If the Democrats stand by as Bush sends Bunkerbusters to Israel......Grrr

[Armstead]

The latest outrage is that the US is planning to rush a shipment of "Bunkerbuster" bombs to Israel.

That is just so wrong on so many levels. Even if supports Israel's right to self defense, it is a disaster for our relations in the Middle East (and elsewhere) for the US to be adding gasoline to the fire.

If the Democrats support this -- or don;t oppose it -- then they are as bad as Bush and the Neocons.

Mandatory disclaimer: I am not "anti Israel" in a broad sense, but I disagree with the agggressive hawks there, and I am especially appalled at the way they have ratched up this particular conflict. I am equally appalled at the US's support of these actions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Sadly, there's no "if" about it.

Most of our "leadership" is busy applauding Israel's aggression and telling us how "good" it is for Lebanon.

[Armstead]

4. This is crossing the line

It's bad enough for the US to sit back and passively allow what has happened.

But it is totally over the line to become an active participant in it in such a blatantly destructive way. And it will be perceived throughout the world as us thumbing our collective nose at the Arab world.

[mmonk]

2. I'm so dismayed that we aren't seeking

any type of effort to slow down the carnage. I joined the UNA-USA (United Nations Association) yesterday because I want to be active in trying international solutions towards quelling unhindered violence.

[Armstead]

9. Yes -- It is distressing

[rodeodance]

3. These bombs were appproved last year already. this is the shipment

stepped up of course. i do not think anything can be done to stop it.

[mmonk]

12. I think the key is rush

while circumstances are an escalation of destruction of a country while a fledgling government is mostly powerless to protect it's civilians and infrastructure and a general indifference to the situation.

[Armstead]

13. Or "not cancel, suspend or postpone shipment due to present hostilities"

[ClassWarrior]

5. What if some Dems oppose it and others don't - as is usually the case...

...with these broad-brush smears??

NGU.

[Armstead]

6. As in many cases, I will make a distinction....but so far....

Most Democrats have either been silent or they have actively supported Bush's stance of allowing Israel to continue this aggression and genocide in the name of "self-defense."

[ClassWarrior]

7. Most? Most? What happened to "they're all neocons?"

:rofl:

NGU.

[Armstead]

8. Here's your homework assignment...

Make me a list of all Democratic politicians who has voiced any opposition to Bush's handling of the present crisis.

And I don't mean opportunistic vague political shots about how a Democrat would have handlwed it better. I mean real concrete eamples of criticism regarding the US role in the events of the last two weeks.

Condsidering the vote count on the Congressionsl resolutions of support for Israel's bombing, I think you might have a difficult time.

But if you find any, I will acknowledge them. If you find a substanbtial number I will apologie and eat crow.

[Armstead]

15. Here -- I'll help you

Cong. Loretta Sanche and Cong. Dennis Kucinich are making sense on CSpan at the moment at a meetiong of the Arab American Institute. .

Kucinich is calling for action for a cease fire now, and is making emminent sense.

Sanchez also said that Israel's actions go far beyond what is necessary, and we need to come up with a plan that makes sense now.

That's two.

[chill_wind]

16. Find us some. And then let us know how they actually voted

despite the "qualms". The list would appear to be extremely short.

[SaveElmer]

10. Aren't Bunkerbusters designed...

To penetrate deep underground to get at buried structures, and actually carry a comparatively light explosive load. I may be wrong, but I believe these bombs tend to cause less "collateral" damage (I actually do not like that term), than conventional delivery systems.

I'm not an expert, but that is my understanding

[Armstead]

11. Two answers

1)Even if they were just firecrackers, we should not be sending arms to Israel during this kind of conflict. It makes us an active participant, and totally undermines our ability to intervene as an honest broker. It also hardens the grievences of the Islamic world against us even further. And that likely increases our likelihood of being susceptable to terrorist reprisals.

2)The damage from a bunkerbuster depends on where and how it is used. If Israel decides to drop them into Beruit or other heavily populated areas, it would result in large loss of life, and could also do serious damage to the civilian infrastruture.

[G_j]

14. Report: US to deliver 'smart bombs' to Israel

I was curious so I found a link. Why am I not surprised? :-(

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279551,00.html

Report: US to deliver 'smart bombs' to Israel

New York Times reports that Israel asked US delivers shipment of smart bombs under deal signed last year; Washington believes Israel has long list of targets in Lebanon requiring precision-guided missiles Yitzhak Benhorin

Washington - Smart bombs on the way: The Bush administration has complied with Israel's request for an expedited delivery of satellite and laser-guided bombs, the New York Times reported Saturday.

The newspaper reported that the decision could anger Arab countries who have accused Washington of giving Israel the green light to push ahead with its offensive against Lebanon.

Israel and the United States have kept silent on the type of bombs and the size of the delivery.

The delivery is part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale deal signed between Washington and Jerusalem last year, which Israel can draw on as needed.