http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpQ12NzCM8x4H5qGFNYH264vyYiQ

Can't understand why George W found this concept so hard to grasp, but hey ho.

Thats certainly promising.

I have to say I have real hope in Obama. Regardless of the historic nature of his Election, I am buoyed that he isn't from a long political dynasty. This could be to his detriment in some areas (lack of experience) but is also a boon, if played right. After all, he has nothing to live up to except his own potential and promises.

The Dem party is a long political die-nasty. Look at the core team from Bill Clinton to which he defers.

Corruption? Nominating a guy who only decided to pay his taxes (as far back as 2002) on the eve of his nomination to Barack's cabinet. What happened to everyone's got to share the wealth? Didn't Biden say it was patriotic to pay taxes? So why is Barack nominating such an unpatriotic individual?

Change? Where?

utan wrote:The Dem party is a long political die-nasty. Look at the core team from Bill Clinton to which he defers.

Corruption? Nominating a guy who only decided to pay his taxes (as far back as 2002) on the eve of his nomination to Barack's cabinet. What happened to everyone's got to share the wealth? Didn't Biden say it was patriotic to pay taxes? So why is Barack nominating such an unpatriotic individual?

Change? Where?

So that's it? A thread on a significant change in Israel/Palestinian policy (most noticeably because its being addressed at the start of his first term when political power is greatest, not at the back end of his second like Clinton and Bush)... and you drop in to point out a guy in his cabinet didn't pay his taxes.

Sure, Bush was something of debacle and Obama is still in the honeymoon period but there's got to be something better to argue with than back taxes in a foreign policy thread.

utan wrote:

Change? Where?

Think you will find the change refers to the US on the world stage. There was no real logical reason for the Muslim world to turn on the US so badly. Fair enough, they may not of trusted you due to the closeness of the US to Israel, but US actions against Muslim countries has been sparked by the frustration of the terrorist attacks against it.

IMO I think you should of been more tactical after 9/11. Iraq was a George W pet project that ruined your world standing. You could of used you tech and intel to launch pin-point strikes against terrorist groups. Yes it would of ruffled feathers, but not so much as Iraq. Plus at the end of the day none of the Muslim countries want to be supporting fanatics, especially as they could turn on them at anytime. Hopefully Obama will follow the advice given by Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

errm, I think the point was that President Obama is pursuing a markedly different foreign policy agenda than his predecessor.

Most of the rest is the civilised world is breathing a collective sigh of relief at this point (especially the British, who tend to take our fair share of casulaties on Disney's Arabian Adventure).

Does anyone really think that the best way to get Iran to change its stance on important issues is to threaten them? After all, no western power would renounce its policies if another country said if effect 'do it, or else...'

And yes, I know that people will say that Iran sponsors terrorism, except of course that this isn't the Iranian Army marching under the flag. Its desperate and rather pathetic individuals who have been shamelessly corrupted by extremist clerics to believe that killing the Infidel is a sure path to Paradise.
Knock away the crutch of legitimacy given to these people by having Iran, Syria et al as part of the International community and it becomes that much harder for them to recruit, just as renewed efforts to reduce terrorist income by finding alternative energy supplies and disrupting the drugs trade makes it harder for them to train and equip.

All of this gets easier when places like Iran (which, it must be remembered, is full of ordinary men and women for the most part - trying to make a living and leave a legacy for their children) is with us, rather than against us.

Indeed, the Iron Fist with a Velvet Glove approach is a good way to go about things.

The Bush years were all about aggression and generally being an arse (Your with us or against us. Unless you're the IRA whom have been American funded for quite some time. Or fighting against someone we don't like. Then you're freedom fighters)

I for one welcome the US back to the fold. Most wars end up around the negotiating table anyways, so how about just skipping the horrors of war and agreeing to meet there in the first place?

Wolfstan wrote:Think you will find the change refers to the US on the world stage. There was no real logical reason for the Muslim world to turn on the US so badly. Fair enough, they may not of trusted you due to the closeness of the US to Israel, but US actions against Muslim countries has been sparked by the frustration of the terrorist attacks against it.

IMO I think you should of been more tactical after 9/11. Iraq was a George W pet project that ruined your world standing. You could of used you tech and intel to launch pin-point strikes against terrorist groups. Yes it would of ruffled feathers, but not so much as Iraq. Plus at the end of the day none of the Muslim countries want to be supporting fanatics, especially as they could turn on them at anytime. Hopefully Obama will follow the advice given by Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

Well, I think Afghanistan was necessary. There had been a period of pin point strikes, which basically amounted to firing cruise missiles into tents that may or may not have people in them, and occasionally aspirin factories. I think the action in Afghanistan was necessary and worthwhile. It's just Iraq came along and drew resources away and stopped Afghanistan being done properly.

I think only the most obtuse left wing arse could possibly argue that Afghanistan was a mistake or indeed unnecessary. It clearly was. Indeed, the Taleban were not a recognised Government in the West at the time, and were known to harbour Terrorist factions.

But Iraq was unjustifiable (plenty of other countries do equally horrific things to their populace) and the whole WMD was a pack of sheer lies on the behalf of our Governments....

sebster wrote:

Well, I think Afghanistan was necessary. There had been a period of pin point strikes, which basically amounted to firing cruise missiles into tents that may or may not have people in them, and occasionally aspirin factories. I think the action in Afghanistan was necessary and worthwhile. It's just Iraq came along and drew resources away and stopped Afghanistan being done properly.

Exactly. Afghanistan was a clear threat. It was a training ground / bolt hole for Al'Qaeda as well as having a terrible human rights record.

Honey, no one gets or deserves a honeymoon when they take the office of President of the US.

I am old enough to be cynical about all politicians and the Republicrat party in particular. They promise a lot in there direct-response ads but rarely deliver. To quote Atkinson they are "like a Christmas cracker. One massively disappointing bang and the novelty's soon worn off."

Talk is cheap. I will keep my eyes open for results, but I do not expect much.

Well, he's already pressed ahead with the closure of Guantanamo Bay....Thats a positive sign.

Not terribly American holding people captive, without charge, for over 6 years now, is it? I'd call it a stain on your country myself.

This is funny...
"If only the US had negotiated with the terrorists, then 9/11 would not have happened! It's all Bush's fault!!!"
Never mind the fact that the attacks were planned before Bush got in office. Don’t let facts get in the way of good ass licking of this new president. I am sure his diplomacy will work! Come on! Its not like people lie on those meetings
("All I want is Austria!")

We are at war. They were non-soldier combatants (edited to correct term) caught in the war. They get out when the war is over.
Besides, Britain just said it doesn't want any more. Can I send them to your house MDG?

Its strange though. Bush has been out for at least a week. Yet terrorists are still attacking us, most recently a thwarted attack in Yemen. I'm shocked, I thought it was all Bush's fault?

Europe has been negotiating with Iran for years now. How has that worked out so far?
I think its too late on that front. We either hit Iran now or get used to a nuclear Iran. Then a nuclear Egypt. Then a nuclear Saudi Arabia. Then a nuclear Syria. Then a nuclear Kuwait. Not necessarily in that order of course. But I have faith, after all the Middle East is one of the most stable regions in the world. No one ever goes to war or does anything illogical there.

Thats the trouble though Frazz.

Geneva Convention specifies legal treatment etc for Prisoners of War. This expressly forbids torture as a means of interrogation.

Now, the US did not claim them as PoWs. So Geneva Convention did not apply.

However, nor did they plump for them being Civilians, neatly sidestepping US Law on treatment of Prisoners.

Instead, they were labelled the rather dubious 'Enemy Combatants' essentially a made up stature with no legal precedent preceeding it.

Gen. Lee...*nobody* is saying that in this thread. Anywhere. At all. Indeed, nobody is saying the military campaign in Afghanistan was a mistake either. BUT Iraq was a mistake, and the way Guantanamo Bay was setup was also wrong to the point of extremely dubious legality....

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Thats the trouble though Frazz.

Geneva Convention specifies legal treatment etc for Prisoners of War. This expressly forbids torture as a means of interrogation.

Now, the US did not claim them as PoWs. So Geneva Convention did not apply.

MDG they are non-soldier combatants. They have no rights under the Geneva Convention.

