----- Original Message ----- From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 3:37 AM Subject: Re: Call the UNSC's Bluff
> >I think Israel is a much more likely target, as it is closer; a hit on > >Israel would also be extremely inflammatory - do you foresee Sharon > >asking the US to retaliate _for_ him? What will happen when Israeli > >fighters and bombs are launched - even though in national self-defense - > >at an Arab state? > > Then you do not want to be anywhere near Israel. Chances are that the Arab > nations, despite any differences they may have, will join forces (following > the reasoning "an attack against one of us is an attack against all of us") > and strike back at Israel. Personally, it would not surprise me if they > would then attack Israel and keep going till the State of Israel is nothing > but a memory. > They tried and failed 4 times. The only logical reason they didn't try a fifth time is that they would lose a fifth time. Israel's military position with respect to the Arabs is better than it was from '48 to '73. If the Arabs couldn't wipe them off the map then, why would you think they could now? Israel, for its part, has signaled its willingness to take the risks associated with the US attack on Iraq. Since they are in the direct line of fire, the question is why are they willing, and much of Europe is not? Again, let me point out, I'm arguing against what I consider the bad reasons for not going into Iraq. The good reasons have been mentioned by other posters, but tend to not be discussed much. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
