Member Profile

Total number of comments: 39 (since 2013-11-28 15:54:42)


Showing comments 39 - 1

  • Top Ten Ways in which it was Actually the Israeli Gov't that Derailed the Peace Talks
    • That last question mark is very telling.

      After all, what **is** so horrific about Abbas signing the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, or the Convention on Consular Relations, or the Convention on the Treatment of Women?

      None of them is in the slightest way a "threat" to Israel, nor do any of them seek in any way to "change the status of the territory" that is supposed to be negotiated.

      After all, Abbas can sign all of those treaties and the West Bank will **still** be "Israeli occupied Palestinian territory", which was their status the day before signing those treaties, and will be their status the day after those treaties are signed.

      It is a telling outburst from Netanyahu, because it indicates that his objection is to the very idea of "Palestinian statehood".

      Abbas wants to show that Israel has No Intention Of Ever Allowing A Palestinian State, and Netanyahu's response to these innocuous moves simply proves that point.

  • US: Stop Blocking Palestinian Rights! (HRW)
    • A question: amongst amongst those 15 treaties is there a single example of a treaty that the USA and/or Israel hasn't also signed?

      If not then it is beyond hypocrisy for the USA and/or Israel to "punish" the Palestinians for deciding that it's a good idea for Palestine to sign those treaties, seein' as how the USA and/or Israel had previously made the decision that it was a good idea to sign those same treaties.

      What better example of the dictum: Do as I say, not as I do!

  • Palestine's Abbas finally says will Go to UN over Israeli Squatters
    • Joseph: "Has it mattered how Palestine has viewed its status?"

      Not during this farcical "US-mediated peace process", no.

      But that's the entire *point* of these endless negotiations i.e. by having the USA "mediate" in this dispute it is able to constrain the talks to a strictly "political" level, without allowing any discussion of the actual "legal" entitlements of the two sides.

      Joseph: "What matters is how international law and hence the international community views its status. "

      And I agree, and the only way that the PLO can frame the conflict in those terms is to kiss off this entire "US-mediated peace process", whose main purpose is to sideline any talk of int'l law.

      The USA must decry the very concept of int'l law as being "unhelpful", and the only way it can do that is to "own" this "peace process" and, therefore, to claim the right to set the agenda.

      Joseph: "BDS sanctions will become much more effective once Palestine is internationally recognized as a state"

      It is already internationally recognized as a state.
      Indeed, it would be interesting to count up how many countries recognize "the state of Palestine" and compare it to the number of countries that recognize "the state of Israel".

      There wouldn't be very much in it.....

    • Just to point out that there is a fundamental disconnect between how the Israelis view these negotiations, and how the Palestinians view it.

      The Palestinians insist that they are ALREADY a state. That part of it is A Done Deal and, furthermore, that is something that Israel (who has only ever been the "occupying power", it has never been the "sovereign power") has no say in.

      So for the Palestinians the negotiations are being held between two states: one who is "occupying", and the other which is "occupied", and the negotiations are entirely about what amount of extortion the state of Israel can strong-arm out of the state of Palestine as the "price" to be paid for ending this endless occupation.

      Israel sees it very differently: it insists that there is no such thing as the "state of Palestine" and, furthermore, Israel's permission must be obtained before such a state can come into being.

      So for the Israelis the negotiations are between an "overlord" and his "vassals", and what is being negotiated over is the price those vassals must pay their liege lord before he will magnanimously grant them freedom from their serfdom.

      Israel is, axiomatically, quite wrong: even if Palestine **ISN'T** a state then it still remains true that the Palestinians don't need Israel's "permission" to become a state.

      Israel simply **isn't** their sovereign - and never was - and therefore Israel's "permission" isn't needed.

      Israel has to agree to end the occupation - it is the occupying power, after all - but it does not possess the authority to deny them statehood, precisely because Israel Is Not Their Sovereign.