So, can we ship them to your house MDG?

utan wrote:Honey, no one gets or deserves a honeymoon when they take the office of President of the US.

Newly elected presidents received positive media coverage for a while after election. This is called a honeymoon period. I wasn't aware anyone tried to argue otherwise. I have no idea why you're arguing otherwise.

I am old enough to be cynical about all politicians and the Republicrat party in particular. They promise a lot in there direct-response ads but rarely deliver. To quote Atkinson they are "like a Christmas cracker. One massively disappointing bang and the novelty's soon worn off."

Talk is cheap. I will keep my eyes open for results, but I do not expect much.

Fine, that's your right. I'd recommend you be wary of lazy cynicism, mind you, that easy process of looking for a quick way to dismiss something so you can feel superior without ever having to learn about anything. It's all too common on the internet.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Gen. Lee...*nobody* is saying that in this thread. Anywhere. At all. Indeed, nobody is saying the military campaign in Afghanistan was a mistake either. BUT Iraq was a mistake, and the way Guantanamo Bay was setup was also wrong to the point of extremely dubious legality....

Maybe you are right. Sorry if I was OT. But it sure felt like one giant "Bush was dumb/evil/mean - and Obama is so smart/good/kind"
The thread is about how Obama will talk with those who hate us and lie to us. I am sure the things said at that table will all be nice and good, and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:This is funny...
"If only the US had negotiated with the terrorists, then 9/11 would not have happened! It's all Bush's fault!!!"
Never mind the fact that the attacks were planned before Bush got in office. Don’t let facts get in the way of good ass licking of this new president. I am sure his diplomacy will work! Come on! Its not like people lie on those meetings
("All I want is Austria!")

Austria? If you're going to cram history into a hackneyed analogy, at least get the basic facts right.

Frazzled wrote:We are at war. They were non-soldier combatants (edited to correct term) caught in the war. They get out when the war is over.
Besides, Britain just said it doesn't want any more. Can I send them to your house MDG?

Why can't they go through judicial process and spend their lives in supermax? They're all known to be guilty, and supermax is full of scarier guys than these planners and organisers.

Its strange though. Bush has been out for at least a week. Yet terrorists are still attacking us, most recently a thwarted attack in Yemen. I'm shocked, I thought it was all Bush's fault?

Nothing Bush did in office could ever be as bad as what the Russians did in Afghanistan and Chechnya. The antipathy to the US is long and complicated, and not just the result of US foreign policy. It certainly isn't the result of Bush foreign policy (before 9/11, what was Bush foreign policy? I can't even remember...)

Bush's failings are more to do with squandering public goodwill in the wake of Afghanistan. Seriously, in Iran anti-US protests (normally organised by govt) were banned for a few weeks. The mood really was with the US in the wake of 9/11, there was a chance for something to really change. Now it's so far the other way it's hard to see it ever ending.

Europe has been negotiating with Iran for years now. How has that worked out so far?
I think its too late on that front. We either hit Iran now or get used to a nuclear Iran. Then a nuclear Egypt. Then a nuclear Saudi Arabia. Then a nuclear Syria. Then a nuclear Kuwait. Not necessarily in that order of course. But I have faith, after all the Middle East is one of the most stable regions in the world. No one ever goes to war or does anything illogical there.

Egypt is basically a US client state. If you don't want them to have nuclear weapons they won't get any, because they're entirely dependant on you for weapons right now.

What do you think of Israel's current nuclear capacity? Is it destabilising the region, and do they need to be bombed as well?

(see, told you I'd quote you when I had something to say about your posts )

sebster wrote:
Austria? If you're going to cram history into a hackneyed analogy, at least get the basic facts right.

I was having a bit of fun, not giving a history lesson.

I retract that comment, and apologize to all historians on this thread.

Indeed, Afghanistan is most defiantly justified. Unfortunate due to poor timing it has become synonymous with the disastrous escapade in Iraq and many people view the 2 as the same conflict when they are anything but. Had the resources that had been put in Iraq been utilized in Afghanistan instead, its quite possible that all the troops could be home with their loved ones by now. Lets hope it not to late to do something about that.

Anyway bringing up that guy why had some tax problems sounds a bit like nitpicking to me, if that’s the biggest skeleton you can find in the closet of Obama's cabinet then it sounds like he's done a remarkable job compared to his predecessor.

Anyway Obama has been in office for just over 1 week. In that time Obama has lifted pointless barricades to stem cell research, Announced plans for greater transparency with the security services, has announced closure of the shameful Guantanamo bay, and is bringining in new emissions targets. Add this new attitude to foreign policy it amazes me that anyone can say nothing will change. Things are changing.

The only trap is the fact that people have placed very high expectations on Obama, far beyond what he has ever actually promised. But it doesn’t alter the fact that for the first time in ages I feel proud of the special relationship with the United States and I don’t think I'm alone.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:This is funny...
"If only the US had negotiated with the terrorists, then 9/11 would not have happened! It's all Bush's fault!!!"
Never mind the fact that the attacks were planned before Bush got in office. Don’t let facts get in the way of good ass licking of this new president. I am sure his diplomacy will work! Come on! Its not like people lie on those meetings
("All I want is Austria!")

So who said you should of negotiated with the terrorists? I don't think you will find any Brit would suggest that. 30 years of IRA action gives us a certain perspective on this matter I think. I think you will find that the point being made was that if you remove the fuel, the fire can't burn. You can't turn back turn with regard to Iraq, but you can be more balanced with regard to Israel. You were able to twist the facts to get the UN to kinda back your actions in Iraq, but dismiss them with regard to Israel. The Arab world needs to know that when you talk about justice and freedom, it applies to all. If Israel crosses the line, you damn well tell them they have and mean it. In the same way if Hamas does something positive you should acknowledge that. Neither reponses mean you are taking sides, it means you are able to be truely neutral. Once the Arab world trusts you to be neutral, they will feel more inclined to help you with hardline states who won't budge. You will never change the mind of the fanatics, but in being seen as neutral again, you could change the minds of alot of people who feel wronged by your approach to the middle east.

LuciusAR wrote:

The only trap is the fact that people have placed very high expectations on Obama, far beyond what he has ever actually promised.

Turning back the rising seas? Healing Earth?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Maybe you are right. Sorry if I was OT. But it sure felt like one giant "Bush was dumb/evil/mean - and Obama is so smart/good/kind"
The thread is about how Obama will talk with those who hate us and lie to us. I am sure the things said at that table will all be nice and good, and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US.

But most of "those people" don't hate you. They don't think about you at all until bombs/rhetoric etc provides ammunition for militants to whip them into a fervour.

And of course having one of your candidates run for office using " bomb bomb bomb Iran" might not go done too well over there perhaps ?

And it wasn't like Obama was going " we want to love you"

As I said in my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," he said.

"It is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of US power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran."

There's conditions there see ?

Wolfstan wrote:

So who said you should of negotiated with the terrorists? I don't think you will find any Brit would suggest that. 30 years of IRA action gives us a certain perspective on this matter I think. I think you will find that the point being made was that if you remove the fuel, the fire can't burn. You can't turn back turn with regard to Iraq, but you can be more balanced with regard to Israel. You were able to twist the facts to get the UN to kinda back your actions in Iraq, but dismiss them with regard to Israel. The Arab world needs to know that when you talk about justice and freedom, it applies to all. If Israel crosses the line, you damn well tell them they have and mean it. In the same way if Hamas does something positive you should acknowledge that. Neither reponses mean you are taking sides, it means you are able to be truely neutral. Once the Arab world trusts you to be neutral, they will feel more inclined to help you with hardline states who won't budge. You will never change the mind of the fanatics, but in being seen as neutral again, you could change the minds of alot of people who feel wronged by your approach to the middle east.

What has Isreal done that warrents UN involvement? A few poeple moved to a different side of town? If you ignore their race (which we should) why is that so bad? They bombed the crap out of Hamas? If they were firing rockets at me, I would kill them all to a man!

Edit - I can not spell....

Afghanistan was necessary. The mistakes were

A. Expecting the Northern Alliance to top outside Kabul.
B. Not stabilising Pakistan.
C. Getting into Iraq without any necessity.
D. Doing that before the job in Afghanistan was finished.

