Preemptive it is not, but the Israeli response is vastly disproportionate. Let us hope the ground assault will better discriminate between civilians and militants, than the aerial bombardment has been.
Paul is correct that the US will be blamed.
“Paul is correct that the US will be blamed.”
That’s a given! Especially with clowns like Paul getting out there to make sure!
After they where celebrating 9/11 like it was a holiday I don’t feel sorry for them.. The Iraqis yes, the Syrians yes, the Jordanians yes, the Iranians yes.. The Palestianians no..
Actually it is no disproportionate enough. The Good people of Israel have been very reserved dealing with these animals.
Good, that is the point of war, disproportionate response to kill as much of the enemy and destroy as much of his property as possible for a fast victory.
Disproportionate leads to victory.
Proportionate leads to an ongoing stalemate.
Only losers whine about disproportionate response. The reason this has gone on so long as that Israel has kowtowed to world demands to only respond 'proportionately'.
Oh, so what you are saying is 'the Jews" should lob hundreds of unguided, "land where they may" missles of simular design right back at them, right?
Imagine the outcry if they did that. Actually it would probably be fare more effective and kill more terrorists, they ones that walk around the streets in large crowds waving guns and shouting "death to the Isreal"- so called "civillians".
To the average "palestinan"(no such thing), the UN, and every other Palestinian sympathizer, there is no such thing as a "civillian Jew". They are all 'legitamate" targets in their and Hamas eyes, from baby to old man.
Did the Palestinians descrimnate between civilians and militants?
The "Palestinians" voted Hamas in. Their government has been launching missiles into Israeli territory. "Palestinian civilians" are responsible for the actions of their government.
Israel should wage a real war, pulling no punches. They need to remove Hamas from their doorstep without regard for civilian casualties. Hamas targets civilians. If some "Palestinian civilians" are killed in Israel's effort to wipe out terror, it is the fault of the "Palestinian people" who have elected terrorists into positions of power.
Ron Paul is a jerk.
Since when do we fight to keep a country and people from being 'wiped off the face of the earth' with 'proportionate' defense?
Their (and your) 'proportionate' crap has resulted in years of 'Groundhog DAy' back and forth: shell, get shelled, yell "Truce/cease fire, break truce with impunity until the attacked defends again, yell "Truce..."
Enough. That's a never-ending story.
Israel is done playing the one-sided game. It's time to be be done with it. FINISH IT.
"Let us hope the ground assault will better discriminate between civilians and militants."
Shouldn't that, rather, be: "Let us hope that Hammas will stop deliberately putting it's civilians in front of and all around them as fodder-collateral."?
So, if someone breaks into my house and comes at me with a knife - I can’t use my gun to defend myself? I need to get a knife?
And what would have been "proportionate"?
Isn't that the point of war -- to crush the enemy both to punish them and teach them that attacking (Israel) is a really bad idea with significant and unpleasant consequences?
I never served in the military, but I always thought the point of going to war is to win, not play to a tie.
Disproportionate? As long as rockets are falling on Israel, it is not NEARLY disproportionate enough.
Forum rules, however, prevent the kind of disproportionate response your comment deserves...
Sorry, but "selective" targeting in a war is not an option when the enemy uses civilians as shields or the civ turns terrorist. If you were engaging them, do you think you could tell the "good guys" from the bad?
"Vastly disproportionate"? How so?
If a neighbor was shooting random bullets at your house and had actually wounded or killed part of your family, how would you respond?
a. Ignore the shooting?
b. Shoot back randomly?
c. Try to eliminate the source of the shooting?
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, should we have tried to bomb their base in the Kuriles, then called it a day?
In a shooting war, "disproportionate response" is a necessary element of victory. Anything less means only that the war (and the killing) will continue.
With all due respect, your objection is insane.