The 73 sh1t is really overrated,
Overrated in what sense, exactly? Do you have a reasonable grasp as to the detailed political nuances pre-war? For example, did you know that in 1970, post Nasser's death & the war of attrition when Sadat inherited power under the vice president rule that he offered the Israelis peace if the Sinai was returned? They refused citing the lack of a non-belligerence commitment. Truth is (IMO) they simply wanted to hold onto all of Sinai to be able to eventually annex it when the time comes, just like they did with the Golan Heights. If there is ever any proof of their true and devious intentions, it's the annexation of the Golan Heights which ironically was also the territory being fought for in that same war.
So in essence, the Yom Kippur war was forced on Egypt because there was an impasse at reaching a non-violent agreement. Just based on that, how could such a major event ever be considered overrated, let alone shit? Especially when the result altered the entire geopolitical landscape of the Middle East?
I don't think you're well-informed enough to make such a sweeping conclusion to be perfectly honest with you. Dismissing an event of that caliber as mere "overrated shit" is beyond ill-informed, no offense.
The result of the war forced the zionists to "WITHDRAW" and lose the entire front they gained and had set up with all their outposts and defenses that were designed to prevent any attack by Egypt from the west bank of the canal. That's not something that gets dismissed as overrated shit.
by the end of the war Israelis had an open unchallenged road to Cairo within 90 miles and with a huge Egyptian army group encircled
The entire war was fought within 100 kilometers of Cairo. Did you even consider that, let alone know that fact?
The entire front, from Port Said in the north to the end of the canal at Suez City in the south was a parallel line with an average distance of 100 kms from any given/incremental point straight to Cairo.
Just because you saw a picture of the road sign that showed 1 of only 2 roads at the time that ran from Cairo to the western bank shoreline of the Suez Canal that was taken at the time of the cease-fire is completely misleading since the entire war was already being fought at that average distance.
And "huge army" is also misleading because using it in that manner intentionally removes the fact that it was 2 divisions out of a total of 5 that fought the war. The other 3 divisions were in the northern sector that was responsible for defeating the zionist infiltration and attempt to cut them off. Removing that element from your comment is deceptive and incomplete to say the least, on top of the misleading miles from Cairo claim.
Had the war continued on both would have fallen.
To think that not only was it a guarantee that the 3rd army would've fallen, but that the same enemy tasked with that operation would somehow also be able to march another 100 kms and take a city the size of Cairo is absurd beyond belief.
The level of absurdity is phenomenal because you don't even know that the same enemy contingent, you're claiming could've also marched to Cairo actually tried to take Suez City and failed miserably. They failed spectacularly by a bunch of civilians who took up arms and blended in with the few remaining soldiers who were there at the time. A city that's not even 1/50th the size of Cairo. I hope you're slowly but surely seeing the actual reality, here.
Egypt did well at the start and then did nothing.
Nothing? They actually did a lot which is another incomplete description on your part.
They made some grave mistakes that led to unfortunate and considerable losses of equipment and manpower, but it certainly wasn't "nothing". Much of those mistakes were due to Sadat's terrible orders and insisting on not listening to Shazly. Had he followed Shazly's plan, they would've stopped the zionists from attempting the 'supposed' 3rd army cutoff since the exact plan worked and defeated the zionists from attempting the same thing in the north and the 2nd army. The battle of Ismailiyah was one of several critical victories after the initial canal assault that you're conveniently omitting. So was the repelling of the Israeli counter-offensive that saw them take tremendous casualties and losses.
Not trying to offend you, just giving you some more truth and critical information that's lacking in your faulty comment.
Bragging about capturing 5% out of the 95% land you lost in a war
Another unfortunate fallacy. First of all, you're completely dismissing the control of the entire Canal. The Suez Canal was shut down after the 1967 debacle. Crossing the canal and occupying the most critical part of the lost territory is not simply 5%, which is even mathematically incorrect to begin with anyway. Falsely minimizing the total gain is like saying the United States captured a lousy 5% of Japanese territory when they took Iwo Jima. Completely dismissing the strategic AND political importance of that gain is a fallacy.
and then ending the war in danger of losing your capital is nothing to brag about.
Again with "losing the capital". I hope you realize the absurdity of that is on a stratospheric level.
What I've learned through the decades of understanding this phenomenon in that faulty narrative you described is that it's rooted in several outside factors related to the entire scop of the Arab/zionists conflict. The same, unfortunate thing is happening now with this conflict. The preconceived notion that many have is the result of the intentional manipulation and faulty portrayal of the historical facts. When the facts are written and spoken in a false manner, they have a profound effect on the public and worse is that it shapes the thinking process. Add prejudice and other elements and you have a terribly incorrect outlook. It's sad bad true and this is a perfect example.
U.S runs a war economy... effectively a short on it's opponent. In resources, deployment, armaments, logistics and supply chain are all geared to choke the opponent. The financial institutions and world supply chain are all instruments to sanction the opponent for desired results.
U.S pays it's labor in IOU's called the greenback... whose mere relevance is predicated upon U.S hegemony and it's ability to have it's paper accepted as a genuine substitute for someone's labor or resource.
The reason I mentioned that whole backstory was to impress upon the futility of going head-on in a large capacity in opposition to the juggernaut. The answer is sustainable deployment to achieve objectives against a known capacity, Isreal.
Which effectively remains an outlet to practice, produce or experiment with novel techniques, technology and advancements in gadgets, platforms and methods of war.
Egyptians hands are tied though... when issued an IOU to fill your belly, buy candy or items of need or luxury. It is not the product that has changed hands but loyalty and dependence, to achieve the same... again... the opium of our times.
The blood that we see then is one of our inabilities, of our tied conscience and bought prerogative. It's not that our hands are tied or our hearts don't ache... we show remorse, empathize... but simultaneously rue our predicament.
We the bottom of human conscience, faith and hope... reflect our hopelessness.
100k in 6 hrs is thus not our primary disadvantage... It is the least of our worries!
Can't say I disagree with anything you said. The "100K in 6 hours" was only my added correction to the original comment. And the only time it would be necessary is if there is a perceived threat of a military invasion by the enemy at the border. There's much more significant logistical buildup of the Egyptian army in Sinai through the decades -- post-1973 -- as a result of the hampering conditions in the peace treaty. Those efforts were massive in scale, from underground civilian & military tunnels to contingency bases and outposts etc. all over Sinai and geared specifically for that sole purpose.
The "worries", as you said, are only if this criminal genocidal murdering spree by the zionists would be enough of a cause for concern to activate the 100K troops. I wouldn't be surprised if it's partly implemented already. The biggest fear Egypt has is a repeat of 1967. The entire scope of the enormous military buildup since 1973 has been predicated on that fear. Is it reasonable? I think so. Even more so now after the events in Libya & Syria. If it happened in 1956 and in 1967, who's to say it would never happen again?
