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."
So many liberals miss the point of the Geneva Conventions.
The failure to give protection to "ununiformed combatants" (terrorists) and the explicit correllary (that they may be shot on sight) was not designed by military purists to arbitrarily punish terrorists for "not playing fair" and "not dressing up in soldier's duds".
But the point isn't to "protect the military" from ambush, etc. Instead, the express purpose of this convention is to protect civilians -- by punishing such tactics so severely as to make it too fatal to employ (by a civilized society).
Unfortunately, civilized societies now find themselves confronted by a foe which is not responsive to the penalties for terrorist tactics. On the contrary, it is a sub-culture that welcomes death (at least in the abstract).
Inasmuch as the success of these terrorist tactics will result in increasing risk to civilian lives in the future, it is imperative that they be defeated now! If that risks civilian lives in Gaza, so be it. Their deaths, coupled with the defeat of Hamas, will have served a larger purpose -- the defeat of terrorism and its ongoing threat to innocent civilian lives in the future.
"Disproportionate Response" is the only justifiable doctrine when fighting terrorism. It must be defeated, so as to protect the innocent -- born and unborn.
Upon reflection, I suspect the underlying thought behind the Geneva Convention is simply too deep for most liberal minds to grasp.
That is true, but the presence of enemy's children should, in justice, modify the protector's tactics. For example, he no longer may subject such area to indiscriminate aerial bombardment, has a duty to warn and give noncombatants an opportunity to escape, has a duty to use rifles rather than cannons so that to target a single person identified as combatant. Incidents such as blowing out an apartment block or a school because shots were fired from it would have been impossible.
Within reason, the IDF does modify its tactics -- often compromising their own effectiveness. As do all Western military forces.
There is no longer any such thing as "indiscriminate aerial bombardment" -- that's what smart bombs, guided artillery and UAVs are for.
Weren't you aware that the IDF actually phoned everybody in Gaza warning them of what was coming and giving them "an opportunity to escape"?
Rifles are used...when possible. Arty or bombs only when rifles won't do the trick.
Recently, the IDF blew up a school. Children were purportedly killed. But so too was a squad of Hamas fighters who were firing mortars from inside the school.
Tell me, who is to blame for the death of those children. Is it the IDF? Or is it Hamas, who took shelter there and hoped to exploit the presence of the children?
The fact is, one side of the conflict will make every effort to avoid so-called "collateral damage". The other actually seeks it -- attacking innocent women and children in Israel, then risking their own innocents by hiding behind them.
For the benefit of civilization and future generations, these kinds of tactics simply can't be allowed to succeed! My #241 also bears exactly on this issue. Overlook the snarky reference to "liberals" -- it is not directed at you.
If adherence to the rules of war were sufficiently strict, no apartment block would be demolished because one Hamas leader is inside, and no school would be blown up.
Note that IDF is probably the best military in the world for this scale of conflict. They cannot claim military necessity in the same way a small underequipped force might.
Yes, Hamas bears the primary blame. I never questioned that. What I said in the beginning, and I stand by it, is that the Israeli response is disproportionate.
All I can say is, Israel (and the entire West) should be thankful you are not in control.
How do you feel about Gitmo and all that, by the way?
Is waterboarding "disproportionate"?
I don’t think just war theory addresses torture at all. The usual argument against it is that it does not deliver good information, and so in that sense, is disproportionate.
Proportion went out with WWI. Disproportion wins. Winning ends the bloodshed.
By definition, proportion wins. Disproportion may or may not win, but it also kills unnecessarily, usually setting up grounds for another war.
Do you know what proprotionality in warfare means? I have a link and explanation on this thread.
Non-initiation of force/fraud/theft means that you never start the aggression. It only lasts until you are attacked, and then you are justified in outright killing your attacker with extreme prejudice and hopefully overwhelming firepower. Nothing else works.
This "anti-war at any cost" crap Ron pipes up about are my only real serious problem with the guy. But it's a major flaw IMO.
Hamas and other terror organizations love the theory of "proportionality". It allows them a metric ton of wiggle room to attack at will.
Follow the Viking idea. Trade freely, but if you attack our traders, we'll burn out your entire village. It's the only thing these terrorist savages will understand.
Let me try a proportionately insulting response: Do you know what proportionality means?
Israel should seek military victory over Hamas, I agree. I disagree that Israel should follow the viking model, because it is the same model the terrorists are using.
Yes, and if you read my posts on this thread you will know it, too.
What you are apparently advocating is exactly like the old joke about bringing a knife to a gunfight. Israel is in a gun fight, you would have them use a featherduster.
Not if you read what I actually advocate.
When you figure out a way to get Hamas to play by the rules, come back and talk to us. Until then, you just come across like an appeaser.
I know.
If you play by the rules, and your opponent doesn’t... you will lose. Every time.
This is not so. For example, police play by the rule and criminals don’t, and yet you cannot say that the police lose all the time.
Bad example. Police use disproportionate force to achieve their “wins”.
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.