If Bush decides to send troops to help Israel

[AusGail]

who's side will you be on?

[Selatius]

1. I'd be on the side Jesus and Gandhi would be on as far as this case goes.

In other cases, I am more willing to entertain the notion of violence, but there are only two reasons that would move me to decide war is necessary:

1) To protect family and home from imminent danger and/or destruction
2) To protect the Bill of Rights

I consider myself very peace prone, but there are points I believe require a man to raise the black flag of war. I don't see this as one of them.

[havocmom]

2. I want the popcorn concession on that one

Cuz I can't see Israel taking orders from US military and I can't see bush's base sitting still for the US military taking orders from anybody but the Chicken Hawks

Exploding heads in freeper ville

Popcorn, git yer popcorn!

[Purveyor]

3. I'll spit upon any US soldier that participates in such a war crime...

And yes, I'm sure I can 'hold my own' during the confrontation.

[everythingsxen]

7. Wow aren't you brave?

It must be convenient to say you will spit on a soldier, when a soldier has no choice.

You can make all the moral judgements you want, but a soldier cannot. He is given orders and he obeys them. That is how militaries work. Spit on Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld all you want, but leave the soldiers alone; it isn't their decision.

[Purveyor]

9. They also have an obligation to follow the law and have a

right to refuse orders that would violate the laws of the Geneva Convention.

The old "they were only carrying out orders" shit died with the Nuremburg trials...

[everythingsxen]

10. Sure thing.. whatever you say...

So you are telling me that a_soldier001 who is in the military, who is given orders from above saying to the effect of "Our ally Israel has been attacked and we are going to assist them", who then obeys his lawful orders from a commander, is a war criminal?

By what deranged definition of war-crime? By the definition that all war is a crime or some other naive, over-simplistic world view?

I also appreciate how well you are able to conclude that Israel is automatically guilty of committing war-crimes. Normally you need to have some sort of first-hand knowledge of the situation. I assume you are a member of the IDF, IAF, Hezbollah or Lebanese Military?

[carl_pwccaman]

11. How is it a war crime to decide to support an ally?

It isn't a war crime, and it isn't Nazi, to defend a country from rocket and suicide bomber attacks, kidnapping, from its enemies. Israel was defending itself from such attacks.

Now, when Israel makes things worse by pushing the envelope or going too far, there's no reason to egg them on, but Israel is an ally and they are fighting against people who would push them into the sea.

So, if you believe Israel has a right to exist, do they have a right to defend themselves at all?

Secondly, getting involved to defend an ally would still (hopefully) involve a vote by congress, and could be opposed on many grounds.

[manic expression]

22. It is a war crime to carry out atrocities against entire peoples

Israel is not defending itself, it is guilty of land theft, murder, forced evictions, depriving nations and more. Of course people will respond to such oppression the only way they can, can any sane person call that unreasonable?

I don't care if they are an ally, they are patently without justification for their actions. Their policies of wrongdoing are undeniable. That is why it is a crime to aid such a force of terror and suffering.

Oh, and Uzbekistan is our "ally", do you support them, too? What about Azerbaijan? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? No? Anyone? Bueller?

[Solo_in_MD]

13. People who say that usually won't do what they threatened

and could not standup to a deterimined 5 year old. Spitting on anyone is assault. It can also get you subjected to testing for HIV in some jurisdictions. Hopefully this is just online bravado from you.

[Sammy Pepys]

31. You think you'd hold your own?

I guarantee that you would get your ass handed to you if such a confrontation ensued. And it probably wouldn't be the solider you'd have to worry about....it'd be everyone else who witnessed your stupidity.

[Jamastiene]

38. That's why people hate liberals/progressives.

Hate the war, hate the violence, hate the pretzeldent, but don't spit on soldiers. That's misguided, cheap and disgusting. I wouldn't even do THAT and I tend to be a real rude punk ass bi-atch.

Note: Yeah, I mean it this time. No sarcasm smiley or anything. The jokester means it this time. That post was over the line. It takes a lot to make me serious.

[The Magistrate]

4. It Will Not Happen, Ma'am

The Israelis certainly would not want it.

[LiviaOlivia]

6. Agreed

And that begs the question "What troops?" Did Washington reinstate the Draft?

[Solo_in_MD]

12. It will be interesting is the US is invited on any UN deployment there

I do think one is coming. It will have to be in force, not the pitiful team they have their now. It may well be the only way the national government of Lebanon can survive and regain control over the southern part of the country

[The Magistrate]

14. A U.N. Force, Sir

If it were intended to have teeth, would probably be based upon French troops. They used to run the place, and still have close connections with its leading political class, and institutional knowledge of the society and geography there.

