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.
Politics : Moderate Forum

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brumar89 who wrote (6152)1/25/2004 1:32:36 PM
From: cosmicforce  Read Replies (1) of 20773
 
I really didn't expect the loyal opposition to agree, but it is logical. It still may be wrong. However, if the Israelis felt for any reason their nuclear edge had been compromised I have not a bit of doubt based upon their recent and historical behavior that they'd do whatever was required to mitigate it. I classify any official government ruling on the matter as being as highly tainted by political and diplomatic expediency.

Consider Israel's recent incursion into Lebanon in which they reluctantly admitted it only when the sheer evidence showed they HAD crossed the border by "several yards" (their words) when their tanks were attacked. I wouldn't believe anything that they said at face value.

Note how I described the possible attack, though: first conventional, secondarily with borrowed nukes. The Israelis are a paranoid bunch and they felt very isolated with MIGs flying around them from all sides. Egypt was crawling with Soviets and their military hardware all throughout the 60's and 70's. I'm not sure what intelligence we had about Russian warhead deployment but if it is as good as the WMD's evidence, then we didn't know poop about what the Soviets deployed abroad. Because they were a paranoid lot (rightly so in most cases, considering who they allied themselves with), I'd agree that their guys held any codes, but I'm not an Israeli.

What Begin did later only reflected the changes that were in place due to Sadat replacing his more hostile (and bellicose Soviet-aligned) predecessor, not to mention assurances (and BILLIONS in aid) given by the U.S. as an honest broker. I was asked for a reason - and I admit it is strictly speculation, but anyone who thinks Israel is our "friend" in the sense that most people use the term is sadly mistaken. Are they better than Saddam? Yes. Would the Middle East be more stable without them? Maybe, but there is also a reason that the "shores of Tripoli" is in the Marine Anthem. This whole region has been a tribal cesspool for most of historical memory for the U.S. My recommendation is that we start the long process of removing our dependency upon the area.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext