-Gurion, and doves, led by his successor for a short time, Moshe Sharett. It sometimes led to strong external criticism from the United Nations and even Israel's supporters.

The Gaza raid on February 28, 1955 marked yet another turning point in relations between the two enemies. In retaliation Egypt began to sponsor official Fedayeen and commando raids on Israel, sometimes through the territory of Jordan, which also officially opposed these raids, while still publicly discouraging Palestinian infiltration. There were secret talks, through various intermediaries and methods, between Egypt and Israel, but the escalating tensions between the IDF and the Fedayeen put an end to them.

Throughout 1956, tensions increased between Israel and Egypt, with Egyptian fedayeen launching frequent incursions into Israeli territory and Israel launching retaliatory raids into Egyptian territory.

Egyptian sponsorship for the Fedayeen resulted from Israeli raids into Egyptian territory. Even though Egypt occupied Gaza, as the US is learning in Iraq, it's extremely hard for most occupying armies to effectively control populations under their charge and to properly secure borders.

As to your comment about the 1967 war, did I not just also post about Jordan's experience with Israel's "word" that they wouldn't attack. All of that happened before 1967.

And then there is the little matter of Israel's intentions for starting the attack, from Moshe Dayan (Defense Minister during the Six-Day War):

According to the published notes, Mr. Tal began to remonstrate, "But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and . . . "

General Dayan interrupted: "Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was."

General Dayan's resistance to storming the Golan Heights in the first days of the 1967 war is established history, as is his abrupt change of mind on June 9, the fourth day of the war, when he called the northern commander directly -- bypassing the Chief of Staff, Yitzhak Rabin, and the Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol -- and ordered him to go to war against Syria.

The common wisdom is that General Dayan was wary of stretching military resources until the wars with Egypt and Jordan were settled and that he feared provoking the Soviet Union by an attack on its main client-state, and that the uncertain offensive would cost many lives. The swift victories over Egypt and Jordan then changed his mind.

But in the conversations with Mr. Tal, General Dayan raised another consideration. "What he told me, what is quoted in the conversation, is that he understood even in time of war that we would be compelled to return most of the territories that we won if we wanted peace with the Arabs," Mr. Tal said. In the Golan Heights, General Dayan anticipated that Israeli farmers would waste no time settling on the fertile land, making it difficult to withdraw.

General Dayan said in his conversations with Mr. Tal that the kibbutz leaders who had urgently demanded that Israel take the Golan Heights had done so largely for the land.

"The kibbutzim there saw land that was good for agriculture," he said. "And you must remember, this was a time in which agricultural land was considered the most important and valuable thing."

I can't post the Lexis link because it will ask for a password, but here's the information for the article:
The New York Times
May 11, 1997, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
"General's Words Shed a New Light on the Golan"
By SERGE SCHMEMANN
DATELINE: JERUSALEM, May 9

Masques wrote:

lowing wrote:

good job picking and choosing paragraghs......please don't choose the 6 days war as your shinning example of Israel agression,you will lose.


also..........from your same source on the Suez...........

Meanwhile, the Gaza Strip — a part of the former British mandate, now occupied by Egypt — became a haven for masses of Palestinian refugees and a hotbed for guerilla activity against the fledgling Jewish state. In response, from 1953–1956 the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a number of strikes. These attacks were assisted by the future prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, who interrupted his studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to become the military leader of the first special forces unit of the IDF: the elite Unit 101. This policy of reprisals was a major source of internal dispute between hawks, led by David Ben-Gurion, and doves, led by his successor for a short time, Moshe Sharett. It sometimes led to strong external criticism from the United Nations and even Israel's supporters.

The Gaza raid on February 28, 1955 marked yet another turning point in relations between the two enemies. In retaliation Egypt began to sponsor official Fedayeen and commando raids on Israel, sometimes through the territory of Jordan, which also officially opposed these raids, while still publicly discouraging Palestinian infiltration. There were secret talks, through various intermediaries and methods, between Egypt and Israel, but the escalating tensions between the IDF and the Fedayeen put an end to them.

Throughout 1956, tensions increased between Israel and Egypt, with Egyptian fedayeen launching frequent incursions into Israeli territory and Israel launching retaliatory raids into Egyptian territory.

Egyptian sponsorship for the Fedayeen resulted from Israeli raids into Egyptian territory. Even though Egypt occupied Gaza, as the US is learning in Iraq, it's extremely hard for most occupying armies to effectively control populations under their charge and to properly secure borders.