  • Pace Sheldon Adelson: Top 5 Signs West Bank is Occupied Territory
    • Ahh, here it is: google up UN Security Council document S/766 of 22 May 1948.

      The question was: "Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?"

      The answer was: "Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias. In addition, planes of the Royal Egyptian Air Force have repeatedly raided Tel Aviv and southern Jewish settlements"

      Not much of an "invasion" of Israel, is it?

      Basically, those dastardly Egyptian soldiers were using the Negev desert as a way of "cutting corners", and some Jordanian forces were toolin' around south of Lake Tiberias and - somehow, and it's not explained how - that's meant to represent an attempt to Throw The Jews Into The Sea..

      Apparently their heart just wasn't into it.

    • "That was what is known in military parlance as a “pre-emptive strike.” "

      No, quite untrue.

      A "pre-emptive strike" (or "anticipatory self-defence") has to fulfil the requirements set out in The Caroline Case, and there is no way that the military situation in early June 1967 fulfilled even one of those criteria.

      The Egyptian planes were lined up on the runway: they weren't being prepped to attack anyone.
      The Egyptian soldiers were dug into their foxholes in the Sinai Desert: they weren't being positioned to launch themselves at anyone.

      Regardless of how furiously Nasser was rattling his sabre this still remained true: there was **no** Egyptian attack being "imminently prepared" against Israel. None whatsoever.

      Therefore there was **no** justification for a "pre-emptive strike", precisely because there was no enemy attack to "pre-empt".

      Israel attack Egypt in June 1967 for the same reason that Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in December 1941 i.e. because they could, and because they knew that if they did then they'd wipe the floor with their opponents.

      "He had already closed the Straits of Tiran, closing off access to Israel’s southern port of Eilat."

      Hmmm, had he now? Remind me again of the name of the ships that were "prevented" from reaching Eilat..

      Because here's something you don't know, but Nasser did: he announced that Egypt would not allow any ISRAELI FLAGGED ships from making passage through the Straits of Tiran (Egyptian territorial waters, btw), safe in the certain knowledge that there WERE NO ISRAELI FLAGGED SHIPS plying that trade.

      There was, indeed, nothing to "block".
      Any other ship could - and did - sail right up that passage and into Eilat.

      Indeed, a week into the "blockade" and Egyptian naval ships weren't even inspecting the ships as they sailed past; they'd gotten bored of the pretence.

      Didn't you know that?

    • "Under UNSCR 181, adopted November 29, 1947, the former British Mandate was to be divided between two states, one Arab and one Jewish"

      Correct. Well Done!

      "The portion of the former Mandate which was to become the Arab state was invaded by those 5 armies,"

      Errr, nooooo, because they were asked by the leaders of that "Arab state" to come to their assistance in the face of ongoing aggression from the Haganah.

      That's perfectly legal under the doctrine of "collective self-defence".

      ", as well as the part that was to become Israel. "

      Noooooo, actually. The UNSC sent a letter to the Israeli provisional govt just a week into that war, and one of the questions they asked was, simply put: what part of your state is being "invaded"?

      The answer: errrr, well, ummm, some Egyptian planes have bombed Tel Aviv and, ummmm, errrr, we *think* some Egyptian troops have cut corners in the Negev so they could link up with the Jordanian Army. But we can't be sure.

      I can give you a copy of that letter, if you want it.

      It makes very interesting reading indeed regarding Who was invading Whom.

      "At that time, the Arab League had no intent to create the Palestinian state, but rather to divide all of the former British Mandate among themselves."

      True of Jordan, but not true of the other four.

      Egypt didn't even want to join the fight, and had to be taunted into it.

      Syria sent a token effort (5,000 troops in the beginning, and never more than 10,000 at any one time), while Lebanon and Iraq were hardly in it at all.

      Only Jordan was in the "carve-up" business, mainly because King Abdullah had cut a deal pre-war with Golda Meir.

      But you knew that, right?