Bush was not solely responsible for worldwide negative feelings against the USA. There have always been anti-USA people.

Bush simply made things a lot worse and began to alienate natural allies like the UK.

Frazzled wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Thats the trouble though Frazz.

Geneva Convention specifies legal treatment etc for Prisoners of War. This expressly forbids torture as a means of interrogation.

Now, the US did not claim them as PoWs. So Geneva Convention did not apply.

MDG they are non-soldier combatants. They have no rights under the Geneva Convention.

So, can we ship them to your house MDG?

Well, first of all, I'm not aware of the exact definition of a Non Solider Combatant.

In times of War, enemy soldiers have certain rights when captured (held without trial, but afforded human rights until end of conflict). Non Soldier Combatant. So, like the French Resistance in some respects. Not part of an organised Military, but more than willing to fight for their country (n.b. I am NOT drawing paralells to the Heroic souls who made up the French Resistance and the Religious Zealots who comprise Al Qaeda and the Taleban. I am simply using the structure as a comparisson, not the motivations).

Civilians cannot be held indefinitely without charge. Even Terrorist suspects have a finitie holding time before they have to be released.

So, which is a non-soldier combatant? And were they all really gun toting extremists? Many it seems were not and were regretably in wrong place/wrong time...yet all held without charge for several years.

Do you mean other than bombing /dropping phosphorus on a UN school ?

Or are you now saying that civilian casualties are acceptable in a conflict ?

Non-soldier combatants are armed people fighting without the benefit of having been enrolled into a recognised state's armed forces.

Otherwise know as criminals.

The point about Guantanamo is that it was impossible to hold the suspect as POws because they weren't and impossible to hold them as criminals as there wasn;t enough evidence to stand up against a write of Habeus Corpus. So a new category was invented.

reds8n wrote: Do you mean other than bombing /dropping phosphorus on a UN school ?

Or are you now saying that civilian casualties are acceptable in a conflict ?

If the thugs were hiding in a UN school, I would bomb it. Not even an issue. Hide in a church? I will bomb it. Hide in a Milk Factory? I will bomb it.

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

Which neatly removed all their rights....

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Maybe you are right. Sorry if I was OT. But it sure felt like one giant "Bush was dumb/evil/mean - and Obama is so smart/good/kind"
The thread is about how Obama will talk with those who hate us and lie to us. I am sure the things said at that table will all be nice and good, and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US.

But isn't that politics? A foreign government lies to you, the opposition lies to you, it's part of political life. Please don't tell me you meant this, "and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US"? You're worried that a foreign power might might got one over on you and be sniggering about it? Got some self esteem issues then?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote: Do you mean other than bombing /dropping phosphorus on a UN school ?

Or are you now saying that civilian casualties are acceptable in a conflict ?

If the thugs were hiding in a UN school, I would bomb it. Not even an issue. Hide in a church? I will bomb it. Hide in a Milk Factory? I will bomb it.

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

That's fair enough. So it's equally acceptable to fly planes into the side of a towers then? It being a war and civilian casualties a part of that or perhaps even a way of bringing people to their knees.

I so want to make a Paris Hilton joke there but alas...

reds8n wrote:

That's fair enough. So it's equally acceptable to fly planes into the side of a towers then? It being a war and civilian casualties a part of that or perhaps even a way of bringing people to their knees.

I so want to make a Paris Hilton joke there but alas...

Are you serious? Responding to hundreds of rockets is a bit different than flying a plane into a building. Just a smidge...
Civilain casualties in a war zone (after dropping flyer to warn them) vs. lying to get on a plane, and killing absolutly no military persons.
Your point kinda makes you look like an ass.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

So who said you should of negotiated with the terrorists? I don't think you will find any Brit would suggest that. 30 years of IRA action gives us a certain perspective on this matter I think. I think you will find that the point being made was that if you remove the fuel, the fire can't burn. You can't turn back turn with regard to Iraq, but you can be more balanced with regard to Israel. You were able to twist the facts to get the UN to kinda back your actions in Iraq, but dismiss them with regard to Israel. The Arab world needs to know that when you talk about justice and freedom, it applies to all. If Israel crosses the line, you damn well tell them they have and mean it. In the same way if Hamas does something positive you should acknowledge that. Neither reponses mean you are taking sides, it means you are able to be truely neutral. Once the Arab world trusts you to be neutral, they will feel more inclined to help you with hardline states who won't budge. You will never change the mind of the fanatics, but in being seen as neutral again, you could change the minds of alot of people who feel wronged by your approach to the middle east.

What has Isreal done that warrents UN involvement? A few poeple moved to a different side of town? If you ignore their race (which we should) why is that so bad? They bombed the crap out of Hamas? If they were firing rockets at me, I would kill them all to a man!

Edit - I can not spell....

If Hamas is an elected government, then isn't Gaza a soverign state? If this is the case, then as far as I understand it, in the eyes of the UN you need a mandate to invade a sovereign state? I also believe that the UN has passed numerous resolution condemning Israel's action over the years.

Wolfstan wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Maybe you are right. Sorry if I was OT. But it sure felt like one giant "Bush was dumb/evil/mean - and Obama is so smart/good/kind"
The thread is about how Obama will talk with those who hate us and lie to us. I am sure the things said at that table will all be nice and good, and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US.

But isn't that politics? A foreign government lies to you, the opposition lies to you, it's part of political life. Please don't tell me you meant this, "and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US"? You're worried that a foreign power might might got one over on you and be sniggering about it? Got some self esteem issues then?

They can laugh all they want. My point is that they will say that they want peace to our face and shapen their knives in the back of our rib cages.

Wolfstan wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

So who said you should of negotiated with the terrorists? I don't think you will find any Brit would suggest that. 30 years of IRA action gives us a certain perspective on this matter I think. I think you will find that the point being made was that if you remove the fuel, the fire can't burn. You can't turn back turn with regard to Iraq, but you can be more balanced with regard to Israel. You were able to twist the facts to get the UN to kinda back your actions in Iraq, but dismiss them with regard to Israel. The Arab world needs to know that when you talk about justice and freedom, it applies to all. If Israel crosses the line, you damn well tell them they have and mean it. In the same way if Hamas does something positive you should acknowledge that. Neither reponses mean you are taking sides, it means you are able to be truely neutral. Once the Arab world trusts you to be neutral, they will feel more inclined to help you with hardline states who won't budge. You will never change the mind of the fanatics, but in being seen as neutral again, you could change the minds of alot of people who feel wronged by your approach to the middle east.

What has Isreal done that warrents UN involvement? A few poeple moved to a different side of town? If you ignore their race (which we should) why is that so bad? They bombed the crap out of Hamas? If they were firing rockets at me, I would kill them all to a man!

Edit - I can not spell....

If Hamas is an elected government, then isn't Gaza a soverign state? If this is the case, then as far as I understand it, in the eyes of the UN you need a mandate to invade a sovereign state? I also believe that the UN has passed numerous resolution condemning Israel's action over the years.

If Gaza is a soverign state, then where was the UN to stop one state from launching rockets into another without provication? And if Gaza is a soverign state, then Isreal has a right to defend itself from its attacks. If France started launching rockets into the UK, then the UK can legally retaliate.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote:

That's fair enough. So it's equally acceptable to fly planes into the side of a towers then? It being a war and civilian casualties a part of that or perhaps even a way of bringing people to their knees.

I so want to make a Paris Hilton joke there but alas...

Are you serious? Responding to hundreds of rockets is a bit different than flying a plane into a building. Just a smidge...
Civilain casualties in a war zone (after dropping flyer to warn them) vs. lying to get on a plane, and killing absolutly no military persons.
Your point kinda makes you look like an ass.

America hasn't/hadn't had hundreds of rockets fired at it. Point I'm making is when you say it's alright to bomb " a church, a milk factory, wherever" then you are opening everything up as a viable target as "that's war". I think saying things like that makes people look like asses.

Also, Israel is fond of Bulldozing Palestinian Settlements, Tattooing young men and boys with Barcodes (doesn't that sound vaguely familiar..) and generally reacting incredibly heavy handedly.

A lot is made of their elite forces, yet they seem a helluva lot happier to merely bombard civilian areas rather than perform surgical strikes....

