Iran-Iraq War expands- Saudi Arabia gets involved ?

[Grettir Asmundarsen]

Please provide sources for your information--as I have done in my other post (titled "I'm not being anti-Israel"). Anyone can spout their lies, I've backed mine up with sources; until you provide sources, you are wrong and I am right.

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Grettir Asmundarsen

Anyone can spout their lies, I've backed mine up with sources.

This line is particularly sigworthy.

[Grettir Asmundarsen]

Originally Posted by Leo Caesius

This line is particularly sigworthy.

I've been using it since 1994, when I got in a theological argument with a Jehovah's Witness.

[Grimm Reaper]

Grettir, all you have proven is that when I asked for you to note where I was wrong in simple and straightforward statements, you respond with arrogance and total lack of respect.

Fine. You are either unable or unwilling to offer evidence of error. I accept that lack on your part, and will take this into account in the future.

[Dave Howery]

I too have read a lot about the 6 Day War. I've read books by the participants and contemporary magazines. What you are saying is so much at variance with the majority of printed material that I can either conclude:
1. you are wrong.
2. you are right and there is some kind of vast conspiracy that fooled all the contemporary magazines and most of the written literature on the war, including many of the people who fought in it.
Guess which one I'm going with...

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Vortex

Define "we". Many of us wanted to put the Japanese in their place, enough that Tokyo assumed that we all did. And no one want to Japan to conquer China with no fight from us. Japan wanted to conquer China at all costs and felt they were reasonably invincible.

But you're right. Israel attack is more a hybrid of that and Germany's declaring war on Russia and France in 1914.

to compare Israel's pre-emptive strike to Pearl Harbor (so far as justifying it for Japan), the US would have had to had vast fleets surrounding the home islands and hundreds of thousands of troops ready to invade... Japan's position was in no way comparable to Israel's...

[Oddball]

ATL posted as OTL = historical revisionism = BAD SHIT

Originally Posted by Grettir Asmundarsen

I'm not being anti-Israel. I've done alot of research on the subject. I wrote a term paper on it for an IR class:

The Six-Day War
On the morning of 5 June 1967, ...

You must obviousley have tinkered with alternate history too much

I sincerly hope your teacher flunked your assignment. If not he/she is obviously as illiterated as you

Anyway, this is an old discussion, see this thread for more "interesting" theories about Israel launching unnwarranted attacks in 1967...

[Grettir Asmundarsen]

I never claim that Israel wasn't in the wrong. I left most of the water argument out of that paper. The thesis was whether or not Israel was a rational player in relation to its attack on Egypt, not Jordan nor Syria--niether of which the US gave permission for. Israel was more than happy to get Egypt to attack them, it would give them the pretext for siezing the Golan Heights (for the water. Water is the most important resource in the Middle East. The reason Eshkol was handpicked by Ben-Gurion was because he was a water compnay executive).

Like I've said elsewhere, I cite published and critically vetted sources--you cite old web postings. I'm right, you're wrong--until you provide reputable sources contradicting mine.

Anyone can spout their lies; I provide citations for mine.

[Grettir Asmundarsen]

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

I too have read a lot about the 6 Day War. I've read books by the participants and contemporary magazines. What you are saying is so much at variance with the majority of printed material that I can either conclude:
1. you are wrong.
2. you are right and there is some kind of vast conspiracy that fooled all the contemporary magazines and most of the written literature on the war, including many of the people who fought in it.
Guess which one I'm going with...

Magazines? Like US News and World Report? I recognized your take on the whole thing right off the bat, didn't I? They are simply not a credible source when it comes to Israel--even honest Zionists will admit it. The publisher, Mort Zuckerman, also owns the Jerusalem Post and has extensive real estate holding in Israel. He is also part of the consortium, led by Silverstien--the guy who owns the lease on the WTC --which has been buying up property in East Jerusalem from absentee landlords and evicting the Arab residents since 1975.

If "most of the written literature" backs you up, you shouldn't have a hard time providing sources.

