Axis of Evil - Alive and Well - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-27-2005, 07:13 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
You are wrong the Arabs began the Six Day War by illegal closing the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping and pushing the removal of U.N. troops from the Siani peninsula, this was an act of war and Israel was justified under international law to take action. The Arab armies were poised to strike against Israel and were prepared to "drive the Jews into the sea".
Then why is this war called 6 day war?

If your assumption is right, the war would have started on 23rd of May, not on the 5th of June 1967, and would be called 3-week-war.

As to explain the situation - from wikipedia: On 23 May, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all shipments bound for Israel, thus blockading the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. Also, Nasser stated, "Under no circumstances can we permit the Israeli flag to pass through the Gulf of Aqaba." While most of Israel's commerce used Mediterranean ports, and, according to John Quigley, no Israeli-flag vessel had used the port of Eilat for the two years preceding June 1967, oil carried on non-Israeli flag vessels to Eilat was a very significant import. There were ambiguities, however, about how rigorous the blockade would be, particularly whether it would apply to non-Israeli flag vessels. Citing international law Israel considered the closure of the straits to be illegal, and it had stated it would consider such a blockade a casus belli in 1957 when it withdrew from the Sinai and Gaza. The Arab states disputed Israel's right of passage through the Straits, noting that they had not signed the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone specifically because of article 16(4) which provided Israel with that right. In the UN General Assembly debates immediately after the war, many nations argued that even if international law gave Israel the right of passage, Israel was not entitled to attack Egypt to assert it because the closure was not an "armed attack" as defined by article 51 of the UN Charter.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 09:15 AM   #17
Acrobat
 
Ft. Worth Frog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 390
Local Time: 02:15 PM
Of course, Israel just had to ignore those armies the Arab nations were building up, right?
__________________

__________________
Ft. Worth Frog is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 09:56 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:15 AM
Quote:
Then why is this war called 6 day war?
Because there was six days of hot conflict in which Israel was able to fend of the combined attack from the Arabs on three different fronts, the IAF pre-emptively stuck at the Arab air forces and it was able to fend off the ensuing Arab armies movements, in the process it had to sieze defensive positions that were not part of the partioning of mandate Palestine at the creation of the state of Israel.

Make no mistake about it, the Arabs had every intention of preemption was as cited the wiping Israel of the face of the planet. This attitude continues to this day with the declarations by the terror groups about "driving the Jews into the sea" and the stated goal of liberating Palestine into Arab control ~ the definition of Palestine stretches all the way to the Mediteranian encompassing the entirety of the state of Israel.

For a detailed breakdown of the 6 day war checkout http://www.israeli-weapons.com/histo...SixDayWar.html
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 02:05 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
babyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: On an open cluster called Pleiades
Posts: 6,246
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


It was Israel that accepted the UN partition plan in 1948 which equally divided Israel/Palestine. It was Israel that was brutally attacked by 5 countries the day it declared its Independence in 1948. While Israel has worked for peace while at the same time being attacked multiple times by multiple countries trying to wipe it off the face of the map, several of the Arab countries have used their resources to finance terrorism against Israel which has only made the lives of Palestinians worse. There has been no attempt by Palestinians to start or support a non-violent movement to address their disagreements with Israel. Instead, rock throwing, the bombing of Israely teens in disco's, the murder of civilians in cafe's are what they do which accomplishes nothing except to make the Palestinians move toward an independent state look like an act of barbarism. The attempts to invade and wipe out Israel and all the terrorism since 1948 has only accomplished one thing, to make the life of Palestinians worse and their chances of achieving their own independent state unlikely. None of this would be happening if the Arab countries and Palestinians had accepted the 1948 partition plan.

Israel has every right to exist, and the sooner more Arabs or Muslims and Palestinians recognize this, the sooner the Palestinians and Israely's will be able to come to agreement on an indepependent Palestinian State.

As for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this idiot should recognize that his own people over the past 10 years have had a worse standard of living than the people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories according to the UN's Human Development Report. The 2005 Index shows for the first time Iran slightly ahead of the Palestinian Territories in terms of standard of living, #99 for Iran, #102 for the Palestinian Territories. As for his comments about wiping Israel off the face of the map, he must be living on another planet, which was part of Saddam's problem. I really hope this is one of the cases where BS is thrown around to please a particular crowd and is not something to take seriously from a policy standpoint.