As to your comment about the 1967 war, did I not just also post about Jordan's experience with Israel's "word" that they wouldn't attack. All of that happened before 1967.

And then there is the little matter of Israel's intentions for starting the attack, from Moshe Dayan (Defense Minister during the Six-Day War):

According to the published notes, Mr. Tal began to remonstrate, "But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and . . . "

General Dayan interrupted: "Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was."

General Dayan's resistance to storming the Golan Heights in the first days of the 1967 war is established history, as is his abrupt change of mind on June 9, the fourth day of the war, when he called the northern commander directly -- bypassing the Chief of Staff, Yitzhak Rabin, and the Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol -- and ordered him to go to war against Syria.

The common wisdom is that General Dayan was wary of stretching military resources until the wars with Egypt and Jordan were settled and that he feared provoking the Soviet Union by an attack on its main client-state, and that the uncertain offensive would cost many lives. The swift victories over Egypt and Jordan then changed his mind.

But in the conversations with Mr. Tal, General Dayan raised another consideration. "What he told me, what is quoted in the conversation, is that he understood even in time of war that we would be compelled to return most of the territories that we won if we wanted peace with the Arabs," Mr. Tal said. In the Golan Heights, General Dayan anticipated that Israeli farmers would waste no time settling on the fertile land, making it difficult to withdraw.

General Dayan said in his conversations with Mr. Tal that the kibbutz leaders who had urgently demanded that Israel take the Golan Heights had done so largely for the land.

"The kibbutzim there saw land that was good for agriculture," he said. "And you must remember, this was a time in which agricultural land was considered the most important and valuable thing."

I can't post the Lexis link because it will ask for a password, but here's the information for the article:
The New York Times
May 11, 1997, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
"General's Words Shed a New Light on the Golan"
By SERGE SCHMEMANN
DATELINE: JERUSALEM, May 9

I can see this turning into nothing more than a, "he said, she said, argument"........"What came first, the chicken or the egg"?? and could go on all night.

All I will say is, it is very funny how KNOWN, historically agressive, radical nations surround little ole Israel, and all of them FUCK with Israel time and time again....( remember Iraq lobbing scuds into Israel in 91?) yet all these nations feel scared to be around them.PAAALLLLLEEEAAASSSSSEEEEE!!!.

DO you know why Iraq launched scuds int oIsrael during a war that had nothing to with Israel??? Because, Iraq knew, if Israel retaliated to this unprovoked attack, all the Muslims nations, who are constantly chomping at the bit to attack Israel, would finally have a reason to do so. Spare me your notion that Israel is the one to be afraid of in the region.

lowing wrote:

I can see this turning into nothing more than a, "he said, she said, argument"........"What came first, the chicken or the egg"?? and could go on all night.

All I will say is, it is very funny how KNOWN, historically agressive, radical nations surround little ole Israel, and all of them FUCK with Israel time and time again....( remember Iraq lobbing scuds into Israel in 91?) yet all these nations feel scared to be around them.PAAALLLLLEEEAAASSSSSEEEEE!!!.

DO you know why Iraq launched scuds int oIsrael during a war that had nothing to with Israel??? Because, Iraq knew, if Israel retaliated to this unprovoked attack, all the Muslims nations, who are constantly chomping at the bit to attack Israel, would finally have a reason to do so. Spare me your notion that Israel is the one to be afraid of in the region.

I've provided you with statements by the Israeli leadership that contradict the whole "poor us" talk that the Israelis usually use to justify their actions (not exactly he said she said) and examples of Israel going back on its word prior to 1967 (particularly to Jordan which you have conveniently ignored).

You still haven't answered my pretext question. I didn't ask if the US should attack Israel, but rather if disregarding UN resolutions is enough pretext for military action. It's a simple Yes or No question.

What is your answer, Yes or No?

Masques wrote:

lowing wrote:

I can see this turning into nothing more than a, "he said, she said, argument"........"What came first, the chicken or the egg"?? and could go on all night.

All I will say is, it is very funny how KNOWN, historically agressive, radical nations surround little ole Israel, and all of them FUCK with Israel time and time again....( remember Iraq lobbing scuds into Israel in 91?) yet all these nations feel scared to be around them.PAAALLLLLEEEAAASSSSSEEEEE!!!.