Anyone can spout their lies, I provide citations for mine.

PS--Don't feel bad. I used to believe Zuckerman's lies too.

[Oddball]

Originally Posted by Grettir Asmundarsen

I never claim that Israel wasn't in the wrong.

This I do not understand

Originally Posted by Grettir Asmundarsen

I left most of the water argument out of that paper. The thesis was whether or not Israel was a rational player in relation to its attack on Egypt, not Jordan nor Syria--niether of which the US gave permission for. Israel was more than happy to get Egypt to attack them, it would give them the pretext for siezing the Golan Heights (for the water. Water is the most important resource in the Middle East. The reason Eshkol was handpicked by Ben-Gurion was because he was a water compnay executive).

I doubt that you will find many people disagreeing that water is a major factor in the middle east. I agree as much as that with you

What bugs me (and angers me) are people that try to revision the preclude to the events in 1967.

Originally Posted by Grettir Asmundarsen

Like I've said elsewhere, I cite published and critically vetted sources--you cite old web postings. I'm right, you're wrong--until you provide reputable sources contradicting mine.

Anyone can spout their lies; I provide citations for mine.

To provide sources for different views in the middle east conflict is IMHO not very interesteing. ANYONE can provide quotations/citations supporting ANYTHING in this conflict.

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Grettir Asmundarsen

Magazines? .

actually, I meant Time and Newsweek... I suppose you think they are part of the vast Zionist conspiracy too.
So, let me get all this straight. You are claiming:
that the arabs did not mass armies around Israel's borders before the pre-emptive strike
that the Israeli's attacked on the urging of the US due to fears for SA
that the Egyptian forces in Yemen were a threat to SA
that Jordan didn't take part in the war until after the pre-emptive strike
that the Israeli attack on the Golan Heights was due solely to water, not anything Syria did.
This is what I have gleaned from your comments so far. That... is historical revisionism of the highest order... if it wasn't so wrong, it'd be impressive...

[Oddball]

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

that Jordan didn't take part in the war until after the pre-emptive strike

This he's actualy kinda right about.

The Jordanian king would have stayed out of it if he could. But the vast majority of his people wanted war with Israel, and because he was afraid of Nasser. Anyway, Jordan DID partisipate in the vaste massing of forces towards Israel's borders.

Jordan did not launche attacks on Israel before Egypts "leched intelligence" to Jordan, claiming large Egyptian victories. And Israel did not initiate offensives versus Jordainian targets before Jordanian artillery started to shell Israeli targets.

[Oddball]

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

... I suppose you think they are part of the vast Zionist conspiracy too...

Ofcourse he does...

Are'nt we all?

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Red

This he's actualy kinda right about.

The Jordanian king would have stayed out of it if he could. But the vast majority of his people wanted war with Israel, and because he was afraid of Nasser. Anyway, Jordan DID partisipate in the vaste massing of forces towards Israel's borders.

Jordan did not launche attacks on Israel before Egypts "leched intelligence" to Jordan, claiming large Egyptian victories. And Israel did not initiate offensives versus Jordainian targets before Jordanian artillery started to shell Israeli targets.

all true, but it wasn't as if Jordan was totally unconcerned about the war before the pre-emptive strike. As you said, they did mass forces on the border, and they did allow Egyptian commandos onto their soil before the strike. GA is putting across the idea that Jordan was sitting on the sidelines not bothering anyone when suddenly Israel attacked them...

[Oddball]

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

all true, but it wasn't as if Jordan was totally unconcerned about the war before the pre-emptive strike. As you said, they did mass forces on the border, and they did allow Egyptian commandos onto their soil before the strike. GA is putting across the idea that Jordan was sitting on the sidelines not bothering anyone when suddenly Israel attacked them...

Ofcourse, but IMHO Israel would not have attacked Jordan at that point in history if the Jordanians themselves had not started shelling Israeli realestate. Egypt and Syria OTOH...