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Maybe you are right. Sorry if I was OT. But it sure felt like one giant "Bush was dumb/evil/mean - and Obama is so smart/good/kind"
The thread is about how Obama will talk with those who hate us and lie to us. I am sure the things said at that table will all be nice and good, and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US.

But isn't that politics? A foreign government lies to you, the opposition lies to you, it's part of political life. Please don't tell me you meant this, "and then back home they will laugh at the dumb US"? You're worried that a foreign power might might got one over on you and be sniggering about it? Got some self esteem issues then?

They can laugh all they want. My point is that they will say that they want peace to our face and shapen their knives in the back of our rib cages.

Ooops sorry, not self esteem problems, just a persecution complex

reds8n wrote:

America hasn't/hadn't had hundreds of rockets fired at it. Point I'm making is when you say it's alright to bomb " a church, a milk factory, wherever" then you are opening everything up as a viable target as "that's war". I think saying things like that makes people look like asses.

I think what I am saying makes sense if you have the ability to differentiate between war and terrorism. In WWII we bombed the carp out of factories. Those factories were not full of soldiers! We bombed railroad stations. Again, not operated by soldiers.

But we have not, and Israel has not, specifically targeted civilians. It gets fuzzy for Israel as "civilians" are the ones firing rockets. If Hamas would put uniforms on, then we would not have this disagreement.

Wolfstan wrote:

Ooops sorry, not self esteem problems, just a persecution complex

Nice work Freud. Care to look inward?

When it comes to bombing civilian targets, I'm all too aware of the wrongs committed by the 'good guys' in the past. My Great Uncle Val was a bomber pilot who flew sorties over Dresden...his logbook makes extremely upsetting reading.

But the days of carpet bombing and using decidely indiscriminate weapons, for the West at least, are now pretty much gone. We have ridiculously accurate bombs, missles, and the technology to back them up.

What Israel did was wrong, wrong, wrong. And I for one look forward to the War Crimes enquiries the UN are seeking.

reds8n wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote:

That's fair enough. So it's equally acceptable to fly planes into the side of a towers then? It being a war and civilian casualties a part of that or perhaps even a way of bringing people to their knees.

I so want to make a Paris Hilton joke there but alas...

Are you serious? Responding to hundreds of rockets is a bit different than flying a plane into a building. Just a smidge...
Civilain casualties in a war zone (after dropping flyer to warn them) vs. lying to get on a plane, and killing absolutly no military persons.
Your point kinda makes you look like an ass.

America hasn't/hadn't had hundreds of rockets fired at it. Point I'm making is when you say it's alright to bomb " a church, a milk factory, wherever" then you are opening everything up as a viable target as "that's war". I think saying things like that makes people look like asses.

And I might argue that trying to make a moral point is silly. Ultimately if I was attacked, I'm not going to sit and debate the finer moral points of what I'm doing, i'm going to respond in kind.

But for what it is worth I think Israel believes they've been given carte blanche to basically do what they want. I think it is ironic that they're essentially doing this based on ethnic and religious differences, when you think abou their history.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

Ooops sorry, not self esteem problems, just a persecution complex

Nice work Freud. Care to look inward?

Complex? Nope, we know it's for real. When you used to control 1/5 of the planet you've got to be prepared for grudges

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:When it comes to bombing civilian targets, I'm all too aware of the wrongs committed by the 'good guys' in the past. My Great Uncle Val was a bomber pilot who flew sorties over Dresden...his logbook makes extremely upsetting reading.

But the days of carpet bombing and using decidely indiscriminate weapons, for the West at least, are now pretty much gone. We have ridiculously accurate bombs, missles, and the technology to back them up.

What Israel did was wrong, wrong, wrong. And I for one look forward to the War Crimes enquiries the UN are seeking.

You really think Isreal did carpet bombing? A small area that has millions living in it has suffered a thousand casualties and you belive that is carpet bombing? If Isreal wanted to break the law, the death toll would have been in the tens of thousands. As far as the UN inquieres... all the UN does is write angry letters and pout.

Grignard wrote: I think it is ironic that they're essentially doing this based on ethnic and religious differences, when you think abou their history.

I disagree. I think Isreal was being attacked based on religious and ethnic reasons. I think Isreal does not bomb people that dont attack them first.

I didn't say they did. I explained that the West has done horrific things in order to secure our own Borders, and that now, thankfully, the days of inaccurate and indiscriminate Bombardments are no longer necessary...

And we'll see about the UN. Wonder how Israel will deal with severe trade embargoes? Or of course they will simply ignore any resolution against it and press on with their course of extremely heavy handed reprisals, and then wonder why yet another generation of Palestinians despise them.

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I was going to refute another post about prisoners being released at the end of the war (we're not at war legally) but this stuck in my craw.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I think Rwanda would like to talk to you for a moment.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And we'll see about the UN. Wonder how Israel will deal with severe trade embargoes? Or of course they will simply ignore any resolution against it and press on with their course of extremely heavy handed reprisals, and then wonder why yet another generation of Palestinians despise them.

But what did Isreal do that was wrong? There was no chemical warfare. They did not perfore ethnic cleansing. They did not rape the women and kill the children. They took precautions to prevent civilian casualties. They targeted specific areas (not carpet bombing). They showed restraint when going to war against a foe that hides behind children when launching its rockets.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I was going to refute another post about prisoners being released at the end of the war (we're not at war legally) but this stuck in my craw.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I think Rwanda would like to talk to you for a moment.

I did not say it was right, but that is how wars are won (barring a lack of resources). If two foes have the same resources, then the war will go on forever, so long as the civilian populations support it (i.e- new enlistments, factory jobs, etc.)

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I was going to refute another post about prisoners being released at the end of the war (we're not at war legally) but this stuck in my craw.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I think Rwanda would like to talk to you for a moment.

I did not say it was right, but that is how wars are won (barring a lack of resources). If two foes have the same resources, then the war will go on forever, so long as the civilian populations support it (i.e- new enlistments, factory jobs, etc.)

Which is historically incorrect. Wars are won and lost via infrastructure damage, and generally beating up the other guys army through superior numbers/technology/deployment etc. Wars can be won by crushing the will of the resisting force through civilian casualties, but thats not a war that is then won for any reason other than to win. We beat the japanese by killing many, many, many civilians (and destroying their military and industrial capability). We beat the germans by breaking their militaries back and forcing surrender. The difference between the two is that we went with the expedient and easy answer in japan rather than forcibly deposing their governmental structure with troops, and in modern times our victory in the pacific isn't savored by many.

Killing civilians is a way to win a war. It also makes you a monster and more often then not emboldens your enemies to fight you all the harder (crystal nacht certainly didn't scare people into surrendering).

Hear Hear Shuma!

And Israel did kill Children...rather a lot of them.

If your opponent insists on Guerilla tactics, I fail to see how levelling entire streets and blocks helps that any, unless of course you plan to eradicate civilian casualties by incensing the general populace enough that they all take up arms!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I was going to refute another post about prisoners being released at the end of the war (we're not at war legally) but this stuck in my craw.

Bring the nation to its knees through civilian casualties. I think Rwanda would like to talk to you for a moment.

I did not say it was right, but that is how wars are won (barring a lack of resources). If two foes have the same resources, then the war will go on forever, so long as the civilian populations support it (i.e- new enlistments, factory jobs, etc.)

Which is historically incorrect. Wars are won and lost via infrastructure damage, and generally beating up the other guys army through superior numbers/technology/deployment etc. Wars can be won by crushing the will of the resisting force through civilian casualties, but thats not a war that is then won for any reason other than to win. We beat the japanese by killing many, many, many civilians (and destroying their military and industrial capability). We beat the germans by breaking their militaries back and forcing surrender. The difference between the two is that we went with the expedient and easy answer in japan rather than forcibly deposing their governmental structure with troops, and in modern times our victory in the pacific isn't savored by many.

Killing civilians is a way to win a war. It also makes you a monster and more often then not emboldens your enemies to fight you all the harder (crystal nacht certainly didn't scare people into surrendering).

I am NOT advocating winning a war solely thru civilian casualties!!!!!!!!!!!!! (!!)
But I am saying that if a few civilians die in a war zone, I am not suppressed! I was not talking about genocide, I was talking about that infrastructure damage you mentioned! It is not soldiers that are using the pipelines! it is not the army that is manning the trains!

