Think about it, and you thumb-sucking LIBERALS at least try to understand this basic lesson I am giving you free of charge. The USA refused, thank God (yes, LIBERALS, He does exist!), to allow its southern states to live under the threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba. When Olmert addressed Parliament yesterday, he hit the nail right on the head when he said, "Israel will not agree to live in the shadow of the threat of missiles or rockets against its residents." Someone want to tell me difference here? Hezbollah and their terrorist sponsors (we all know who they are) have had more than ample opportunity to shape up and be a part of the solution for peace in that part of the world. They have not only rejected those chances, but have been building massive arsenals that are now being used. Israel is not a big country area-wise, so the threat posed is even GREATER to them than the USA faced in '62. If terrorists continue to fire from cities, there can be no mercy shown. It is SELF-DEFENSE!
2006-07-18 02:35:39 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Hmmm, interesting that you understand this. So many on this site castigate without thinking the real situation Israel is in. Of course the Cuban Missile Crisis almost got us into a war with the now defunct Soviet Bloc; and they backed down (thank goodness!).
President Kennedy had activated fail-safe--B-52 bombers were on their way to Russia and other choice places. Kruschev backed down, recalled the Russian ships carrying the missles to Cuba, and the sites there were deactivated.
Also, the main Air Force base in Florida (was it McCall AFB? I can't recall) were mobilising.
After all this finished, the US and USSR went on to play other tricks and mind-games on each other.
I don't think I quite answered your question--sorry.
2006-07-18 02:47:50 · answer #1 · answered by Sick Puppy 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
One obvious difference is that neither Kennedy nor Kruschev wished to release nuclear armageddon on the world. Kruschev backed down, and we disengaged our blockade. Hezbollah and its foreign patrons are far more committed to their destructive cause than Kruschev ever was. Kruschev, being an atheist, was far more pragmatic than the Islamofascist zealots. The Israelis, although they have a recognized state religion, are far more secular.
These guys are motivated by a completely different ideology and have a religious element thrown into the mix. They've already begun a shooting war and neither side seems ready to back down. ( Although the Israelis have made some overtures.)
I'm afraid that the ultimate consequence however, might be the same. God help us all.
2006-07-18 02:51:19 · answer #2 · answered by exretainedff 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You hit the point exactly!! way to go!! It is so annoying that Americans have a right to do anything they want, and the world says nothing, but when we try to defend ourselves everyone calls us "terrorists". Look what the USA is doing in Iraq! look what they did in Vietnam! and what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
2006-07-18 02:49:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very pithy! And well said! The analogy is perfect. Keep up the good work! God bless!
2006-07-21 13:15:33 · answer #4 · answered by celticwoman777 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is more similar to the North Korea situation we face today.
2006-07-18 05:01:55 · answer #5 · answered by Tall Guy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