[Grettir Asmundarsen]

Originally Posted by Red

To provide sources for different views in the middle east conflict is IMHO not very interesteing. ANYONE can provide quotations/citations supporting ANYTHING in this conflict.

Really? Then why can't you provide any sources/citations? Huh? Huh?

[Grettir Asmundarsen]

Then all you have to do is provide the issue and name of the story from which you get your "facts." You can't because your info is false--your entire pov is lifted straight from US News and World Report, not Time and Newsweek. I read all those magazines too.

Give your sources/citations or shut up, dude. I gave mine; now, you give yours.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Grettir Asmundarsen

So Israel, as they assessed the situation, saw: a radical and belligerent government (Syria) to their north (northwest, actually) that was mobilizing troops (Bickerton 150); a belligerent government (Egypt) to their south (southeast, really) that had positioned eighty thousand troops (Bickerton 158) on their common border and was openly threatening Israel’s destruction (Smith 199); a cutting off of their only trade route to eastern Asia and the Indian Ocean (Shlaim 237); a coming economic crisis due to a full mobilization of reserves (Bickerton 150); and a national feeling of impending doom; a toothless and retiring United Nations (Bickerton 150); and a “go-ahead” for military action from the American Secretary of Defense (Smith 200)(Shlaim 241).

GA, I'm confused by your arguments. For the sake of space, I've quoted only the Israeli assessment paragraph. From your own writing, you admit that Egypt had tossed the UN out of the Sinai and moved in their army, closed the straits, threatened Israel's destruction, and allied with Jordan and Syria (with Syria supporting/allowing attacks on Israel). But Israel started it to protect Saudi Arabia because of Yemen?!

Note, none of this argues against the IDF also wanted to support their deterent value. Had the Arabs (sensu lato) not been massing near the borders and forming extended alliances, their would be no need for demonstrating deterence.

[Oddball]

Originally Posted by Grettir Asmundarsen

Really? Then why can't you provide any sources/citations? Huh? Huh?

Do you realy expect me to start writing down all the historical related materials Iv read over the last 15 years since I got interested in history?

Sorry mister but Im not going to.

Anyway, I think its void because Iv also have read TONS of material that supports your view, but Iv come to the conclusion that I do not belive in them.

Btw, what makes you so sure that YOUR sources are the correct?

Let me give you an excample:

The book "Why blame Israel?" by Neill Lochery. A interesting book with quite a few interesting theories. All backed up by impressive quotations and references. This book is to say it the least pro Israeli...

Now, does the fact that this book exist and that I can use it as a refference to support my views make everything go my way?

No it does not. First of all because I do not belive many if not most of what the author states, and second because there exists countless books that supports the excact opposit view.

Like I said before:

To provide sources for different views in the middle east conflict is IMHO not very interesteing. ANYONE can provide quotations/citations supporting ANYTHING in this conflict.

Especialy in a conflict like the middel east, were so many have strong feelings, I guess you have to do the math yourself and come down with a soulution that YOURSELF can stand by.

[Oddball]

Originally Posted by Grettir Asmundarsen

Really? Then why can't you provide any sources/citations? Huh? Huh?

There is a source I would like to refer to after all. And its a source that is accesibel to all, not a obscure printed book or reference work.

Wikipedia have a rather interesting article about the Six days war. You can read it here

Now I know that Wiki aint regarded as a "serious" source by quite a few, and myself I also hesitate to use it as a absolute "truth."

But, Wikipedia do have a rather interesting saftey valve. If the material refered in a articel "tends" to be faulty, the articel quickly becomes disputed. And I repeat quickly. This Wikipedia articel is NOT disputed, and it have been there for a long time. Today its even linked in the frontpage of Wikipedia.

Now, what I would urge you to do, is to head over there and start to alter THAT articel so that it fits your view (Im counting on that you know how Wikipedia operates ). IMHO you will be very surprised of what I think will happen, and Im also pretty sure people over there will "help" you with references and quotations that Im too lazy to dig up...

Now please do not interpet this as Wikipedia is my main source of historical knowledge...