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."
No attack, your own words illustrate the point.
Flip side, several of the "Hippie Methodist" from my crew are the same as this guy...
Yes, my words illustrate that Ron Paul is a vile creature. And somehow you connect that to communism. Same old incoherence and lack of education and skill where you are concerned.
Go annoy someone else.
Your remarks repeat objections made to me earlier in the thread. I urge you to read my earlier posts responding to them; if you have new material, or further questions, please post that. I am sorry we disagree, but I cannot make individual responses repetitively, since each post of mine generates too many from others.
Good. I don't demand perfection, but I wish there were more results seen from such effort. As I made clear I understand there is no moral equivalence here, but of him to whom more is given, more is demanded.
Perhaps there is a reason for that...
So, if we have strong objections to your views, we should just shut up? Because it annoys you?
I'm sorry...but the level and intensity of the objections should suggest that you might reconsider your position.
You've been met by objections based on historical facts, common sense, reason and logic, plus experience. In contrast, your position seems to be solely predicated on your feelings.
That's OK. But it makes for a weak argument...
Your words don’t illustrate anything. I am sorry that you declare affiliation with the GOP. It disgraces the party when members, if you are one, cannot hold a civil conversation on any issue.
Hum, sounds familiar, what political group is that associated with, i forget ;-)
Could it be that you are so very wrong on so many levels, that you cannot honestly defend your position?
I did not ask you to shut up, I explained why there will be no individual answer. I do read all that is posted to me, and if I see something of substance not raised before, I will answer.
ron should go over there and stand in front of one of their tanks with a stop sign!!
I did defend my position among the first 200 posts on this thread; read them and if you have more questions, I’ll consider them.
Perhaps he will win the Rachel Corrie Profiles in Stupidity award...
That's what you're after, I think.
You are wrong. At least in my case, the “repetitions” are, instead, refined arguments that you did not answer.
Just war is a goal of humans, especially for those of us who are Christians. However, the reason such discussions cause distress from even Aquinas and other historical thinkers, is because conditions and the evil of men can not be tied up in a pretty solution.
Just war theory as you have discussed it leaves out the humans who serve voluntarily or unvoluntarily as human shields. The intent and the actions should be weighed, as with the double effect in medicine.
However, in medicine the disease only assaults against one person. In war, the aggressor threatens many. The intent cannot be to harm children indiscriminately to shock the parents (as in terrorism). However, knowing that some children may be present due to the acts of the aggressor cannot halt the act of protecting one’s own children.
Nicknamed "The Pancake".
But a really old and stale pancake...
But a really old and stale pancake...
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.