      "If Egypt and Jordan were interested in Palestinian self-determination, they could have established the Palestinian state anytime between 1949 and 1967."

      True enough, but please explain to me how that invalidates the Palestinian's right to self-determination, or extinguishes any rights granted to them by UNGAR 181?

      Because I'd suggest it doesn't, precisely because neither Egypt nor Jordan were Sovereign Powers anywhere west of the River Jordan.

      "At that time, Israel also recognized a right to Palestinian statehood, "

      No, they didn't. All that Israel "recognized" was the right of the PLO to represent the "Palestinian people" in final status negotiations.

      But Israel definitely did **not** recognize "a right to Palestinian statehood".

      Not in 1993, not now, not ever.

      They are willing to *discuss* the possibility of a Palestinian state, but they do not recognize that such a state has a *right* to exist.

    • Mike: "1967 and 1973"

      Israel attacked the neighbouring Arab states in 1967, Mike.

      They started that war with a sneak attack on the Egyptian airforce (who were doing nothing more than sitting out in the open on their airfields) and then immediately followed that up with an armoured blitzkrieg against Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai (who were doing nothing more than hunkering down in foxholes).

      At no time had those Egyptian planes been ordered to attack Israel, and at no time had those Egyptian soldiers been ordered out of their foxholes and told to advance into Israel.

      Israel. Attacked. Them. They. Did. Not. Attack. Israel.

      And as for the events of 1973, ahem, you might want to look at who's territory the fighting took place i.e. in the South those Egyptian forces were fighting to retake.... Egyptian territory. And in the North those Syrian soldiers were fighting to retake.... Syrian territory.

      Fancy that: soldiers fighting to reclaim territory from a foreign army of occupation that had seized that territory at the point of a gun and was absolutely, positively, come-and-make-me-if-you-dare refusing to withdraw.

      Oh, the horror! The horror!

    • Mike, in May 1948 the expeditionary armies of five - count 'em, 5- Arab armies advanced into the territory that had been allocated to .... the "Arab state".

      They did not advance into the territory that had been allocated to.... the "Jewish state".

      Q: Why did they advance into the territory that had been allocated to the "Arab state"?
      A: Because that's where the armed forces of the "Jewish state" were.

      Q: And why were the armed forces of the "Jewish state" deep inside the territory of the "Arab state".
      A: Well, they weren't lost, if that's what you mean.

      Q: So what was the Haganah doing there?
      A: Invading that "Arab state".

    • The simplest retort to the argument that the West Bank isn't occupied is this: each and every "law" that Israel passes in the West Bank is promulgated by means of an IDF Military Order issued in the name of the IDF commander in the West Bank.

      Ariel wants a University?

      OK, sure, but that decision isn't gazetted by the Israeli Minister for Education.

      No, that decision is made via a Military Order issued by the IDF Commander, who does so because he has been instructed to issue it by the Israeli Minister of Defence.

      Every decision - every single one, no matter how trivial - is carried out because the IDF Commander issues a Military Order that makes it happen.

      Every. Single. Decision.

      There's a name for such a system: a "belligerent occupation".

  • The Shame of American Politics: GOP Presidential Hopefuls now Trek to Las Vegas seeking Adelson Blessing
    • "The unsaid premise here and in all broadsides against campaign finance is that voters are stupid"

      No, not "stupid", just "deprived of choice".

      After all, three - count 'em, three - front-running republican candidates for President all went to Las Vegas and essentially indulged in a pitching session for the dubious affections of a right-wing billionaire who mind just Isn't All There.

      So when it comes time for the registered Republican voter to start pickin' 'n' choosin' in those primaries then what sort of candidate will they have to pick from?

      Well, there's the fat guy who mouths right-wing kookiness.
      Or there's the skinny guy who does likewise.
      Or there's That Other Guy who sounds just like the first two.

      They are all of 'em fully paid up mouthpieces of that ultra-whacky billionaire who has paid for them to get to those primaries, and Those Are The Only Choices The Voting Public Have To Choose From.