As for the victory in the Pacific- My granddad fought in the British army in Africa and Italy. He prayed in thanksgiving to the end of his life that we dropped the A-Bomb. He was scheduled to go into the Pacific after the victory in Europe. My grandfather was not a hypocrite. He did not blame the US for killings that he knew would have been done by his hand if not by the US.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hear Hear Shuma!

And Israel did kill Children...rather a lot of them.

If your opponent insists on Guerilla tactics, I fail to see how levelling entire streets and blocks helps that any, unless of course you plan to eradicate civilian casualties by incensing the general populace enough that they all take up arms!

What are the numbers on those children?
How many 'children' were 16 and had AK-47s?
How many of them were the living wall that the rockets were launched behind?
Give me some numbers and then we can talk about 'the poor innocent children' that died.

With regards to the Atomic Bomb....

Just because it works, doesn't make it right. I've always wondered why it was a civilian centre targetted, rather than a Military Installation. At least for the first one.

But that is done and in the past. Almost unbelievably, Mankind has grown a lot since then (first and second ones ever used in anger...) and I don't think we'll see them used again in our lifetimes.

I am NOT advocating winning a war solely thru civilian casualties!!!!!!!!!!!!! (!!)
But I am saying that if a few civilians die in a war zone, I am not suppressed! I was not talking about genocide, I was talking about that infrastructure damage you mentioned! It is not soldiers that are using the pipelines! it is not the army that is manning the trains!

Schools are not viable infrastructure targets to be shelled. Something which you defended in your initial post. Infrastructure targets are factories, refineries, bridges, trainyards, and anything else that directly supports the war effort. They are not schools, they are not churches/mosques/temples, and they are not peoples homes. Something Isreal doesn't understand.

My grandfather was not a hypocrite. He did not blame the US for killings that he knew would have been done by his hand if not by the US.

You're grandfather would have singlehandedly destroyed all of tokyo? He would have killed thousands upon thousands at hiroshima and nagasaki? A US invasion would not have done the things the bombings did, and we would have taken a fraction of the casualties in our invasion that we caused through the two nukes and the firebombing. An armed invasion would have been costly, but the human deathtoll would have been much less than the cowardly (but expediant) actions taken to put them down quickly. The president of the era is renowned for agonizing over the decision.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:With regards to the Atomic Bomb....

Just because it works, doesn't make it right. I've always wondered why it was a civilian centre targetted, rather than a Military Installation. At least for the first one.

But that is done and in the past. Almost unbelievably, Mankind has grown a lot since then (first and second ones ever used in anger...) and I don't think we'll see them used again in our lifetimes.

So what was right?
The Korean 8 year old girls being dragged around by japanese soldiers to rape? (officers first, so they dont get any STDs!)
Forced labor and beating and starvation of the British POWs?
Telling the civilians to kill themselves to avoid capture form the barbaric westerns? (and husbands slitting the throats of their wives and children?)

War is ugly! It is always ugly! We have this misconception that we can have 'clean' wars. It is always dirty! I can sleep with the use of A-Bombs. Could you sleep with rape and murder? The US wins in that argument!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:When it comes to bombing civilian targets, I'm all too aware of the wrongs committed by the 'good guys' in the past. My Great Uncle Val was a bomber pilot who flew sorties over Dresden...his logbook makes extremely upsetting reading.

But the days of carpet bombing and using decidely indiscriminate weapons, for the West at least, are now pretty much gone. We have ridiculously accurate bombs, missles, and the technology to back them up.

What Israel did was wrong, wrong, wrong. And I for one look forward to the War Crimes enquiries the UN are seeking.

You really think Isreal did carpet bombing? A small area that has millions living in it has suffered a thousand casualties and you belive that is carpet bombing? If Isreal wanted to break the law, the death toll would have been in the tens of thousands. As far as the UN inquieres... all the UN does is write angry letters and pout.

I blame a lack of education here. If Israel had wanted to carpet bomb, Gaza would have ceased to exist. Heck they could fuel/air bonbed every square foot. Thats without resorting to nukes...

It would have stopped the rocket attacks much more easily and completely. If Gaza were an independent nation by rights Israel could have nuked it. Where was the UN for years when rockets were coming in? The proportionate response theory is BS from a losing side. When you have better tools you use them. If you are in a fight and the other guys is trying to kill you witha knife you don't use a stick if you have a gun. You use the gun.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Schools are not viable infrastructure targets to be shelled. Something which you defended in your initial post. Infrastructure targets are factories, refineries, bridges, trainyards, and anything else that directly supports the war effort. They are not schools, they are not churches/mosques/temples, and they are not peoples homes. Something Isreal doesn't understand.

If there are combatants in them, they are all viable target! Really!

ShumaGorath wrote:
You're grandfather would have singlehandedly destroyed all of tokyo? He would have killed thousands upon thousands at hiroshima and nagasaki? A US invasion would not have done the things the bombings did, and we would have taken a fraction of the casualties in our invasion that we caused through the two nukes and the firebombing. An armed invasion would have been costly, but the human deathtoll would have been much less than the cowardly (but expediant) actions taken to put them down quickly. The president of the era is renowned for agonizing over the decision.

Talk about the casualties in Iwo Jima. How did that work out for us? A few Japanese soldiers killed how many of ours? Imaging all of Japan like that. And in war- which is ugly- you try to not kill you own guys. It is better to kill more of theirs than to kill some of yours.

When you have better tools you use them. If you are in a fight and the other guys is trying to kill you witha knife you don't use a stick if you have a gun. You use the gun.

Yeah, but didn't they kill more children in the campaign then they have lost total ever to rocket firings? Thats not using the tools available to you. Thats disproportionate and poorly directed force without sufficient cause or aim.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hear Hear Shuma!

And Israel did kill Children...rather a lot of them.

If your opponent insists on Guerilla tactics, I fail to see how levelling entire streets and blocks helps that any, unless of course you plan to eradicate civilian casualties by incensing the general populace enough that they all take up arms!

What are the numbers on those children?
How many 'children' were 16 and had AK-47s?
How many of them were the living wall that the rockets were launched behind?
Give me some numbers and then we can talk about 'the poor innocent children' that died.

Us Brits must of been watching left wing news broadcasts over here, because they showed a hell of a lot of children wounded and dead. In fairness I couldn't be sure if they had AK47's when they were wounded/killed, but did see they were very small and probably innocent. Israel can't be allowed to make sweeping attacks like this, it's not the civilians fault that Hamas uses these tactics and I'm pretty certain the civies will do their best to bug out. As mentioned already, Israel is supposed to some kind of uber anti terrorist expert, it should of used surgical strikes to sort this out.

If there are combatants in them, they are all viable target! Really!

Not from indiscriminate shellings or missile strikes.

Talk about the casualties in Iwo Jima. How did that work out for us? A few Japanese soldiers killed how many of ours? Imaging all of Japan like that. And in war- which is ugly- you try to not kill you own guys. It is better to kill more of theirs than to kill some of yours.

If you look at the war from a realistic standpoint and actually use the overall statistics we basically mopped the floor with the japanese military in virtually every engagement. There were a few upsets, but overall our kill to casualty rates were very disproportionate. The hard fought battles are glorified now half a century later, but most of the war was not fought that hard (on our side at least). The japanese military was really just outclassed.

Wolfstan wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hear Hear Shuma!

And Israel did kill Children...rather a lot of them.

If your opponent insists on Guerilla tactics, I fail to see how levelling entire streets and blocks helps that any, unless of course you plan to eradicate civilian casualties by incensing the general populace enough that they all take up arms!

What are the numbers on those children?
How many 'children' were 16 and had AK-47s?
How many of them were the living wall that the rockets were launched behind?
Give me some numbers and then we can talk about 'the poor innocent children' that died.