I would not find other right words, agree
__________________
babyman is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 04:31 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 07:15 PM
So much for Iran being the "progressive" one in the Middle East...
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:07 PM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
So much for Iran being the "progressive" one in the Middle East...


not their president, certainly.

however, the population at large is quite educated ... there's much, much more to Iran than meets the eye.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-28-2005, 12:03 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

not their president, certainly.

however, the population at large is quite educated ... there's much, much more to Iran than meets the eye.
I agree entirely, the Iranian people and their culture is quite wonderful.

Do people know that the fourth highest language for blogs is Farsi?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-28-2005, 11:15 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I agree entirely, the Iranian people and their culture is quite wonderful.

Do people know that the fourth highest language for blogs is Farsi?

One of my favorite local restaurants is Persian.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-28-2005, 01:31 PM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:15 PM
while i think the Iraq War is easily the biggest mistake the US has made since Vietnam, and while i think there are many situations where the actions of the IDF have been grossly disproportionate, and while i can't at all defend the idea of "settlements," the Iranian presidents comments do underscore, again, for me, the fact that there is such a thing as Islamo-fascist and that there does exist a grossly simplified black-and-white view of the world as divided into believers and non-believers and that non-believers must be killed.

there are bad people out there, and they must be stopped.

but "shock and awe" isn't the best way to do this.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-28-2005, 02:14 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
there are bad people out there, and they must be stopped.
Would this fit in the "Is War Ever Justified?" thread?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-28-2005, 03:50 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:15 AM
Iranian leader refutes critics over Israel remarks

Quote:
CNN) -- Thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel protests across the country Friday and repeated calls by their ultraconservative president demanding the Jewish state's destruction.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- marching with the protesters -- signaled he stood by his remarks, even as Iranian officials tried to defuse the issue.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 04:00 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Would this fit in the "Is War Ever Justified?" thread?



why are you making the rather huge leap that the only way to stop bad people is by going to war with them?

i do think that a war can be justified (iraq is certainly not, imho), however i also think that war is always the worst solution to a problem.

i also think that intellecutal justifications for war are best made by comfortable Westerners who don't have to live with things like collateral damage.

i would imagine that most of the people on this board who are pro-war would feel much differently if they were a shopkeeper in Fallujah or Tikrit or a taxi driver in Baghdad.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 07:21 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511





why are you making the rather huge leap that the only way to stop bad people is by going to war with them?

i do think that a war can be justified (iraq is certainly not, imho), however i also think that war is always the worst solution to a problem.

i also think that intellecutal justifications for war are best made by comfortable Westerners who don't have to live with things like collateral damage.

i would imagine that most of the people on this board who are pro-war would feel much differently if they were a shopkeeper in Fallujah or Tikrit or a taxi driver in Baghdad.
I would imagine most anti-war people on this board would feel differently about the coalitions removal of Saddam if they actually had to live under Saddam. The majority of Iraqi's support the process and want coalition troops to remain to help insure the development of a strong, stable Iraqi govenment.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 07:28 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I would imagine most anti-war people on this board would feel differently about the coalitions removal of Saddam if they actually had to live under Saddam. The majority of Iraqi's support the process and want coalition troops to remain to help insure the development of a strong, stable Iraqi govenment.
How do the dead ones feel about it?

I did not enlist in the Unitedd States Armed forces to bring freedom around the world.

That was not in my oath.

Even the most ardent ANTI-WAR poster on this board recognized the EVIL of Saddam.

There is only ONE reason sending troops into Iraq is acceptable, and that is there was an immediate threat to the US from Iraq.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 07:43 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I would imagine most anti-war people on this board would feel differently about the coalitions removal of Saddam if they actually had to live under Saddam. The majority of Iraqi's support the process and want coalition troops to remain to help insure the development of a strong, stable Iraqi govenment.


again, it's less the removal of saddam that is the issue, but how saddam was removed, and then the shocking lack of any sort of postwar plan that has turned iraq into the most dangerous place on earth.

you've got a very blinkered view of the situation, but it serves your narrow ideology well.

and, please spare us all by not ruining this thread with your tiresome postings about UN resolutions.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com