  • Obama to Netanyahu: Israel faces Int'l Sanctions over "Permanent Occupation of West Bank"
    • That view is far too egocentric.

      Obama isn't signalling that the USA will impose sanctions upon Israel.

      He is signalling that Everyone Else will impose those sanctions, and when they do he will neither be willing nor able to lift a finger to prevent that outcome.

      This about it: the EU alone accounts for 1/3 of all Israeli trade, while Israel accounts for less than 1% of all EU trade.

      So the EU could decide to sanction Israel, and doing that **would** crash the Israeli economy, without imposing the slightest hardship on Europe.

      Only the USA has the clout to browbeat the EU to prevent that scenario, and what Obama is saying is that he couldn't be bothered even trying.

      And, really, why should he? It's not as if Israel is doing anything to help....

  • Now Peace Talks, John Kerry, are "Anti-Semitic" in Eyes of Israeli Far Right
    • Barkley, if it is "on his father's side" then as far as Israel is concerned he isn't "half-Jewish", he is in fact "a goy".

  • US seeks Broad Powers, Immunity for post-2014 Troops in Afghanistan (Lazare)
    • From a legal perspective the situation is this: a belligerent occupation begins when an army of occupation establishes its "authority" over a territory.

      And there is no question - none whatsoever - that the US Army established its authority over Afghanistan post-9/11.

      So the only real question is whether (or not) the SOFA amounts to the US Army (i.e. the "occupying power") relinquishing its authority over this territory.

      The proposed SOFA says that US troops (and its mercenaries) are not answerable to Afghani civil authority.

      Or, put another way: the Afghani government CAN'T tell those US Forces to cease and desist from storming into houses and taking people into custody.

      That means that the Afghani government DOESN'T have "authority" over those US troops, while those troops will continue to have "authority" over Afghani civilians, all of whom they can arrest for whatever reason takes their fancy.

      Occupation, plain as day.

  • Take that, France: Iran has Halted Expansion of Nuclear Facilities: IAEA
    • "Luckily, France is demanding that this plant be disabled."

      No, not in the interim agreement.

      The deal that the USA found acceptable was that the Iranians continue construction work but NOT introduce any fissile material until the final deal is done.

      The deal that France insists upon is that the Iranians cease all construction work on Arak until the final deal determines its fate.

      But France isn't demanding that the plant be "disabled", merely that work on it be "frozen".

    • .."but Fabius decided to go ahead in order to score political points with those who want to keep Iran locked in a box"...

      Or to score political points with Some Certain Countries who are waving around $billion weapons orders.

      After all, how many Rafale jet fighters has Dassault managed to sell into overseas markets?

      Ans: Nowhere near enough, but I suspect that's about to change.

  • Is the White House Right that More Iran Sanctions put US on "Path to War?"
    • "If we remove the threat and reality of sanctions what negotiating chips do we have to make sure Iran only enriches fuel for civilian purposes and has only a breakout capacity."

      The offer to remove the sanctions is the only bargaining chip you need and - let's face it - the whole point of that chip is to play it.

      If the USA puts that offer on the table in return for the Iranians signing the Additional Protocols and agreeing with the much, much stricter inspection regime that goes with that AP, then the Iranians will agree to it in a second.

      Heck, they'd knock Kerry over in their rush to sign it.

    • "I don’t understand."

      Carney's comments are disingenuous.

      The power to wage war (as opposed to declaring war) lies with the Executive, not with the Congress.

      No matter how much the hawks push and push and push, if the President won't go to war then the USA can't "march to war".

    • "they could act as a counterweight to the Saudi controlled OPEC"

      Well, it may be the Saudi King's lips that are moving, but w.r.t. OPEC the strings are very tightly held in Obama's hands.

      OPEC caused trouble in the 1970s. It was brought to heel in the 1980s, and brought totally under US control in the 1990s.