Us Brits must of been watching left wing news broadcasts over here, because they showed a hell of a lot of children wounded and dead. In fairness I couldn't be sure if they had AK47's when they were wounded/killed, but did see they were very small and probably innocent. Israel can't be allowed to make sweeping attacks like this, it's not the civilians fault that Hamas uses these tactics and I'm pretty certain the civies will do their best to bug out. As mentioned already, Israel is supposed to some kind of uber anti terrorist expert, it should of used surgical strikes to sort this out.

okay, that is fair to say. The children shown do not desrve it. That is true.
But you said earlier that Isreal killed alot. What numbers? A few sad photos does not make the whole campaign evil!
And the Gazans are the ones who elected Hamas. They are the ones manning the rocket launchers. And thesse casualties were all from surgical strikes. There were no random bombs. These were people who read the flyers and did not leave. You can lead a horse to water...

1,000+ according to UN and Red Cross numbers, the vast majoriy of which are reported as being unarmed civilians..

And Hamas are indeed a legally, democratically elected Political Party. This is different from Hamas Militants.

For example, I daresay that many members of the KKK would consider themselves Republicans, but that does not mean that the Republicans are members of the KKK....

Over 300 years ago we took control of Ireland. At that time in history this was acceptable as might was right, if you could take it and hold on to it, it was yours. We all know in the modern age that this isn't right, but we are left with the legacy of those times. There is no way that you can remove the Protestant Irish and say "sorry we were wrong, off you go", too much time has passed. All we can do is acknowledge the mistakes of the past and move forward. Israel on the other hand wants to reclaim it's lost land and expect the Muslims who've lived there all that time to ok with that.

Too much time has passed for Israel to have the right to claim all it's lost land back, it has to accept that the Muslims there call it home in the same way as they do. In saying that, the Muslims have to accept that Israelis also have a right to live there. I don't think you'd be too impressed if we decided to come back over and try and claim back the US from you or the French would be too impressed if we popped over and restated our historical claims. So why are people so shocked that the Arabs are more than abit hacked off with the whole concept of Israel as a nation?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:With regards to the Atomic Bomb....

Just because it works, doesn't make it right. I've always wondered why it was a civilian centre targetted, rather than a Military Installation. At least for the first one.

But that is done and in the past. Almost unbelievably, Mankind has grown a lot since then (first and second ones ever used in anger...) and I don't think we'll see them used again in our lifetimes.

So what was right?
The Korean 8 year old girls being dragged around by japanese soldiers to rape? (officers first, so they dont get any STDs!)
Forced labor and beating and starvation of the British POWs?
Telling the civilians to kill themselves to avoid capture form the barbaric westerns? (and husbands slitting the throats of their wives and children?)

War is ugly! It is always ugly! We have this misconception that we can have 'clean' wars. It is always dirty! I can sleep with the use of A-Bombs. Could you sleep with rape and murder? The US wins in that argument!

I hate to sound deliberately obtuse, and a part of me agrees that the dropping of the Bomb might well have been the lesser of two evils...but....

You say about Murder? Despite being an Act of War, the nuking of 2 cities could very well be construed as wholesale murder. Woman, Man, Child, Old, Young, Soldier, Politician, Pacifist...those naughty little blast waves care little who they are obliterating you know.

But as I said, that is done and in the past, and humanity learnt a helluva lot from that incident.

But we are meant to be discussing Obama's Presidency and I fear we have diverged somewhat from topic!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:1,000+ according to UN and Red Cross numbers, the vast majoriy of which are reported as being unarmed civilians.

How many of those were children? And of that number, how many died in building that had been dropped warnings first?
You cant be upset at Isreal for killing children if the pareents diliberatly stayed in the building dispite warnings!

How about bombing buildings Israeli Soliders had herded Civilians into?

Surely thats at least slightly naughty...surely?

Proof of that MDG?

ShumaGorath wrote:The president of the era is renowned for agonizing over the decision.

And he is even more renowned and venerated for making that decision. I am glad he agonized over it, and even more glad he made it.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I think what I am saying makes sense if you have the ability to differentiate between war and terrorism. In WWII we bombed the carp out of factories. Those factories were not full of soldiers! We bombed railroad stations. Again, not operated by soldiers.

Oh, I fully take the point here, and would point out further that the situation in WWII and anything in Israel today are vastly different. I don't like what we had to do to beat the germans but I can see how, especially given the resources and technology available, there was really no viable alternative.

But I don't think the Israeli situation is in anyway comparable, and I don't think they are recognising the difference between fighting a conventional/old fashioned war and what is really counter terrorism actions.

You don't actually save the village by burning it do you ?

But we have not, and Israel has not, specifically targeted civilians. It gets fuzzy for Israel as "civilians" are the ones firing rockets. If Hamas would put uniforms on, then we would not have this disagreement.

I agree that it is despicable of the militants to hide amongst the civilian population, and if they were any sort of genuine soldiers then they would be doing their damnedest to avoid civilian casualties. Like 99.9% of out troops in Iraq, Afghanistan etc do.

But they are targeting civilians. And not all of their bombing raids are preceded by leaflets and for a lot of people they don't have anywhere to go.

story 1

story 2

3 -- don't know if the video bit will work for you there as you're overseas. But the still pics are still pretty damning.

Ultimately if I was attacked, I'm not going to sit and debate the finer moral points of what I'm doing, I'm going to respond in kind.

Sure, of course you are. It's the level of intensity and brutality which you use to respond that determines if your actions are correct.

If I throw something at you/your loved ones %^&* then you're fine to shout back or get angry, you're not alright to shoot me, bulldozer my home and knock down my church are you ?

Widely reported on the BBC, and seemingly backed up by other sources.

I'll try to find a link for you.

In case I can't, I am 90% sure that the other sources (that I can't remember so won't name for accuracies sake) did indeed back up that a house hit during a bombing run was stuffed full of Civilians. Suffice to say when this has been independantly verified, I fully demand resignations in the Israeli Military and Government, and War Crimes trials for the sods who authorised the attack.

Linky Linky! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7812290.stm

9th January. Very interesting article overall.

Oh, and don't get me wrong, Israel has *every* right and indeed obligation to protect it's borders and it's populace, I just fear they use far too heavy handed tactics in general.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:1,000+ according to UN and Red Cross numbers, the vast majoriy of which are reported as being unarmed civilians.

How many of those were children? And of that number, how many died in building that had been dropped warnings first?
You cant be upset at Isreal for killing children if the pareents diliberatly stayed in the building dispite warnings!

BBC News Website wrote:One of the most alarming features of the conflict in Gaza is the number of child casualties. More than 400 were killed. Many had shrapnel or blast injuries sustained as the Israeli army battled Hamas militants in Gaza's densely populated civilian areas.

So only 40% Child Casualties. But thats fine isn't in. I mean, they are only filthy Arabs after all.

An excellent article concerning the use of White Phosphorus in Gaza.
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/what_is_white_phosphorous_and_is_israel_using_it_in_gaza_/Content?oid=683936
The key quote:

In 1980, the civilized world decided that maybe burning civilians alive during warfare was not such a good idea. That year, a new section was added to the Geneva Convention banning the use of incendiaries on or near civilians.

Hence, if Israel is proven to have used White Phosphorus in Gaza, they have committed a war crime. Their are rules, even in war. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: If you sacrifice your values when they your values are tested, then they are not values. They are hobbies.

You cant be upset at Isreal for killing children if the pareents diliberatly stayed in the building dispite warnings!

What warning did these people get? Israel likely used white phosphorus on the school, which would be a war crime. Did the Israeli military tell these people "hey, we're going to spray a powder which ignites ate 86 degrees and cannot be put out by water on your kids, school will be let out early today?" Seriously, exactly what notice was given? How far in advance was this notice given? Can you prove that any notice was given at all? Links/ sources would be appreciated.

Very good point Bloodoforks.

Gen Lee has made a lot of pointing out the warnings...I didn't hear about anything of the sort. Not saying you are lying my friend, just that we clearly heard differing reports of things. And I hasten to point out that I have heard/read/seen nothing to suggest Israel *didn't* send warnings either!

If you have someone shooting at you from a building and you have the means, you bomb the building. if there are civilians in it, I'm sorry but any casualties are the faults of the guy shooting at you.

The simple fact is Hamas uses women and children as shields when attacked. Israel's military tries to shield its women and children when it is attacked. You cannot say Israel has done such and such, when Hamas had daily attacked Israel FOR YEARS. The day Israel left Gaza Hamas moved in and began shooting rockets. Any other nation would have firebombed the whole area and been done with it.

