- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Israel ordered a small-scale mobilization of reservists on Wednesday and strengthened its missile defenses as precautions against possible Syrian attack should Western powers carry out threatened strikes on Syria.
But an Israeli official briefed on a meeting of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's security cabinet said the Jewish state believed the probability of it be targeted by Syria, its northern neighbor and long-time foe, was low
Israel Radio said mobilization of several hundred troops in intelligence and air defense had been authorized.
Army Radio reported the military was using all of its missile defenses, which include the short-range Iron Dome, the mid-range Patriot and the long-range Arrow II.
Netanyahu said on Tuesday that Israel sought to stay out of the Syrian crisis but would respond forcefully to any attempt to attack it.....snip~
Israel calls up reservists, deploys missile defenses against Syria | Reuters
It appears Israel is telling all that they would prefer to stay out of the mix.....and that they do not want any involvement. Once again.....showing they will stay their hand, and play defense. I don't think Assad will fire on Israel. Hezbollah, that's a different story. Still.....the Israelis are proactive. Looking out for their citizens. Thoughts upon the matter?
I agree that there is little likelihood of a Syrian attack, at least by government forces. You never know what the factions might do though. So it seems a reasonable and rational action on the part of Israel.
One thing you can say about those Israelis, they don't let anyone bully them around. They take care of their OWN business!
Mornin CA. Yes, they do.....and seemingly without always questioning themselves. Now if Assad doesn't fire on Israel.....nor even Fires a Shot in Defense. How will that look after he shows any civilians the French and we kill with our Punishment? Pics all up in the media and with those of what the Rebels have used in Chems to top it off. He already has UN investigators saying the Rebels have used Chems and committed atrocities. Plus he has Ban Ki Moon saying the UN wants a political solution not a military one.
Well if you've read my posts in related threads you'll see I oppose American involvement in Syria. I don't understand interventionists and their "national interests" argument. I wonder how our country would have felt if Britain or France helped the South during our Civil War.
I am of the same thought with getting involved other than the soft aid.....don't even know what this strike will do with Assad having days to move things around anyways. Plus Congress wont be back until the Sept 9. So even more time.....and I doubt the Rebels will want a ceasefire. But at least they too have had to move things around and back so they wont get hit too.
Course I expect Israel will have to watch out from Hezbollah.....but I think they can handle them.
Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991)
Iraq attacked Israel with Scud missiles, Israelis died and there was much property damage even though they were not part of the UN force.
Israel was a non combatant, did not take part, yet became an immediate target.
There need to be very little if any excuse for Islam to attack a Jewish-Arab democratic nation, or even a Christian or alternative sect.
I would not rule out an attack from forces in Syria for some trumped up charge just as Sadaam Hussein used the opportunity.
Gulf war 2, not a single scud missile fired to Israel. Why is that?
Israel's problem is not Hez, it is Iran. If the US lets Assad cross their red line and Assad learns he can gas his own people and the world will remain impotent, what do you think will deter their friends in Iran from making a decision to go for nuclear weapons? Who will stop them?
As Kerry said, I don't think you need to put boots on the ground, but a limited strike where it will hurt Assad, a strike that will not change the balance between the two evils in Syria is a necessity given the fact that Assad crossed the red line
Hez would be the immediate concern over the strike.
Is Kerry ready to Punish the Rebels for using Chems and Massacring Unarmed civlians?
Do you have authoritative proof the rebels used chemical weapons?
As for massacring unarmed civilians, sectarian violence all throughout the middle east continues that for centuries.
Post an authoritative source please
Well if you've read my posts in related threads you'll see I oppose American involvement in Syria. I don't understand interventionists and their "national interests" argument. I wonder how our country would have felt if Britain or France helped the South during our Civil War.
I don't think a rebel movement fighting against a fascist dictator can be compared to a landed elite seceding from a democratic nation solely to protect their enslavement of other human beings.
Why? lack of opportunity.
Shock and Awe took care of that. No opportunity or Israel certainly would have been targeted.
Hez would be the immediate concern over the strike.
Is Kerry ready to Punish the Rebels for using Chems and Massacring Unarmed civlians?
A "civil war" is a "civil war," but context changes in terms of morality and freedom. This would be like you comparing the American Revolution to the Cuban Revolution.A "civil war" is a "civil war" regardless of the underlying motivations of the combatting parties. Perhaps you may think that the Southern cause was not "just" while the cause of the rebel Syrians is.
But after the Emancipation Proclomation that became politically infeasible for them, because that would meant that they supported a slave nation over a nation that was trying to liberate those slaves - especially considering that they maintained an antislavery position in international fora.The British were still very interested in the Southern cotton industry and were considering intervention.
The fact remains that American's who supported the seated government during our Civil War would not want some third party intervening because their "national interests" and military power enabled them to do so.
A "civil war" is a "civil war," but context changes in terms of morality and freedom. This would be like you comparing the American Revolution to the Cuban Revolution.
But after the Emancipation Proclomation that became politically infeasible for them, because that would meant that they supported a slave nation over a nation that was trying to liberate those slaves - especially considering that they maintained an antislavery position in international fora.
May I remind you that we exist as a nation only because foreign powers with national interests decided to come to our aid against the British?
Well, then.Context be damned!
The Emancipation Proclomation made it politically infeasible for the British to attack the US during the Civil War without facing significant opposition at home. Furthermore, Europe was steadily relying more and more on Indian cotton. They did not have a significant enough interest in King Cotton to override the political consequences at home :shrug:BUZZZ, wrong. A superpower seldom really cares about such things, it focuses on the bottom line of "national interests." If the UK felt having a friendly power with strong economic ties outweighed the costs of a war with the North, they would have intervened. We were lucky in that the seated Prime Minister was not the intervening type, and was also concerned about Napoleon III and Bismark in Europe.
That was then, this is now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?