  • Will Avigdor Lieberman's return as Israeli Foreign Minister scupper Talks with Palestinians?
    • Likud is far-right.

      Habayit Hayeudi is wacky-way-out-right.

      It is a matter of degrees, but on the main point Cole is correct i.e. both Likud and HH are so far out to the right that they can't even **see** the centre from where they are standing.

      It's just that HH is so far to the right of the far-right Likud that they can barely see even Netanyahu from where they are standing.

  • Top Reasons Israel's Likud Really Opposes an Iran Nuclear Deal
    • Nathan, the danger to Israel in launching an attack on Iran *after* a deal is struck isn't a military one.

      Nobody (except Iran, of course) will go to war with Israel because Netanyahu had launched such an attack.

      The danger is that such an Israeli attack can not be construed as anything other than a military attack upon a USA national security policy.

      What would each of the P5+1 conclude from that?

      Answer: they would all conclude that Israel is barking-mad, utterly, completely, rabid-dog-out-of-control.

      The USA would have no choice but to regard Israel as "going rogue", and the last middle east leader who went rogue on the USA was Saddam Hussein in 1991.

      Food. For. Thought.

  • Top Ten Ways the US and Iran could avoid a Catastrophic War
    • You have Iran giving up enriching to 20% for the TRR, but there is nothing that I can see in your list of quid-pro-quos that would make up that shortfall.

      So, question: is that an oversight, or are you suggesting that Iran should accept that cancer-treatment in Iran should grind to a halt?

  • Former Iranian President Slams Syria for Gassing own People: Sign of deep Divisions in Tehran
    • To be fair, Dale Gavlak isn't "on the spot".

      He is repeating the reports that are being sent to him by his stringer, Yahya Ababneh, who is in Ghouta.

      There is nothing unusual or even sinister about that, but you should at least note the correct sequence of events i.e. Yahya Ababneh is in Ghouta, and he is collecting evidence that he relays to Dale Gavlak in Jordan(?) or Lebanon(?).

    • JC: "the rebels gassed themselves, though this conclusion is absurd on the face of it and contradicted by French, British, US and Israeli intelligence, including telephone intercepts that make it clear that the Syrian military deployed the gas"

      Why would a false-flag operation by foreign jihadists against Syrian civilians be "absurd"?

      After all, if you are a foreign jihadist then those aren't your civilians, so why would you care how you killed 'em.

      And in what way, exactly, has French, UK, US or Israeli intelligence assessments "contradicted" that argument other than to various ways to say "trust us, we know he did it"?

      Why are those assessments any the less absurd, when it is demonstrably true that recent history has proven that "you can trust us" is absurd when applied to those intelligence services?

      And, so sorry, in what way is guilt "clear" from a telephone intercept wherein
      (a) a (supposed) Syrian Ministry of Defence official (supposedly) demands an explanation about What Just Happened?
      (b) the reply that is given is nowhere recorded or otherwise noted?

      Half a conversation isn't "a conversation", it is "a monologue".

      You're smart enough to know that, so why keep pretending otherwise?

  • Obama goes to Congress on Syria as his International Support Collapses
    • Joe, the USA has gone to war several times in the Middle East since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991

      1991: Russia did not oppose Operation Desert Storm
      1998: Russia did oppose Operation Desert Fox
      2001: Russia did not oppose Operation Enduring Freedom
      2003: Russia did oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom
      2011: Russia did not oppose Operation Odyssey Dawn
      2013: Russia is opposed to this proposed Syrian smackdown

      So I think you are being waaaay too simplistic in claiming that Libya was an outlier.

      It wasn't.

      The Russians are perfectly capable of supporting (or at the least not opposing) the use of US military force *provided* that the USA can come up with a plausible reason why it is necessary for the USAF to go BANG!!!! on someone.

  • Rush to Western Strike on Syria slows, but does not Stall
    • Well, in all fairness the dude at Foreign Policy may not know that he was being lied to.

