Iran designs system superior to S-300

[ScarabVenom]

The plan of Egypt to recapture the Sinai by military means failed. There's no question about that. At the end of the war there were even Israeli troops in Egypt.

Credit must be given to Sadat who kickstarted the peace proces. Israel willingly accepted and the US supported the deal.

Israel got : Egyptian boycott laws were repealed, demilitarization of Sinai, free passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal, and recognition of the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba as international waterways, recognition of Israel by Egypt

Egypt got : Israel leaving Sinai, Egypt receives about $1.3 billion annually from the US.

A UN observation force was blocked by the Soviet Union so the three countries made an observation force outside the UN.

I told you before that getting the Sinai entirely by military force was not a goal. It was DEPENDING ON THE CAPABILITIES OF THE MILITARY. The goal wasn't "Liberate the Sinai" and that's it. Sadat got specific.

And the very last thing about this war was Israel retreating to the east of the passes 40 kilometers away from the Egyptian soldiers who didn't retreat at all. And they retreated voluntarily fearing for the life of their soldiers as I've shown you before using the quote of Moshe Dayan.

What you said about "Israel got" well...I've no problem on all of them except "demilitarization of the Sinai". It's Egyptian land and Egypt needs permission from them to put some extra troops on Egyptian territory?? Pure political failure from Sadat.

And about the US aid, well....Egypt can only spend this aid on US made weapons which makes sure to give Egypt outdated weapons to keep their ally stronger than Egypt.

One more thing, if politics failed you can't claim that Israel was going to keep the Sinai under it's control. Anything is possible. I'm not saying Israel was not going to be able to keep it or vice versa. I'm just saying that it's not 100% that if the peace agreement didn't happen the Sinai was going to remain for Israel and after the 1973 war kinda calmed down it was going to evolve again into a full-scale war. So, don't try to tell me that the only way Egypt could have gotten the Sinai was through this ridiculous peace treaty.

One final thing, I've said to you before...I don't hate peace with Israel, I support peace worldwide between everyone. But, peace has to be fair, this peace treaty is not and thus, I don't support it.

 

[Cartman]

Well...I know the Sinai came after the peace process. But, Egypt achieved it's Strategic goal which is regaining the Sinai. That doesn't have to be by military force.

In the battlefield, Egypt won. So, as I said...Egypt won militarily and strategically.

Gaining back the Sinai was to be a military objective if politics failed.

Check this...

Regain the Sinai in SUCCESSIVE PHASES DEPENDING ON the capabilities of the Egyptian military.

Gaining it militarily was the last thing. The war started with Operation Badr or as called before, High Minarets which basically was advance into the Sinai for 12 kms under the protection of a SAM umbrella. Then, work it out politically. If it failed and Egypt got the weapons they needed from the Soviets in demanded amounts. The second plan was to be Granite 1 which is to advance until east of the passes. And after achieving this strategic location, see how it goes politically. If politics failed again, plan Granite 2 was to become action and regain the entire Sinai by force.

On the 7th of October when Egyptian victory was at it's mightiest, Sadat told Henry Kissinger; the American Prime Minister the following...

[FONT=&quot]"He told of his lonely decision making that led to the war, of his conclusion that there would never be a serious negotiation so long as Israel was able to equate security with military predominance. Now that he had vindicated Egyptian honor, Sadat told me, he had two objectives: to "regain my territory" (the 1967 boundary in the Sinai) and to make peace." - Years of Upheaval. Author, Henry Kissinger.
[/FONT]
Sadat made peace and did regain his territory doesn't this sound like victory achieved??

He never aimed for regaining the entire Sinai by force in 1 shot. It was depending on the capabilities of the military and the political situation.

And during the peace process, Israel didn't fight to keep their settlements on the Sinai protected by Israeli forces in Egyptian Sinai? Yes, they did. But, what happened was the settlements being deconstructed and evacuating it's civilians by force sometimes.

Above is the settlements of Yamit.

You claim that Israel gave back the Sinai for peace?? That doesn't make any sense.

Golda Meir said before " Sinai was now part of Israel, and that it would be settled by Israelis."

Moshe Dayan "[FONT=&quot]The 1967 war was the last of wars… after which there is nothing left for the Arabs but to plead for mercy"


And I believe when Ben Gurion? was asked about the borders of Israel he said something like the borders of Israel are where it's soldiers stand.