DO you know why Iraq launched scuds int oIsrael during a war that had nothing to with Israel??? Because, Iraq knew, if Israel retaliated to this unprovoked attack, all the Muslims nations, who are constantly chomping at the bit to attack Israel, would finally have a reason to do so. Spare me your notion that Israel is the one to be afraid of in the region.

I've provided you with statements by the Israeli leadership that contradict the whole "poor us" talk that the Israelis usually use to justify their actions (not exactly he said she said) and examples of Israel going back on its word prior to 1967 (particularly to Jordan which you have conveniently ignored).

You still haven't answered my pretext question. I didn't ask if the US should attack Israel, but rather if disregarding UN resolutions is enough pretext for military action. It's a simple Yes or No question.

What is your answer, Yes or No?

I answered it.........Given the same conditions that reignited the Gulf War.....YES............other than that NO



as far as Jordan goes...............still the 6 days war....

Six-Day War

The Six-Day War (Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים, Milhemet Sheshet Ha‑Yamim; Arabic: حرب الأيام الستة, ħarb al‑ayam as‑sita), also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Third Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, an‑Naksah (The Setback), or the June War, was fought between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. When Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, and blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent attack by Egypt.[1]

JORDAN IN TURN ATTACKED THE ISRAELI CITIES OF JERUSALEM AND NETANYA.[2][3]

At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.

Fuck Jordan

Masques wrote:

lowing wrote:

Masques wrote:

lowing wrote:

First of all. The resolution for Iraq, was a PEACE TREATY......A CEASE FIRE...FROM WAR.

Several other countries, including Israel, has disobeyed UN resolutions....We did not go to war with them.

IRAQ was under a cease fire from war.......there is your difference.

You are trying to play word games.....You are CAREFULLY choosing your words to try and manuver me into a corner. I will not let you do that

COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES.......GIVEN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES THAT UNFOLDED WITH IRAQ< I WOULD CONDONE GOING TO ISRAEL.....THAT SHOULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION

There was no "peace" resolution. Bush called a cease fire on 27 Feb. 1991. There was a resolution that called for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait that was used as the basis for military action, but no resolution that created a peace. The closest is resolution 686 which basically calls upon Iraq to notify the coalition of minefields and other battlefield hazards and to provide limited humanitarian aid to Iraqis in distress.

Resolution 687 requires Iraq and Kuwait to recognize the int'l boundary, establishes a monitoring force on the border, and calls for Iraq to disarm. No peace treaty and, as we have already established, states disregard UN resolutions at will.

Apparently you haven't been careful enough with your words. Now that we have established that none of the resolutions actually established the ceasefire and that the terms of which didn't include Iraq's disarming, my question still stands, should flaunting of UN resolutions be an acceptable pretext for military action?

To quote you: "locking out the UN inspectors was in violation of the UN peact treaty , he had been fucking around like that for 10 years....It was enough....the end."

Apparently you don't remember that inspectors returned to Iraq in 2002 and found zip and btw, inspectors weren't kicked out, they were withdrawn at the behest of the US:

In 1998 the UNSCOM weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. They were not expelled from the country by Iraq as has often been reported (and as George W. Bush alleged in his infamous "axis of evil" speech). Rather, according to Butler himself in his book Saddam Defiant (2000), it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British airstrikes which eventually took place from December 16-December 19, 1998.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 was adopted at the 2981st meeting on 3 April 1991, to declare a formal cease-fire at the end of the Gulf War and impose peace terms on Iraq. It also demanded the removal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It was passed by 12 votes to one (Cuba) with two abstentions (Ecuador and Yemen).

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0707.htm


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m … i_10977797

Hostilities ended when Bush called the ceasefire. This resolution was drawn up over a month later and once again (I'm not going to relent on this point), given that other states routinely disregard UN resolutions, there is nothing that compels Iraq to comply. If you're only willing to selectively enforce resolutions then there is no incentive for any state to comply.

There are no other countries that ( per the UN ) held a "GRAVE" threat to world peace that agreed to disarm and did not, and yes the UN beleived Iraq was still in possession WMD's, contrary to popular belief.

"Coalition peace terms were agreed to by Iraq, but every effort was made by the Iraqis to frustrate implementation of the terms, particularly UN weapons inspections."

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0838511.html

short and simple.

lowing wrote:

There are no other countries that ( per the UN ) held a "GRAVE" threat to world peace that agreed to disarm and did not, and yes the UN beleived Iraq was still in possession WMD's, contrary to popular belief.

