Posted on 01/05/2009 11:50:56 AM PST by LdSentinal
Outspoken Republican congressman Ron Paul says Israel had received a green light from the United States to launch an offensive in Gaza.
The Texas congressman said the Israeli attack on the impoverished Gaza Strip shapes a bleak future for the whole world as it means that, "the whole idea of preemptive or preventive war is spreading."
He went on to challenge the idea of Hamas threatening Israel's security and argued that "Palestinian missiles are so minor compared to the fire power of Israel, who has nuclear weapons."
The US Congressman's remarks come as Israel continues to rebuff international efforts to end the assault on Gaza, and Israeli troops and tanks -- protected by heavy air, sea and artillery fire - have sliced through the center of Gaza and surrounded the main city.
The tenth day of the assault brings the number of Palestinian casualties to 530 with over 2,600 others wounded. The UN says that about 25 percent of the casualties were civilian deaths.
Paul added that the escalation of war in Gaza would contribute to the fall of economy on the global stage and in the US, explaining that the US involvement in too many wars is "draining us emotionally and financially".
Congressman Paul said that even though Israel has carried out the invasion of Gaza, "the United States will be blamed for it."
"Israel depends on us; they depend on us economically, they depend on us for their military power and all their weapons and they really got a green light from our administration," he explained.
Paul's comment comes after US vice president Dick Cheney said Israel did not seek Washington's approval for launching an offensive against Gaza.
"They didn't seek clearance or approval from us, certainly," Cheney said Sunday.
Earlier on Saturday, the Israeli website Debkafile cited sources in Washington as saying that US President George W. Bush had given a green light to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for an all-out military operation in Gaza.
The GOP congressman also warned in July, that any Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would take place with the explicit backing of the US government.
Paul told Press TV that, "No matter what they do, it is our money, it is our weapons, and they are not going to do it without us approving it."
Yes; this is why aerial bombardment is not a proper response. I welcome the ground invasion and wish the IDF success.
The aggressor in any action must be willing to pay the piper.
The author of that thesis is Alexander Moseley, a college kid fiction writer who often sides with Pat Buchanan in the theory we should not have fought the European front in WWII nor dropped atomic bombs on Japan. He is a regular on Lew Rockwell (that should say enough).. As another poster put, he is all paper theory.
For your average PLO/Hamas/Ron Paul supporter Israel's response should be limited to these such weapons to stay proportionate:
Well I have something I can do with the paper his theory is on when he is done:
Yes; this is why aerial bombardment is not a proper response. I welcome the ground invasion and wish the IDF success.
If "Building X" is being used to store weapons or house combat personnel, it is no longer "civilian". If an entire city has been turned into an armed enclave, from which combat operations are being routinely conducted, it is no longer "civilian".
I agree with you regarding the principle of proportionality. I believe, however, that you have forgotten to apply the principle of double effect.
If one side in a conflict deliberately chooses to place its military installations in proximity to truly civilian installations, it bears the responsibility for collateral damage resulting from attacks directed at those military installations.
If the Israelis were carpet-bombing cities, they would be guilty of a disproportionate response. In fact, they are attacking legitimate military targets which, in an act of gross negligence or deliberate malice, Hamas has sited in an otherwise civilian population. Hamas bears responsibility for any civilian casualties.
That is not double effect. Double effect is what ethically allows civilian casualties if they are not intended and a targeting system is used that best avoids them. For example, if a missile site is bombed with precision and a non-combatant is unexpectedly near it, that is a legitimate collateral casualty.
I agree that Hamas bears huge responsibility, for lobbing those crude missiles at civil targets, and for mingling combatants with the civilians, but I don't think that enables Israel to bomb apartment buildings, or even nonmilitary governement buildings. They should have gone in on the ground a week ago.
Very possible.
Like all murderous thugs, they tend to hide behind the civilians..
Nice...
Well maybe Hamas should stop hiding behind the civilians and actually fight the Israel out in the open.
LLS
If civilians (sic) willfully let these groups use civilian targets for storage, staging, or shields, then these targets are no longer civilian targets but military assets and the civilians in such locations are no longer civilians but part of the support infrastructure.
They should have gone in on the ground a week ago.
That would put Israel's own forces in greater danger of harm. Your first and foremost obligation is to the safety of your own troops, thus, softening your targets and removing threats to your own is your forces is your number one obligation. Having them go in as a ground assault prior to target softening puts your own troops at undue risk.
Yes ... if the attacker is directly attacking legitimate military targets, and the defender has irresponsibly mingled them with civilian things ... the defender, not the attacker, bears responsibility for the civilian damage.
but I don't think that enables Israel to bomb apartment buildings, or even nonmilitary governement buildings
If Hamas is hiding military equipment in apartment buildings or what would otherwise be nonmilitary government buildings, Hamas (not Israel) is responsible for civilian damage resulting from attacks on those military assets.
They should have gone in on the ground a week ago.
I disagree. Modern precision bombing is intended to "decapitate" the opposing force, greatly reducing its capacity to resist an invasion. Unlike Israel's idiotic misadventure in Lebanon two years ago, I see nothing disproportionate in the current operation against Hamas in Gaza.
That's another problem ... when fighting a non-governmental or quasi-governmental, irregular-force opponent ...
What is a civilian? Is a 10 year old wearing a bomb-vest a civilian? Is his mother, who dressed him in a bomb-vest, a civilian?
The old philosophy, if bullets are coming from direction A, then whatever is in direction A is the enemy. If the enemy is using unwilling human shields, you do what you can, if possible to protect them, however, not at the expense of your own troops or civilians. If the shields are willing participants, they are a target no different than any other soldier.
That's fine for ground combat ... how does that apply to aerial bombardment? You don't just loiter up there, waiting for the enemy to start shooting. So ... You need prior intelligence, telling where the enemy is storing assets, or where their troops are hanging out.
you do what you can, if possible to protect them, however, not at the expense of your own troops or civilians.
So you don't level an entire city block to destroy one building. That would indeed be "disproportionate", in the Just War sense of the word.
(I think we're in agreement here.)
Of course, Muhammed El Paulie (Al Qaeda’s marionette in Congress) said it. His status as an idiot is written in stone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.