[/FONT]Israel gave up 3 air bases in strategic locations, an oil field and their settlements which were planned to become a city of 200,000 for peace. While you and I know that after the 1967 war Israel thought it's very secure due to the Bar-Lev line. It's kinda funny how Israel comes out victorious when they fight on borders considered a threat and they get defeated on borders they considered secure.

And also speaking of 1982, when Israel tried to keep Taba.

"Israel held onto the 750-yard-long stretch of sand after it had withdrawn from the rest of Sinai in 1982, even though Egypt insisted that Taba should have been returned as well. Israel maintained that maps of the area were incorrect and that Taba should have been Israel's all along."
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/w...israel-turns-over-last-of-sinai-to-egypt.html

It's no peace when it's seeked through military dominance.

you got sinai but we achieved peace. i just hope your government wont forget that.

 

[VDKMS]

I did some more research and found some interesting things.

Did you know that the Soviet Union and the US were almost at the brink of war because of Egypt and Israel? The US raised it's readiness to DEFCON 3 because the Soviet Union wanted to intervene on behalf of the Egyptians. It was the US who saved the Egyptian third army. In the book "Kissinger's Year: 1973"

Kissinger : Why don't you let them break out of there...? Why can you not let them take the tanks with them? The Russians will replace them anyway.
Dinitz : We will not open up the pocket and release the army that came to destroy us. It has never happened in the history of war.
Kissinger : Also it has never happened that a small country is producing a world war in this manner. There is a limit beyond which you cannot push the President.

Later Kissinger used threats : "You will not be permitted to destroy this army".

I don't know in which way the Russians put pressure on the Egyptians, but fact is the US did not wanted to start WWIII because of Israel.

As I said before, Sadat must be given credit for he was the first to stick his neck out.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

I did some more research and found some interesting things.

Did you know that the Soviet Union and the US were almost at the brink of war because of Egypt and Israel? The US raised it's readiness to DEFCON 3 because the Soviet Union wanted to intervene on behalf of the Egyptians. It was the US who saved the Egyptian third army. In the book "Kissinger's Year: 1973"

Later Kissinger used threats : "You will not be permitted to destroy this army".

I don't know in which way the Russians put pressure on the Egyptians, but fact is the US did not wanted to start WWIII because of Israel.

As I said before, Sadat must be given credit for he was the first to stick his neck out.

Your research missed a vital part, how the Russians acted during this war. They abandoned the Egyptians and the Russians wanted to save the Syrians, not the Egyptians.

 

[ScarabVenom]

you got sinai but we achieved peace. i just hope your government wont forget that.

You can look at it this way. I don't disagree.

We got Sinai, well...that's already an Egyptian land. Over that, we got a humiliating treaty. I don't blame you for liking it, but don't blame me for disliking it.

 

[ScarabVenom]

I did some more research and found some interesting things.

Did you know that the Soviet Union and the US were almost at the brink of war because of Egypt and Israel? The US raised it's readiness to DEFCON 3 because the Soviet Union wanted to intervene on behalf of the Egyptians. It was the US who saved the Egyptian third army. In the book "Kissinger's Year: 1973"

Later Kissinger used threats : "You will not be permitted to destroy this army".

I don't know in which way the Russians put pressure on the Egyptians, but fact is the US did not wanted to start WWIII because of Israel.

As I said before, Sadat must be given credit for he was the first to stick his neck out.

Yeah, I know about the Soviets getting ready to deploy troops on the Sinai and the US disliking the idea of Soviets in the region and they armed their nukes and switched to DefCon III.

Well...again you're saying something that didn't happen in reality. What made you so sure that Israel was totally 100% able to destroy the army? Maybe, it was more likely that it could? But, still it could have failed. The Egyptian 3rd Army was surrounded, everyone expected them to surrender but, they didn't. The Egyptian army was surrounded, everyone might expect them to be destroyed easily, but probably, not? Let's not assume and talk about what really happened on the battlefield.