[Solo_in_MD]

16. A UN force would have to be acceptable to all sides

and Israel is not particularly fond of France these days, but they may accede to them. Their recent action in northern africa would not inspire confidence in their impartiality.

Most likely it would be lead out of Scandinavia or other nation with no prior history in the region to minimize bias complaints with a mix of troops. That is the current UN preferred practice, which has done so well in Darfur, Kosovo and elsewhere as of late. :sarcasm:

[The Magistrate]

19. But They Would Have To Be Able To Shoot, Sir

The French, stock humor to the contrary, have competent combat units quite up to the task. The minor countries mentioned do not.

[Solo_in_MD]

20. UN troops are not allowed to shoot or defend the innocent

Its against their ROE. Judging by their recent record, the UN has no interest in fielding a competent fighting force, though it might happen by accident sometime. Call me bitter, but after Darfur and Kosovo, its hard not to be.

The French military is an interesting set of contradictions. Well motivated but beset by budgetary issues and nationalism. Once one of the major heavy weapons suppliers, the French armaments industry has lagged further and further behind. After Desert Storm when their equipment was clearly outclassed in combat, even some of their best customers left them for US equipment. However, the French insist on only using weapons made in country for reasons for national pride.

Its not that they don't have good companies. Thales is the largest supplier of Avionics in the world, and its world class stuff. But in terms of armor, aircraft, and other combat systems they are lagging further and further behind.

Another facet is the French subsidies of their major industries such as aircraft production. More of this has spilled out to the media with the current mess at AirBus. The French government has indemnified the investors in the new Airbus models. If it does not make money, the French treasury will cover losses.

Lastly the French military has not been in a real fight since Vietnam. Though well trained it is un blooded. How well they do in a toe to toe fight remains to be seen.

[The Magistrate]

24. The Rules Of Engagement Can Be Varied, Sir

Though what you describe is the usual case, certainly. A force dispatched to southern Lebanon would have to fight, and have orders allowing it to.

[Lost-in-FL]

5. That's a joke, huh?

None, enough of that crap already.

[everythingsxen]

8. Israel's...

right or wrong, they are our ally. They were attacked first and are fighting enemies who have sworn to the extermination of Jews. Even if Israel's leadership is as messed up as our own, the people of Israel should not be wiped out for it.

[ShortnFiery]

15. An Ally who is doing WRONG! There should be a cease fire NOW! eom

[carl_pwccaman]

17. Wrong to go too far, but not wrong to defend itself

There should be distinctions.

Can't we say Israel is right to defend itself, but that we are concerned with the way the bombings are going?

I recommend Rabbi Lerner's suggestions at Tikkun.org, personally, he's been a peace activist for decades on these issues. When it comes to peacemaking and a fair settlement for both sides, he mentions some things Israel can do, AND some things that Palestine and other can do, and also things that can be done by the US and any country that is willing to accept the existence of the State of Israel.

http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/news_item.2006-07-17.9426591429”

[manic expression]

23. But

Israel isn't defending itself. At all.

[Brian Stevens]

32. That's right

Screw the jews <sarcastic>

[manic expression]

33. What are you trying to say

Screw Zionist oppression, injustice, aggression and theft. That's what's right.

[ShortnFiery]

25. This onslaught of death and destruction to an entire country has nothing

to do with Israel defending itself. You insult my intelligence. :(

[cali]

28. If course it has something to do

with defense, and its tangled up with a lot of other stuff as well. Who are you to decide what their motives are. You've been on enough threads with historical information to stop simplifying this mess.

[ShortnFiery]

29. Are you following me?

I'm growing tired of your snipes, if you disagree with me at least show the class to address the issues instead of my person. :hi:

[w4rma]

27. They are no longer defending themselves. They are bombing civilians

including US, British, Canadian, etc. civilians. I know 8 Canadians have already been killed by the Israeli bombs.

They are destroying the country's infrastructure, not to defend itself but to weaken it economically.

[AusGail]

36. Are you saying that the Israelis did nothing wrong before

the two soldiers were kidnapped?

[AtomicKitten]

18. I'll be on the side of peace. n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

21. Good choice

[w4rma]

26. There aren't any troops to send. The US military is stretched too thin

to send troops anywhere else.

[win_in_06]

30. I don't think Israel needs our help, at least not with boots on the ground

They seem to be pretty good at this war thing.

[Zhade]

34. I don't support war crimes, even by or with the help of American soldiers.

NT!

[DuaneBidoux]

35. Will Not Happen.

[Cobalt-60]

37. It would lock in the current situation

If our troops openly take the field with the Israelis, it will be generations before friendly relations can be established with the Muslims.
It will be the cold war replacement the fascists have been looking for, with the Muslims in the role of implacable external enemy.