"Coalition peace terms were agreed to by Iraq, but every effort was made by the Iraqis to frustrate implementation of the terms, particularly UN weapons inspections."

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0838511.html

short and simple.

UNSC Resolution 242, 22 Mar. 1979

3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;

UNSC resolution 228, 31, Dec. 1968

Having heard the statements of the representative of Lebanon and of the representative of Israel concerning the grave attack committed against the civil International Airport of Beirut,

Observing that the military action by the armed forces of Israel against the civil International Airport of Beirut was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned nature,

Gravely concerned about the deteriorating situation resulting from this violation of the Security Council resolutions,

Deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation resulting from this violation of the Security Council resolutions,

Deeply concerned about the need to assure free uninterrupted international civil air traffic,

1. Condemns Israel for its premeditated military action in violation of its obligations under the Charter and the cease-fire resolutions;

2. Considers that such premeditated acts of violence endanger the maintenance of the peace;

There are a host of other defied resolutions and ceasefire terms...you know you would be better off if you would just admit that in your opinion anything Israel does is justified by virtue of it being Israel. That seems to be the thrust of your argument when confronted with evidence that Israel has acted in several situations exactly as Iraq, the only difference is the targets are Arab.

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ty wrote:

This is pretty much the "IRAQ HAS WMDS" crowd saying "Told you so" when they have just proven that they did in fact NOT have weapons of Mass destruction.

All that article tells me is that the "Where are, (grammar, please,) the WMDs" crowd was right.

another repost: Since it is ignored by you guys it must be pretty good. The following is an analogy that describes that it was about.

If you have been doing drugs, and you get grounded for that by your parents, and they only way you can get realeased to go play outside is to allow your parents full access to your bedroom so they can go through your stuff. Now, all of a sudden, you refuse to let your parents into your room, for weeks you refuse, then you let them in once, but they are not allowed to look in the second drawer down on your dresser. When they insist that they have full access to your dresser, you kick them out of your room. A month later you say they can now come back in and look in your dresser all they want, but, you do not allow them access to your closet. When they insist, you kick them out of your room again. A month later you say they can come back and inspect your closet now, but when they go to look under your bed you refuse to let them amd you throw them out of your room. After about 10 months of these games, they finally say enough, they re-ground you and THEN TAKE full access to your room, just like you agreed on in the first place. What do they find??.....roach clips, papers, books on drugs. EVERYTHING you need to actually roll your your own joints, just no joints. Ya think you have your parents convinced that you were not doing drugs???? 1 + 1 = 2

hope that helps

You're missing the point. If your hypothesis is correct then we should have found some concrete evidence ('a smoking gun', some call it) that Iraq was developing nuclear arms after 1991. We haven't.

funny you use the term "smoking gun"...I know it is long....but please read this interview.


http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=27523



The Iraqis had stopped the third group of our inspection team before it
could close off the back of the installation. A few minutes later, a
soldier came from inside the installation, and all the other guards gathered
around him. He said something, there was a big laugh, and all the guards
relaxed. A few moments later there was a radio call from the team that had
been stopped short. They could here truck engines through the tall (10")
grass in that area. When we were finally allowed in, our team went to the
back gate. The Iraqis claimed the gate hadn't been opened in months, but
there was freshly ground rust at the gate hinges. There was a photo from
overhead showing tractor trailers with missiles in the trailers leaving the
facility.

When pressed, Tariq Aziz criticized the inspectors for not knowing the
difference between a missile and a concrete guard tower. He never produced
the guard towers for verification. It was during this period that Tariq
Aziz pulled out his "no smoking gun" line. Tariq very cleverly changed the
meaning of this phrase. The smoking gun refers to an indicator of what you
are really looking for - the bullet. Tariq changed the meaning so smoking
gun referred to the bullet, in this case the WMD, knowing that as long as
there were armed guards between us and the weapons, we would never be able
to "find," as in "put our hands on," the weapons of mass destruction. The
western press mindlessly took this up and became the Iraqis' tool. I will
let the reader decide whether this inspection constitutes a smoking gun.

FP: So can you tell us about some other "smoking guns"?