Not sure what this has to do with George Bush though.

reds8n wrote:

Ultimately if I was attacked, I'm not going to sit and debate the finer moral points of what I'm doing, I'm going to respond in kind.

Sure, of course you are. It's the level of intensity and brutality which you use to respond that determines if your actions are correct.

If I throw something at you/your loved ones %^&* then you're fine to shout back or get angry, you're not alright to shoot me, bulldozer my home and knock down my church are you ?

BloodofOrks wrote:An excellent article concerning the use of White Phosphorus in Gaza.
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/what_is_white_phosphorous_and_is_israel_using_it_in_gaza_/Content?oid=683936
The key quote:

In 1980, the civilized world decided that maybe burning civilians alive during warfare was not such a good idea. That year, a new section was added to the Geneva Convention banning the use of incendiaries on or near civilians.

Hence, if Israel is proven to have used White Phosphorus in Gaza, they have committed a war crime. Their are rules, even in war. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: If you sacrifice your values when they your values are tested, then they are not values. They are hobbies.

You cant be upset at Isreal for killing children if the pareents diliberatly stayed in the building dispite warnings!

What warning did these people get? Israel likely used white phosphorus on the school, which would be a war crime. Did the Israeli military tell these people "hey, we're going to spray a powder which ignites ate 86 degrees and cannot be put out by water on your kids, school will be let out early today?" Seriously, exactly what notice was given? How far in advance was this notice given? Can you prove that any notice was given at all? Links/ sources would be appreciated.

Have any unbiased proof of that? I wouldn't put it past Israel, but I'm not sure that is unbiased.

Grignard wrote:

BloodofOrks wrote:An excellent article concerning the use of White Phosphorus in Gaza.
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/what_is_white_phosphorous_and_is_israel_using_it_in_gaza_/Content?oid=683936
The key quote:

In 1980, the civilized world decided that maybe burning civilians alive during warfare was not such a good idea. That year, a new section was added to the Geneva Convention banning the use of incendiaries on or near civilians.

Hence, if Israel is proven to have used White Phosphorus in Gaza, they have committed a war crime. Their are rules, even in war. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: If you sacrifice your values when they your values are tested, then they are not values. They are hobbies.

You cant be upset at Isreal for killing children if the pareents diliberatly stayed in the building dispite warnings!

What warning did these people get? Israel likely used white phosphorus on the school, which would be a war crime. Did the Israeli military tell these people "hey, we're going to spray a powder which ignites ate 86 degrees and cannot be put out by water on your kids, school will be let out early today?" Seriously, exactly what notice was given? How far in advance was this notice given? Can you prove that any notice was given at all? Links/ sources would be appreciated.

Have any unbiased proof of that? I wouldn't put it past Israel, but I'm not sure that is unbiased.

The author of the article cites his sources in the article

Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, and the conservative Times newspaper in London all claim Israel is using WP in Gaza. Human Rights Watch observers claim to have seen WP artillery exploding over Gaza City. In fact, countless published press photos depict WP-like white cloud bursts over populated parts of Gaza. The Times also reports finding spent shells from Israeli WP weapons in Gaza.

Frazzled wrote:If you have someone shooting at you from a building and you have the means, you bomb the building. if there are civilians in it, I'm sorry but any casualties are the faults of the guy shooting at you.

The simple fact is Hamas uses women and children as shields when attacked. Israel's military tries to shield its women and children when it is attacked. You cannot say Israel has done such and such, when Hamas had daily attacked Israel FOR YEARS. The day Israel left Gaza Hamas moved in and began shooting rockets. Any other nation would have firebombed the whole area and been done with it.

Not sure what this has to do with George Bush though.

With all genuine respect Frazz, BALLS SIR! QUITE FRANKLY, BALLS!

When the UK was under repeated Terrorist Attack from the IRA (funded by some Americans I hasten to add) we didn't 'firebomb the whole area and have done with it'. We deployed Troops on the street. Yes, we (the UK Military) were not blameless in many areas, but we did not respond in kind. We peace brokered. Now, post 9/11 the IRA have been extremely quiet, to the point of officially disarming itself (though as ever some extremists have broken away etc).

As I said, Israel has every right to defend herself. Nobody here is debating or questioning that. But bombing civilian areas because there may or may not be Hamas Militants in the area, not to mention deliberately killing *elected* officials is beyond the pale when they have the money, resources AND training to perform surgical ground strikes with special forces. I mean, most Palestinians just want to be left alone by Israel to get on with things, and have no love for the Hamas Militants. But Fear is a very active thing there. As much as I reported to this thread about Israel targetting a house with up to 100 Civvies in it, there are also reports of Hamas Militants killing fellow Palestinians for telling them to get out of the neighbourhood. Surely if Israel persevered with a more targetted campaign, there would be less ill will towards them in Palestine, making it harder for the Militants to recruit. And, provided they can provide such things (not saying they can by the way) they might even find normal, everyday Palestinians telling them where to target... But no, just take out that one fly that sat on your cake with the sledgehammer. Never mind the dozens that didn't and asked him not to.

But I agree, I fail to see how this links to Bush or Obama really in the sense of this thread.

The Irish might disagree with you a little bit MDG.

Grignard wrote:
Have any unbiased proof of that? I wouldn't put it past Israel, but I'm not sure that is unbiased.

I tried to keep my assertions from sounding as though this has been confirmed. The trouble is, in regards to bias, most of the US media is rather bias toward the Israels which makes confirmation of many facts regarding the Israel/Palestine situation difficult to confirm.

Regardless....We did not bomb back. We may have had street battles with them, but we did not bomb schools, churches, anything of the sort. Bloody Sunday was a bad, bad mistake on behalf of the Military, and I am ashamed at the virtual cover up that has followed.

BloodofOrks wrote:

Grignard wrote:
Have any unbiased proof of that? I wouldn't put it past Israel, but I'm not sure that is unbiased.

I tried to keep my assertions from sounding as though this has been confirmed. The trouble is, in regards to bias, most of the US media is rather bias toward the Israels which makes confirmation of many facts regarding the Israel/Palestine situation difficult to confirm.

Not to mention Israels blanket ban on reporting from inside Gaza. Nothing to hide eh? Utter bollocks if you ask me. Much much easier to deny things if you make sure nobody of any import was there to see it being done.

Frazzled wrote:If you have someone shooting at you from a building and you have the means, you bomb the building. if there are civilians in it, I'm sorry but any casualties are the faults of the guy shooting at you.

The simple fact is Hamas uses women and children as shields when attacked. Israel's military tries to shield its women and children when it is attacked. You cannot say Israel has done such and such, when Hamas had daily attacked Israel FOR YEARS. The day Israel left Gaza Hamas moved in and began shooting rockets. Any other nation would have firebombed the whole area and been done with it.

Not sure what this has to do with George Bush though.

This is absolutely true.

The problem for conventional armed forces is when they are up against insurgency/guerilla/terrorist movements who are not worried about hiding among civilians, coercing civilians to help them and so on.

That doesn't make it right to blow up the civilians' houses and schools.

It is a problem which has existed for centuries (The Peninsular Campaign, The Franco-Prussian War) and no-one has found a solution to it.

It has been getting worse because many western people don't like blowing up civilians and don't like sending their soldiers into places where it happens and they get shot at. Also because when the enemy are muslims, other muslims are naturally suspicious of western motives and a negative reaction arises outside the country where the fighting is taking palce.

With modern media the message gets spread much more easily than before.

In this kind of conflict there are three likely outcomes.

1. Apply overwhelming force, cause as many casualties as are necessary to completely crush the enemy and accept the public relations damage.
2. Give up and pull out.
3. Talk to the enemy in order achieve a political solution.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you have someone shooting at you from a building and you have the means, you bomb the building. if there are civilians in it, I'm sorry but any casualties are the faults of the guy shooting at you.

The simple fact is Hamas uses women and children as shields when attacked. Israel's military tries to shield its women and children when it is attacked. You cannot say Israel has done such and such, when Hamas had daily attacked Israel FOR YEARS. The day Israel left Gaza Hamas moved in and began shooting rockets. Any other nation would have firebombed the whole area and been done with it.

Not sure what this has to do with George Bush though.