And you got it totally wrong!! The Soviets were not going to intervene for the Egyptians. After the Oct.22 ceasefire was broken, Egypt demanded Israel to back off to the 22nd of October lines. Israel refused or said something like "we don't know the situation on the time of the cease-fire thus, the Oct.22 lines are unknown." Sadat got pissed off then he asked for a joint American-Sovet intervention to push Israel back to the Oct.22 lines. The Soviets agreed and sent a message to America saying that if America doesn't involve, Soviets will go by themselves. America got pissed off because they don't want Soviets in the region and that's why la la la...the DefCon III and WWIII and all those stuff.

But, no...Soviets were not coming "to save Egyptians" as you claimed.

Kissinger did annoy Israel when it came to the 3rd Army. But, it's really for the Soviets not for Egypt. The whole thing was to show Egyptians that the Soviets can't be depended on. America aimed at something before the war. They didn't want a destroyed Israel and they didn't want a decisively victorious Egypt. They wanted Egypt to get back the Sinai and vindicate their honor. And then they jump in the peace process and win Egypt as a US client state instead of a Soviet one. What was between the US and USSR was basically a superpower struggle for control.

The Russians didn't give Egypt the weapons they wanted. And hugely, disappointed Egypt. Egypt showed the Russians their plans; Grainte I and II that aimed for taking the entire Sinai. But, Egypt couldn't put those plans into action due to lack of weaponry which the Soviets didn't want to provide. That's how Russia could hold Egypt from the neck. Sadat actually described it well when he said "The Soviets are like the man standing behind me holding a knife and putting it on my back."

Had the Soviets provided Egypt with the weapons, I don't think this war would be debated because it was going to be a very CLEAR victory or a very CLEAR defeat instead of a victory hidden in a haystack.

 

[ScarabVenom]

Your research missed a vital part, how the Russians acted during this war. They abandoned the Egyptians and the Russians wanted to save the Syrians, not the Egyptians.

Well said. The Syrians are the ones that started suffering heavy setbacks and actually most of USSR aid sent to ARABS is mostly only to SYRIA.

 

[VDKMS]

Your research missed a vital part, how the Russians acted during this war. They abandoned the Egyptians and the Russians wanted to save the Syrians, not the Egyptians.

On October 24 1973 Soviet Premier Leonid Breznjev sent US President Nixon a message that Soviet intervention in the Yom Kippur war in support of the Egyptian and Syrian forces could come wothout warning. Because of this Nixon raised the readiness of US troops worldwide to DEFCON III on 27 october.(Debt and Taxes p.147)

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

On October 24 1973 Soviet Premier Leonid Breznjev sent US President Nixon a message that Soviet intervention in the Yom Kippur war in support of the Egyptian and Syrian forces could come wothout warning. Because of this Nixon raised the readiness of US troops worldwide to DEFCON III on 27 october.(Debt and Taxes p.147)

Take a closer look at what the Russians did prior, during, and after the war. The Russians were willing to sacrifice the Egyptians, but not the Syrians

 

[ScarabVenom]

On October 24 1973 Soviet Premier Leonid Breznjev sent US President Nixon a message that Soviet intervention in the Yom Kippur war in support of the Egyptian and Syrian forces could come wothout warning. Because of this Nixon raised the readiness of US troops worldwide to DEFCON III on 27 october.(Debt and Taxes p.147)

That was because Sadat asked for a JOINT American-Soviet force to push Israelis back to the 22nd of October line. And neither Americans nor Soviets deployed troops. And Israel kept widening the gap until things turned around against them again after their failure to occupy Ismailia in the north and Suez in the south.

 

[VDKMS]

Take a closer look at what the Russians did prior, during, and after the war. The Russians were willing to sacrifice the Egyptians, but not the Syrians

The Russians and the US wanted an accord between Israel and Egypt that neither would lose their face. The Israelis refused and wanted to destroy the 3rd army, it was a matter of days for them. Russia would not allow that because this would have been a serious loss of face for the Egyptians, that's why the Russians threatenend to intervene and the US had to use all its power (supporting UNC resolutions against Israel) to back down. They did.
Sadat was also afraid that the Israelis would march to Cairo because it was not that well defended.

This information comes from the highest players on the field (Sadat, Breznjev, Nixon and Kissinger).