Tierney: Sure. Another smoking gun was the inspection of the 2nd Infantry
Battalion of the Special Republican Guards. After verifying source
information related to biological weapons formerly stored at the National
War College, we learned at another site that the unit responsible for
guarding the biological weapons was stationed near the airport. We
immediately dashed over there before the Iraqis could react, and forced them
to lock us out. One of our vehicles took an elevated position where they
could look inside the installation and see the Iraqis loading specialized
containers on to trucks that matched the source description for the
biological weapons containers. The Iraqis claimed that we had inspected the
facilities a year earlier, so we didn't need to inspect it again.

Another smoking gun was the inspection of Jabal Makhul Presidential Site.
In June/July 1997 we inspected the 4th Special Republican Guards Battalion
in Bayji, north of Tikrit. This unit had been photographed taking equipment
for the Electro-magnetic Isotope Separation (EMIS) method of uranium
enrichment away from inspectors. The Iraqis were extremely nervous as this
site, and hid any information on personnel who may have been involved with
moving the equipment. This was also the site where the Iraqi official on
the UNSCOM helicopter tried to grab the control and almost made the aircraft
crash.

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

There were NO WMD ok?

one reason Iraq was invaded was the Oil : -

Here Bush admits the US is in Iraq for oil

Funny...if it was the oil then why did gas prices goto over $3.00/gallon?  Why haven't we taken over their oil fields with our troops and produce the oil for ourselves? 

The only part of that is true is the part about not letting the oil get into the hands of terrorists.  Imagine an Afganistan, pre-9/11, with the oil riches of Iraq?

Last edited by Harmor (2006-11-07 05:24:13)

Spark wrote:

Too bad it came many, many months after the admin. ADMITTED there was little evidence of WMDs. (note the choice of words)

Also I think this is a bit old news, I saw this several days ago in the local paper. In any case that doesn't prove very much - saying 'I know how to build a bomb' or 'I have a manual for building a bomb' is very different from saying 'I have a bomb'.

except for the fact that according to the surrender agreement he wasn't supposed to have anything regarding the manufacture of said weapons, not just the weapons themselves, not the manuals, tech, parts, or even employment of techies

Harmor wrote:

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

There were NO WMD ok?

one reason Iraq was invaded was the Oil : -

Here Bush admits the US is in Iraq for oil

Funny...if it was the oil then why did gas prices goto over $3.00/gallon?  Why haven't we taken over their oil fields with our troops and produce the oil for ourselves? 

The only part of that is true is the part about not letting the oil get into the hands of terrorists.  Imagine an Afganistan, pre-9/11, with the oil riches of Iraq?

Gas prices have nothing to do with the amount of oil avaliable. Gas prices are set by the companies, who monopolize and set high prices for large profits. It's called corruption, and it's the reality of oil.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Hell man you have to atleast admit, they had 4 years to move a hell of alot of crap now didnt they. 4 years worth? Now by my guess, with Bill in office, and really not giving a crap about saddam all that much, saddam could have moved half the country right from under our and the UN's noses. I mean really. These books everyone keeps referring to. Every one is Bias and slanted, Every person that writes a book has there own facts that can be countered with someone elses facts from another book. Its no wonder were in the state were in.

In a study conducted recently,(and this would explain why people have the mind set they do in the US and Abroad), It found that since the early 80,s the major news Networks and publications around the world were found to be Liberal and here in the states(left or far left). by a whopping 81%. They Always favor and report the Liberal point of the stories and barely counter with anything favoralble from the right. So what does that leave the right? 19% of news to get out thats Not Slanted left? No wonder people think the way they do.

In 2004, major networks admitted that the right deserve to be treated harshly, and that all major news should lean towards the left when reporting there stories. This was admitted on CNN lastnight, also on a Fox interview with Mrs. Chaney  that this was also brought up in her interview with Wolf Blitzer, who admittedly agrees with this style of reporting.

So you tell me How its fair?  You wont see crap about Any WMD's or anything else for that matter unless it comes from FOX, And you know, Most people Discount them as Bias. LOL give me a break.

Media bias is not really relevant to this discussion.

As to your point about moving weapons. Iraq was under heavy surveillance and nearly constant bombing in the northern and southern no-fly zones for the better part of 12 years and you really believe that an entire nuclear weapons program could have been moved elsewhere?

But I guess that's all irrelevant now that the White House has posted nuclear documents on the web (in Arabic no less!)

Turquoise wrote:

I figured North Korea has broken at least a dozen, considering their nuclear proliferation.  Perhaps, someone else can verify this?....  *shrugs*

They aren't signatories to the NNPT.