      His American source may have told him about that phone intercept, and the reporter may then have simply assumed that the USA intercepted it.

      He was in no position to know that the USA has hearing this second-hand from the Israelis, and it isn't likely that his spook-friend would have volunteered that particular bit o' information.

  • Kerry signals US Intervention in Syria, but to What End?
    • "The US and its Allies cannot stand idly by while yet another state flaunts the international norm against the use of chemical warfare"

      Why not, exactly?

      Even if this accusation is proven it still amounts to a CW attack during an armed insurrection i.e. during a civil war.

      The prohibition against CW during an international armed conflict would still be preserved, and from the PoV of an *outside* actor like "the USA and its Allies) then that is what really counts.

      After all, the British seriously considered poison gas against tribesmen in Mesopotamia in the 1920s, but when WW2 came around they didn't think of using poison gas against German or Italian troops.

    • What I am pointing out is that the party that *is* signalling its willingness to intervene in that war *isn't* the party that is making definitive statements regarding who was responsible for these attacks.

      It *is* making definitive statements that a CW attack was carried out, sure, but it *isn't* making definitive statements that Assad Is The Dude Who Did It.

      Yet that is the country that wants to pitch in. Odd, hey?

    • Not meaning to be rude, but why would anyone accept the notion that "bombardment of the site of chemical use likely destroyed the evidence"?

      If it is Sarin or VX or some other military-grade nerve agent then the weapon is in the form of an air-dispersed liquid. Why would "bombardment" destroy that in clothing or water supplies?

      Nerve agents aren't houses: you can't bomb 'em away.

    • JC: "I don’t find the ‘false flag’ narrative about the gas attack put forward by the Russians plausible."

      There are stories circulating that "Russia's ambassador in the UN Security Council, Vitaly Churkin, presented conclusive evidence - based on documents and Russian satellite images - of two rockets carrying toxic chemicals, fired from Douma, controlled by the Syrian "rebels", and landing on East Ghouta."

      The public comments of the Russians are very forthright in saying that the rebels are responsible.

      Not that it is "unclear" or that Who Done It is "unknowable".

      The Russians are saying - no beatin' around the bush, but flat-out saying - that the rebels were responsible.

      Compare and contrast with John Kerry, who says that there was a CW attack, but who doesn't actually come out and say that Assad was responsible, and who *is* saying that Who Done It is now "unknowable".

  • Top Ten Things that don't Make Sense about NSA Surveillance, Drones and al-Qaeda
    • It would appear that the terrorists have won the War on Terror, and the NSA has helped them to win it.

      Think about it: all that a terrorist has to do is to..... pick up the phone to their Terrorist Best Buddy and discuss this all-new odourless, invisible, untouchable, bomb that they are going to use to blow up a US embassy somewhere.


      Terrorists: *snicker* *chortle* *snicker*

      Virtual terrorism - costing nothing more than a local phone call - yet it has the effect of striking terror into the heart of this US Administration.

      From their point of view, can it get any easier than that?

  • On Eve of "Peace Talks," Israelis Subsidize their West Bank Colonies, build new Units
    • There was much talk before Livni and Erekat went to Washington that Kerry had extracted a promise from both sides that they would refrain from taking any provocative actions during the talks.

      The Palestinians would refrain from going to the UN and/or the ICC, and the Israelis would refrain from any new construction in the settlement.

      The Palestinians.... have said they will refrain from going to the UN.

      The Israelis.... have said they will keep building, f**k you and your mother for suggesting otherwise.

      Go figure, hey?

      The only question that remains is how Kerry will manage to blame the Palestinians for this, even though it is the Israelis who have just trashed that promise.

  • How the US Can Facilitate Peace in Syria: Talking to All Sides including Iran (Lawson)
    • The first paragraph posits this:
      "Kerry persuaded Russian President Vladimir V. Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov to join Washington in organizing an international conference to lay the foundation for a transitional government,"


      That conference was Kerry's idea, was it?

