Olmert puts peace on table to free soldier - Page 6

**Shek** · 12-12-2006, 14:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

False. The legal status of the Straits was in question. Egypt was not a party to the treaty you speak of and regarded the straits as territorial, not international, waters.

A claim not supported by customary law at the time.

Stan187 · 12-12-2006, 14:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

Stan187
You yourself were implying that embargo and blockade were the same thing...

Show me where I implied that.

**Shek** · 12-12-2006, 14:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficent to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."

Once again, a quote the references the situation on May 14, and not June 5. Also, whether Nasser wanted war or not, his actions of closing the Strait of Tiran was an act of war. You can't have your cake and eat it as well!

Stan187 · 12-12-2006, 14:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

I'll explain it yet again. I was presented with an argument employing the following logic: a) Israel regarded the blockade of the Straits as an act of war; b) Egypt knew Israel would regard any blockade as an act of war; c) Therefore, the Israeli military response was justified.

By precisely this same logic, we see that: a) Japan regarded the embargo and other steps as an act of war; b) The US knew Japan would regard the embargo and other steps as an act of war; c) Therefore, the Japanese military response was justified.

The fallacy in both syllogisms is in assuming that because a nation considers an act, whatever it may be, as an act of war, that therefore it is an act of war justifying a military response.

There was an international treaty that Egypt broke by vitrue of a blockade. A blockade is an act of war. The argument is already over here. FURTHERMORE, Israel clearly communicated that closing the Straights was a casus belli for war.

That logic does not in even the slightest bit apply to the US-Japanese case and the fact that you keep trying to use it is just a further display of your ignorance.

**Parihaka** · 12-12-2006, 14:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shek

Once again, a quote the references the situation on May 14, and not June 5. Also, whether Nasser wanted war or not, his actions of closing the Strait of Tiran was an act of war. You can't have your cake and eat it as well!

It's just cyclical Shek. No matter how many times you demonstrate him wrong he just comes out with the same old spam. It's a bit like trying to talk to a goldfish, their attention span never gets past hello.

Stan187 · 12-12-2006, 14:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

False. It was not "internationally recognized" that Israel was justified in responding to the closing of the Straits with military violence. This is pure fiction. It was internationally recognized that the dispute should be settled diplomatically.

Apparently internationally recognized maritime treaties that exist in the real world don't exist in your make believe world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

False. The legal status of the Straits was in question. Egypt was not a party to the treaty you speak of and regarded the straits as territorial, not international, waters.

The internationally recognized treaty gave the legal status of the Straits. Russia claiming Floridian waters as territorial is no more legitimate of claim that Egypt claiming these waters to be territorial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

False. That is an opinion. Egypt sought a diplomatic settlement to the dispute over the use of the Straits, such as a judgment from the World Court. US Secretary of Stat Dean Rusk acknowledged that "it was a real possibility" that diplomatic efforts would lead to "getting Egypt to reopen the straits".

An opinion supported by later confirmed plans, and opinion support also by the disposition of 8 Egyptian divisions in formation waiting to attack. That fact is undisputable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

Yes, only "silly revisionists" like me believe Israel had a choice.

Like Menachem Begin:

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

And Avraham Sela, a colleague of Oren's at the Shalem Center:

The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan, and Nasser's defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike.

And Yitzhaq Rabin

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficent to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."

All a bunch of "silly revisionists".

Wow you really just have a habit of repeating yourself, don't you? Have you got all the citations for those quotes? All the context for them, as we previously critcized you on? Of course not, because that doesn't support the point you're trying to make.

Let me guess, your next post will again be repeating something you already said without justifying it any more? Go ahead, prove me wrong. Add something intelligent to the discussion, if you have the capability.

Bluesman · 12-12-2006, 14:40 PM

DO.

NOT.

PLAY.

He wins when he can do this crap. If you think YOU will win by out-thinking, out-quoting, out-researching him, you just don't understand the game that's being played.

**Shek** · 12-12-2006, 15:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

The fallacy in both syllogisms is in assuming that because a nation considers an act, whatever it may be, as an act of war, that therefore it is an act of war justifying a military response.

If you wish to argue against a logical construct not based in the reality of the situation and not the construct that describes the reality of the situation, feel free to win that worthless battle.

The argument was not originally presented as a construct that based its premise on the fact that it was an explicit Israeli casus belli, but that it was a known casus belli. You have seized upon a single specific post that stated that it was known that Israel would consider closure of the strait to be an act of war (which is around the fourth or fifth post that addressed the closure). However, it is not surprising to see you attempt to narrow in on specifics to destroy context, oh he who doesn't wish to argue semantics, and then ride the strawman to death.

A Pyrrhic victory if you ask me.

**Shek** · 12-12-2006, 17:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

There were no mines in the Straits, as Oren acknowledged on p. 95.

I stand corrected. I guess Israel was expected to run the guantlet to prove that Egypt was serious about war and call the bluff on sea mines; of course, then I guess the argument could be that Israel was still the aggressor by provoking the situation

12-12-2006, 14:40 PM	#82 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,387 Country:	DO. NOT. PLAY. He wins when he can do this crap. If you think YOU will win by out-thinking, out-quoting, out-researching him, you just don't understand the game that's being played. __________________ "The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory." - George Orwell

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Articles and links for the Military Professional	Officer of Engineers	The Staff College	115	11-20-2006 11:28 AM
Pakistan to free 435 Indian prisoners to push peace	Asim Aquil	Political Discussions	1	09-10-2005 14:44 PM
Second U.S. Soldier hung in effigy	Lunatock	Current Affairs	65	03-02-2005 23:28 PM
Ludwig Von Mises on Iron Theory of Wages	Praxus	Current Affairs	28	11-15-2004 02:48 AM
Truth about North Korea and the US' foreign policies.	GuyFromTheSouth	South Asian Defense Topics	0	10-26-2004 08:33 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)