With all genuine respect Frazz, BALLS SIR! QUITE FRANKLY, BALLS!

When the UK was under repeated Terrorist Attack from the IRA (funded by some Americans I hasten to add) we didn't 'firebomb the whole area and have done with it'. We deployed Troops on the street. Yes, we (the UK Military) were not blameless in many areas, but we did not respond in kind. We peace brokered. Now, post 9/11 the IRA have been extremely quiet, to the point of officially disarming itself (though as ever some extremists have broken away etc).

As I said, Israel has every right to defend herself. Nobody here is debating or questioning that. But bombing civilian areas because there may or may not be Hamas Militants in the area, not to mention deliberately killing *elected* officials is beyond the pale when they have the money, resources AND training to perform surgical ground strikes with special forces. I mean, most Palestinians just want to be left alone by Israel to get on with things, and have no love for the Hamas Militants. But Fear is a very active thing there. As much as I reported to this thread about Israel targetting a house with up to 100 Civvies in it, there are also reports of Hamas Militants killing fellow Palestinians for telling them to get out of the neighbourhood. Surely if Israel persevered with a more targetted campaign, there would be less ill will towards them in Palestine, making it harder for the Militants to recruit. And, provided they can provide such things (not saying they can by the way) they might even find normal, everyday Palestinians telling them where to target... But no, just take out that one fly that sat on your cake with the sledgehammer. Never mind the dozens that didn't and asked him not to.

But I agree, I fail to see how this links to Bush or Obama really in the sense of this thread.

Well said sir. If Frazzled would like to take a look at my post on that locked thread that ended up on a similar path, you will I stated a similar example of how we dealt with the IRA (when allowed). With hand on heart I can also back up MDG and say that we never sent in the RAF to bomb streets or lobbed arty shells into buildings. Our reponse was troop based, on foot, street to street, house to house. And yes the boys may of got heavy handed when a sniper killed one of their mates, but we didn't then turn that house, street, town into rubble.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:What has Isreal done that warrents UN involvement? A few poeple moved to a different side of town? If you ignore their race (which we should) why is that so bad? They bombed the crap out of Hamas? If they were firing rockets at me, I would kill them all to a man!

Edit - I can not spell....

Israel breached the terms of UN brokered deals in maintaining quarantines on Palestine, and entering Hamas controlled territory to assassinate a member of Jihad International. Breaching the terms of a UN brokered treaty was recently used by the US as justification for invading Iraq, therefore…

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:If the thugs were hiding in a UN school, I would bomb it. Not even an issue. Hide in a church? I will bomb it. Hide in a Milk Factory? I will bomb it.

Civilian casualties are a part of war. It is not right or good, but that is really how wars are won. You have to bring people to their knees. You have to make the civilians unwilling to continue to support their war efforts.

All morality aside there’s the problem that this just doesn’t work. Ever. Didn’t work when the Germans tried it on London. Didn’t work when the allies responded in kind on Berlin. Didn’t work when the US tried it on Hanoi. Civilian populations under this kind of bombing do not waver, they grow more determined.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I think what I am saying makes sense if you have the ability to differentiate between war and terrorism. In WWII we bombed the carp out of factories. Those factories were not full of soldiers! We bombed railroad stations. Again, not operated by soldiers.
But we have not, and Israel has not, specifically targeted civilians. It gets fuzzy for Israel as "civilians" are the ones firing rockets. If Hamas would put uniforms on, then we would not have this disagreement.

I think the biggest problem here is that you don’t really understand what’s just happened. Israel didn’t just target rocket launching sites and kill 1,200 people along the way. They dropped unguided bombs. They fired incendiary rounds. They bulldozed whole blocks, often people were hiding in them at the time. There are fairly obvious reasons the media weren’t allowed in.

Israel policy for a long time has been to hurt Palestine so badly that continued support of Hamas becomes unacceptable. This had nothing to do with rocket sites. Anywhere can be a rocket site, trying to target them is like playing whack a mole. It had everything to do with inflicting sufficient deaths that Palestine votes in a different govt.

You yourself said above that it is about inflicting enough casualties on the civilian population that they are unwilling to support the war effort. At least be honest with yourself.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I disagree. I think Isreal was being attacked based on religious and ethnic reasons. I think Isreal does not bomb people that dont attack them first.

Israel was being attacked in response to assassinations carried out in their territory, and in response to the recommencement of quarantines that require basic food and petrol supplies to be smuggled in through underground tunnel networks.

And if you think Israel does not attack people who don’t bomb them first, you need to read up on the Six Day War.

Wolfstan wrote:Well said sir. If Frazzled would like to take a look at my post on that locked thread that ended up on a similar path, you will I stated a similar example of how we dealt with the IRA (when allowed). With hand on heart I can also back up MDG and say that we never sent in the RAF to bomb streets or lobbed arty shells into buildings. Our reponse was troop based, on foot, street to street, house to house. And yes the boys may of got heavy handed when a sniper killed one of their mates, but we didn't then turn that house, street, town into rubble.

There are some fundamental differences. Despite strong support for the IRA, Ireland was never as militarised as Palestine. I’m not certain the Israeli military could effectively police the area and provide some guarantee of safety for troops posted there.

But the big issue with Palestine is that Israel isn’t just bombing them. There’s quarantine on Palestine that prevents it operating as a functional state. Refugee camps opened 60 years are still going. And every year more settlements are put into the West Bank.

People like to think of the Palestinians as these strange nutters that are ideologically committed to the destruction of Israel. Truth is rocket and terrorist attacks are directly related to actions undertaken by Israel. If Israel freed up the quarantine to allow some level of economic development in Palestine, and stopped building settlements, steps could be taken forward.

Of course Gaza could be taken over by Egypt at any time.

The West bank could be taken over by Jordan at any time.

Neither country wants these guys. They make a big show of support but don't actually support them. They don't want those nutters in their own country, else they'll have to wipe them out like Syria did.

Frazzled wrote:

Its strange though. Bush has been out for at least a week. Yet terrorists are still attacking us, most recently a thwarted attack in Yemen. I'm shocked, I thought it was all Bush's fault?

why would terrorist stop attacking just because Bush has been out? So what if Bush's fault?


did anyone offer negotiation ? no

What happend to the mentality of terrorist killed 1 american, in return we'll kill 1000 of them back?

Wont they think similar? or thoughts of revenge / retaliation only applies to USA?

Im not siding with terrorist or anything, but for gods sake, their actions would make more sense if you guys
start accepting they are human beings too.

No thats completely not right. we were told that its all Bush's fault, and once he was out everything would be excellent again. I'm confused.

Not aware of anyone saying that on here. Well, not in this thread. However, I am relieved that a less aggressive President (well, thus far) has been elected.

Bush may not have caused the problems (decades of US Foreign Policy saw to that) BUT his response, particularly with Iraq pissed off a lot of people. I actually found his 'with us or against us' speech incredibly insulting, seeing as donations from US based organisations to the IRA had funded many an attack against the British populace on the mainland. But hey, soon as America is attacked, THEN International Terrorism is a problem to be sorted.

Not saying this is or was the opinion of every US Citizen, but I hope you can see now why a lot of people are happy/relieved to see Monkeyboy go....

Edited for sake of clarity and to take out an ambiguous statement in favour of a more accurate one!

Reagan bombed Libya back in the 80s. We've been fighting terorists for awhile, just took a break during the Clinton adminstration, and did a poor job generally.

Lets just say it's an extraordinary coincidence that the IRA decommisioned in the aftermath of 9/11...

I thought it was before that. My IRA knowledge is minimal though. In a land filled with Guinness who has time for terrorism?

Blech. Guinness. Nasty nasty stuff. Gimme a pint of Hobgoblin Ale *anyday* of the week. I had 5 last night, and now want Thursday night drinkies to hurry up and arrive!

http://www.wychwood.co.uk/ Hurrah for Wychwood!

Frazzled wrote:I thought it was before that. My IRA knowledge is minimal though.

ish. The peace process started before that-- that's one of the things Clinton was doing instead of randomly bombing places.

They make a big show of support but don't actually support them.

QFT here. You'll note that despite the howls of protest and vast sums of cash swimming around many countries in that area they aren't as quick as they could--should ?-- to provide £/$ support for their "brethren".