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

The Russians and the US wanted an accord between Israel and Egypt that neither would lose their face. The Israelis refused and wanted to destroy the 3rd army, it was a matter of days for them. Russia would not allow that because this would have been a serious loss of face for the Egyptians, that's why the Russians threatenend to intervene and the US had to use all its power (supporting UNC resolutions against Israel) to back down. They did.
Sadat was also afraid that the Israelis would march to Cairo because it was not that well defended.

This information comes from the highest players on the field (Sadat, Breznjev, Nixon and Kissinger).

The Soviet Union abandoned Egypt; they put up absurd demands on the Egyptians if they purchased hardware from the Soviet Union. Weeks prior the war all advisors and technicians left Egypt and they never returned. Israel destroyed the Syrian Navy and the Soviet Navy took the Syrian Navy's place and threatens to intervene if the Israelis attacked the supplies ships. Read your sources again

 

[VDKMS]

The Soviet Union abandoned Egypt; they put up absurd demands on the Egyptians if they purchased hardware from the Soviet Union. Weeks prior the war all advisors and technicians left Egypt and they never returned. Israel destroyed the Syrian Navy and the Soviet Navy took the Syrian Navy's place and threatens to intervene if the Israelis attacked the supplies ships. Read your sources again

are you saying that Sadat, Breznjev, Nixon and Kissinger are not credible sources?

What does your source say about the US readiness increase to DEFCON III and why the Israelis didn't destroy the 3rd army?

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

are you saying that Sadat, Breznjev, Nixon and Kissinger are not credible sources?

What does your source say about the US readiness increase to DEFCON III and why the Israelis didn't destroy the 3rd army?

There is always a difference between what governments are saying and what they are doing, if you expand the investigation, you will see it. Egypt was after this in the interest sphere of the US; meanwhile the Russians were allied with Libya.

Israel suffered dearly during this conflict and they would have suffered even more if they tried to destroy the 3rd army

I am not saying they are not reliable, but compare words with actual actions.

 

[VDKMS]

There is always a difference between what governments are saying and what they are doing, if you expand the investigation, you will see it. Egypt was after this in the interest sphere of the US; meanwhile the Russians were allied with Libya.

Israel suffered dearly during this conflict and they would have suffered even more if they tried to destroy the 3rd army

I am not saying they are not reliable, but compare words with actual actions.

I think we are not talking along the same lines. What I wrote was about actions.
Israel was eager to destroy the third army, Russia would intervene if they did and told the US. The US didn't want to start a world war because of israel and put severely pressure on them. Israel backed down. I think these are actions, not? After that the 3rd army was in such a desperate situation that they begged Israel for supplies. Although I think the 3rd army would have never surrendered and would have fought to the last man. The Egyptians were very well trained in defensive operations.

I think Israel did very well in that war and propably could have gone to Cairo, what they couldn't do was to keep that situation. Israel just didn't have the manpower to do it. (do not forget that they also had to fight the Syrians).

 

[ScarabVenom]

The Russians and the US wanted an accord between Israel and Egypt that neither would lose their face. The Israelis refused and wanted to destroy the 3rd army, it was a matter of days for them. Russia would not allow that because this would have been a serious loss of face for the Egyptians, that's why the Russians threatenend to intervene and the US had to use all its power (supporting UNC resolutions against Israel) to back down. They did.
Sadat was also afraid that the Israelis would march to Cairo because it was not that well defended.

This information comes from the highest players on the field (Sadat, Breznjev, Nixon and Kissinger).

Well...for some reason, you say Israel wanted to destroy the 3rd Army, okay...probably they wanted, did they??? You say it would have been a serious loss, true...it would have been IF it happened. But, did it? And what makes you so sure that Israelis could destroy the army? I mean, they thought if they surrounded it, the army will surrender. They surrounded the army, it didn't surrender. So, you can't say for sure 100% that if the 3rd Army was attacked it means it would have been destroyed.

"Sadat was afraid that the Israelis would march to Cairo" I discussed this with you before in my other thread that's about the war under the name "Questions about the Yom Kippur War" I really don't want to bother writing everything again so, I'll copy-paste MY post so, I guess that won't be a problem.

1) The Israeli army was going to be so far away from Tel Aviv and it's military situation which was stated in the original post so, I'll provide you again for the quotes about their situation.....