      And his trip to Moscow was conceived as his attempt to strong-arm the Russians into accepting it, correct?


      Because my understanding of this is exactly the opposite i.e. Kerry went to Moscow to get the Russians to agree to Assad's overthrow, and he left that room thoroughly mugged by reality.

      So much so that he had to agree to the RUSSIAN idea of a conference, one that the USA really didn't want to happen.

  • Syria Spirals down into Sectarian War (Cole at Truthdig)
    • Are you really so certain that it was the Shabiha that carried out those killings?

      For what purpose, exactly?

  • The N. Korea/ Iran Nuclear Connection Fraud
    • Debkafiles has attempted to keep this pot bubbling along with a fluff-piece that contains this claim:
      "In late April, Tehran shipped to Pyongyang a large quantity of uranium enriched to 20+ percent – apparently for use in the May test."

      Clearly the story is nonsense, because every report from the IAEA confirms that there has been no diversion of enriched uranium from either Natanz or Fordow, which are the only two places in Iran that this stuff could have come from.

      And if Iran has "secret" facilities to make "illicit" 20% uranium then is simply doesn't **need** to use North Korea, because (clearly) it can do what it wants on its own soil without the IAEA - or anyone else - being any the wiser.

  • Israel - Iran Military Comparison
    • "Under what conditions could Israeli/Iranian reservists, tanks or airplanes engage in combat?"

      Well, apart from the likelihood that the IDF would attempt to drive up to the Litani River to push Hezbollah missiles out of range of Tel Aviv....

      There are many other scenarios, though most involve special forces e.g. Israel could attempt to (temporarily) seize an abandoned Iraqi airbase to act as an emergency base for returning F-16s.

      Also, of course, in a long war the Iranians have a route to Israel's doorstep via Iraq -> Syria -> Lebanon, and the IDF might have to move up to cut that route off, or use its airpower to attack any such moves.

    • So if they weren't fussed about Israel having nukes then why, exactly, should they be fussed about Iran having nukes?

      After all, Egypt has never got itself involved in a war with Iran, but it's fought more than a few with Israel..

    • "Now, if you could demonstrate that Israel was not about to be attacked when it launched preemptive strikes, that would refute Glenn’s point"

      Well, heck, that's easy to demonstrate:

      1) When the IAF Mirages screamed out of the morning sky they found the Egyptian MIG-21s lined up alongside the tarmac. Few were in revetments. Even fewer had been dispersed. None were on alert.

      How odd.

      2) When the IDF tank commanders drove their tanks aross the Sinai Desert towards the Suez Canal they found that the Egyptian soldiers were well forward and dug in, and the tanks were located well to the rear.

      Q: What sort military doctrine is *that*?
      A: It is classic Soviet defensive deployment.

      Q: But why didn't the Syrians rush forward when they saw that the IDF was busy dealing with Egypt?
      A: They were also dug in, and the Syrians showed not the slightest interest in urging them up 'n' forward.

      Which is odd indeed, seeing as how the hasbarah had both Egypt and Syria straining at the leash to get at Israel.

  • Obama warns Israel against Iran Strike, Cancels Joint Military Exercises
    • Can I just point out that e.v.e.r.y.b.o.d.y. is making an unwarranted assumption i.e. they are all assuming that nobody will come to Iran's assistance.

      As in: the equation is always...
      1) Can Israel beat Iran, or
      2) will it need the USA to help beat Iran?

      What if Dempsey is conveying a very different message to Israel e.g. you might *start* a war with Iran, but end up in a war against Iran *and* Russia *and* China.

      After all, the Americans have made that same mistake before i.e. in 1950, when GI's were powering their way up towards the Yalu River in the safe "knowledge" that the Chinese would never intervene.

      Until, of course, the Chinese did intervene.

      If the USA has had any hints that this could happen again then they will be getting very cold feet, very fast.

Showing comments 39 - 1