"[FONT=&quot]It was essential that the Israeli command protect its forces in a limited sector west of the canal by dispersing them over a wider area. Consequently more troops were sent west of the canal. The outcome was untenable strategically for several reasons. One, Israel now had a large force (about six or seven brigades) in a very limited area of land, surrounded from all sides either by natural or man-made barriers, or by the Egyptian forces. This put it in a weak position. Moreover, there were the difficulties in supplying this force, in evacuating it, in the lengthy communication lines, and in the daily attrition in men and equipment. Two, to protect these troops, the Israeli command had to allocate other forces (four or five brigades) to defend the entrances to the breach at the Deversoir. Three, to immobilize the Egyptian bridgeheads in Sinai the Israeli command had to allocate ten brigades to face the Second and Third army bridgeheads. In addition, it became necessary to keep the strategic reserves at their maximum state of alert. Thus, Israel was obliged to keep its armed force-and consequently the country-mobilized for a long period, at least until the war came to an end, because the ceasefire did not signal the end of the war. There is no doubt that this in total conflict with its military theories."[/FONT] - Mohamed Abd El-Ghany El-Gamassy.

[FONT=&quot]"...One Egyptian plan was to attack our units west of the canal from the direction of Cairo. The other was to cut-off our canal bridgehead by a link-up of the Second and Third Armies on the east bank. Both plans were based on massive artillery pounding of our forces, who were not well fortified and who would suffer heavy casualties. It was therefore thought that Israel would withdraw from the west bank, since she was most sensitive on the subject of soldier's lives. Egypt, at the time had a total of 1,700 first-line tanks on both sides of the canal front, 700 on the east bank and 1,000 on the west bank. Also on the west bank, in the second line, were an additional 600 tanks for the defense of Cairo. She had some 2,000 artillery pieces, about 500 operational aircraft, and at least 130 SAM missile batteries positioned around our forces so as to deny us air support."[/FONT] - Moshe Dayan.

would be even worse because their only supply-line road was the gap in the Deversoir region and that supply-line road was so vulnerable against Egyptian ground forces so, the further they go to the west, the longer the supply-line becomes. 2) The Egyptian 4th armored brigade was between the Israeli army and Cairo and behind them another Algerian brigade and by the gates of Cairo there was a brigade of Presidential guards to protect Cairo and in case the Israeli army succeeded in destroying all those troops and could reach Cairo, they would be very very wary of the fighting especially, because they would have to cross the Eastern Desert and after all of that, it's time to begin taking down Cairo....I dread to guess what was going to happen.

I hope you can say why Cairo was considered defenseless.

And again, the Russians And the Americans were asked to come and push Israel to the 22nd of October lines. America started playing and Israel kept saying that they don't know the situation of 22nd of October. Russians got pissed and sent a message to the Americans saying that if America doesn't join, Russians will go by their own and when America heard "Russians in this region" switched to DefCon III and armed their nukes. Please, know the difference between the Egyptian front and the Syrian one.

 

[ScarabVenom]

are you saying that Sadat, Breznjev, Nixon and Kissinger are not credible sources?

What does your source say about the US readiness increase to DEFCON III and why the Israelis didn't destroy the 3rd army?

I humbly ask if you can please provide those sources that you claim; Sadat, Breznjev, Nixon and Kissinger. You claim that you have sources and stuff they said, where are they? If you have an issue with my quotes or have any question about their credibility, I can provide you the names of the books and the exact page numbers.

 

[VDKMS]

I humbly ask if you can please provide those sources that you claim; Sadat, Breznjev, Nixon and Kissinger. You claim that you have sources and stuff they said, where are they? If you have an issue with my quotes or have any question about their credibility, I can provide you the names of the books and the exact page numbers.

Kissinger's Year: 1973 - Alistair Horne (no page but link here)
Debt and Taxes p.147 - John H. Makin,Norman J. Ornstein

We All Lost the Cold War p.208 - Richard Ned Lebow,Janice Gross Stein

"....on 18 October Kosygin showed Sadat photographs flown in from Moscow that detailed the scope of the israeli penetration of the west bank of the canal.....
....The Egyption command announced...that the Israeli forces that had crossed the Canal amounted to a mere seven tanks; it was not made aware of the real size of the Israeli armored forces west of the canal until their number surpassed that of the Egyptian forces remaining om the west bank. ....

p.209
....The Soviet Union had COSMOS satellites making periodic passes over the battlefield area and therefore had some intelligence about the size of the Israeli force that had crossed the canal and of the forces that were waiting to cross. An immediate cease-fire seemed the only way to prevent a catastrophic Egyptian defeat."

 

[ScarabVenom]

Kissinger's Year: 1973 - Alistair Horne (no page but link here)
Debt and Taxes p.147 - John H. Makin,Norman J. Ornstein

We All Lost the Cold War p.208 - Richard Ned Lebow,Janice Gross Stein

Well...those sources are not from the characters that you claimed. What you said delivered that what you had ACTUALLY came from those characters while the way I see it, these are just people talking about those characters.

I don't think that's what we were talking about. We were talking about Sadat asking for a joint Soviet-American force to push the Israelis back to the 22nd of October lines. What you provided, is talking about the situation on the 18th of October. In which the Soviets believed that a cease-fire will save the Egyptians or whatever it said. I never said that the Egyptians suffered no set-backs during the war, but I'm saying that they came out victorious at the end...and that's what really matters.

Anyways, the cease-fire on the 22nd of October was not respected anyways. And I don't care who broke it; it was broken, nonetheless. And here, the cease-fire that was supposed to "save" the Egyptians didn't come into effect and the war kept going, and Egypt kept fighting.

If you look at my sources, the authors are usually military generals or major politicians WHO were DIRECTLY involved in this.

 

[VDKMS]

Well...those sources are not from the characters that you claimed. What you said delivered that what you had ACTUALLY came from those characters while the way I see it, these are just people talking about those characters.

I don't think that's what we were talking about. We were talking about Sadat asking for a joint Soviet-American force to push the Israelis back to the 22nd of October lines. What you provided, is talking about the situation on the 18th of October. In which the Soviets believed that a cease-fire will save the Egyptians or whatever it said. I never said that the Egyptians suffered no set-backs during the war, but I'm saying that they came out victorious at the end...and that's what really matters.

Anyways, the cease-fire on the 22nd of October was not respected anyways. And I don't care who broke it; it was broken, nonetheless. And here, the cease-fire that was supposed to "save" the Egyptians didn't come into effect and the war kept going, and Egypt kept fighting.

If you look at my sources, the authors are usually military generals or major politicians WHO were DIRECTLY involved in this.

OK, no problem.

Crisis: The Anatomy of Two Major Foreign Policy Crises - Henry Kissinger

p330 - 331
"Simultaneously, there was a message from Hafiz Ismail claiming that Israel had broken the new cease-fire. Sadat followed with a message to Nixon demanding his intercession. In the middle of the afternoon, Sadat, in a message to Nixon, put forward a proposal bound to lead to decisions of grave consequence: the immediate dispatch of American observers or troops for the implementation of the Security Counsel cease-fire resolution on the Egyptian side. What was new was that I had feared throughout the crisies. Sadat told us that he was "formally" issuing the same request to the Soviets. Shortly after Sadat's private message, I learned through a news bulletin that Cairo had announced publicly that it was calling for a Security Counsil meeting to ask that American and Soviet "forces" be sent to the Middle East. The makings of a major crisis were emerging."

p349
"...the omnious implication was that the aircraft were being assembled to carry some of the airborne divisions whose increased alert status had also been noted. East German forces were also at increased readiness. The number of Soviet ships in the Mediterranean had grown to eighty-five - an all time high. (It later reached more than one hundred.) We discovered the next day that a Soviet flotilla of twelve ships, including two amphibious vessels, was heading for Alexandria."

p393 - 394
"Ambassaor Dinitz - Kissinger - Friday , october 26, 1973 10:58 PM
K: Let me give you the President's reaction in seperate parts. First he wanted me to make it absolutely clear that we cannot permit the destruction of the Egyptian army under conditions achieved after a cease-fire was reached in part by negotiations in which we participated...."


In confidence: Moscow's ambassador to America's six Cold War presidents (1962-1986) - Anatoliy Fedorovich Dobrynin

p294
"...When Brezhnev called our chief military representative in Cairo, he replied that there was no immediate threat to Cairo but said that "Sadat completely lost his head" when he learned that several Israeli tanks had crossed the Suez Canal and were heading toward Cairo...