Senate Approves Resolution Backing Israel in Hamas Conflict

[pfife]

The US imposes the condition on all weapons it sells that they only be used for defensive purposes. Of course, what is defense and what is offense it sometimes open to interpretation.

Do you think that American weapons have only been used in forms of self defense on Israels part?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Do you think that American weapons have only been used in forms of self defense on Israels part?

Yes, if you don't, tell me what instances you are referring to.

 

[pfife]

Yes, if you don't, tell me what instances you are referring to.

I have a difficult time considering the use of American weapons on people who did not attack Israel, by Israel, as self defense. By definition, self defense is a response to someone attacking, not someone who isn't attacking.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I have a difficult time considering the use of American weapons on people who did not attack Israel, by Israel, as self defense. By definition, self defense is a response to someone attacking, not someone who isn't attacking.

What people and events are you talking about?

 

[pfife]

What people and events are you talking about?

Including but not limited to the unintentional killing of innocent civilians in the most recent bombing campaign.

 

[WillowTree]

No big surprise here.

No other big surprise in the fact you think Democrats do something right when you agree with it.[/QUOTE]


well, that stand's to reason dosen't it nimrod? Doh! Why in the eff would I think they did something right if I disagreed with them.. Think about it

 

[toomuchtime_]

Including but not limited to the unintentional killing of innocent civilians in the most recent bombing campaign.

The current operation in Gaza is aimed at stopping the rockets targeting Israeli civilians, so it's clearly defensive so the unintentional killing of civilians in that action in no way violates the US's defense only condition of weapons sales.

Now if you're suggesting that you find the unintentional killing of civilians unacceptable even if the operation is arguably defensive and that the US should punish Israel for these actions then, even forgetting that the US is doing the same thing in battling the Taliban in Afghanistan, aren't you contradicting your original point that the US should not get involved in Israel's conflict with the Palestinians?

 

[pfife]

The current operation in Gaza is aimed at stopping the rockets targeting Israeli civilians, so it's clearly defensive so the unintentional killing of civilians in that action in no way violates the US's defense only condition of weapons sales.

How does the killing of people who did not attack you constitute self defense? If anything, killing of people who did not attack you is the exact opposite of self defense.

Now if you're suggesting that you find the unintentional killing of civilians unacceptable even if the operation is arguably defensive and that the US should punish Israel for these actions then, even forgetting that the US is doing the same thing in battling the Taliban in Afghanistan, aren't you contradicting your original point that the US should not get involved in Israel's conflict with the Palestinians?

I'm not arguing that the US should punish Israel for these actions. I'm arguing that the US should not remove the moral hazard associated with going to war.

 

[Xenophon]

The Pals would get far more if they would stop the violence.

Only a certain fringe buys into the 'freedom fighter' nonsense, and that fringe has zero influence as this resolution shows.

 

[toomuchtime_]

How does the killing of people who did not attack you constitute self defense? If anything, killing of people who did not attack you is the exact opposite of self defense.



I'm not arguing that the US should punish Israel for these actions. I'm arguing that the US should not remove the moral hazard associated with going to war.

Hiding weapons or fighters in civilian areas is a war crime. If Hamas did not do this, these civilians would not be dying, so the Palestinians civilians who are dying are clearly victims of Hamas war crimes, not Israel's perfectly legal defensive military operation aimed at preventing Hamas from killing Israeli civilians.

Please explain to me what you mean by the US removing the moral hazard of going to war.

 

[Dante]

And some on the 'left', those cheering on the Palestinians, are NOT happy. Links at site:

Commentary » Blog Archive » J Street Cowers

So what? What does the left have to do with the DEMOCRATIC party?

 

[pfife]

Hiding weapons or fighters in civilian areas is a war crime.

As delineated by what international law? Could you provide me a reference?

If Hamas did not do this, these civilians would not be dying, so the Palestinians civilians who are dying are clearly victims of Hamas war crimes, not Israel's perfectly legal defensive military operation aimed at preventing Hamas from killing Israeli civilians.

If Israel were more discriminating in their attacks, they wouldn't be killing people who did not attack them, while paradoxically claiming self defense.

Please explain to me what you mean by the US removing the moral hazard of going to war.

Per Wikipedia, "Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk." Going to war, without US weaponry, would present the risk that Israel would not be able to defend itself from other nations - we are removing one important risk of them going to war - which is crucial in determining whether war is necessary.

 

[Dante]

How does the killing of people who did not attack you constitute self defense? If anything, killing of people who did not attack you is the exact opposite of self defense.

The killing of innocent civilians is called collateral damage.

Israel is not targeting the people being killed are they? Stop playing with words to make a point you are too cowardly to make out in the open.

---

I'm not arguing that the US should punish Israel for these actions. I'm arguing that the US should not remove the moral hazard associated with going to war.

How is the US in charge of morality? What moral hazard are we taxpayers paying for now?

 

[pfife]

The killing of innocent civilians is called collateral damage.

I call the killing of innocent civilians the killing of innocent civilians.

Israel is not targeting the people being killed are they? Stop playing with words to make a point you are too cowardly to make out in the open.

Unfounded bluster based on patently incorrect assumptions of ones position rarely work as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Please note that I said Israel is unintentionally killing innocent civilians:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ng-israel-in-hamas-conflict-3.html#post984493


---

How is the US in charge of morality? What moral hazard are we taxpayers paying for now?

Your questions demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with the principle of moral hazard. Google it - or read the definition I posted above per Wikipedia.

 

[Dante]

I call the killing of innocent civilians the killing of innocent civilians.

I often do too. I fail to see the shock here. Innocent civilians get killed in every war and it is a moral burden for those who have to wage war. That is why civilized nations, unlike terrorists, try and minimize the civilian damage.

Unfounded bluster based on patently incorrect assumptions of ones position rarely work as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Please note that I said Israel is unintentionally killing innocent civilians:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ng-israel-in-hamas-conflict-3.html#post984493

you can say what you want. you seem bright enough to know how it appears to others. war sucks. war will always be with us. we minimize it and it's effects if we are moral. but you are not being fair or open.
---

Your questions demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with the principle of moral hazard. Google it - or read the definition I posted above per Wikipedia.

I am not. I am not buying it.

 

[garyd]

First the only innocent human being to ever walk the face of the earth was executed 2000 years ago largely for making the rest of us look bad. We are all guilty of something.

The Palestinian people are guilty of aiding and abetting Hamas. They sowed the wind when they voted for those butt heads. They are now reaping the whirl wind. That is what is know as an object lesson of the "those who play with fire get burned" sort.

Meanwhile the erst while Transjordanians now called P\alestinians need to quit listening to the promises of various demagogue that one day they will be able to grow rich of the fallen Israeli state and get on with their own lives, forget Israel and start building their own state as they should have been doing since 1948.

 

[pfife]

I often do too. I fail to see the shock here. Innocent civilians get killed in every war and it is a moral burden for those who have to wage war. That is why civilized nations, unlike terrorists, try and minimize the civilian damage.

So is Israel just really incompetent then? Why do they keep repeatedly making the same mistake of killing civilians? If they aren't intending to kill civilians, but they kill civilians, that's a mistake, isn't it?

you can say what you want. you seem bright enough to know how it appears to others. war sucks. war will always be with us. we minimize it and it's effects if we are moral. but you are not being fair or open.

I said they were unintentionally killing civilians. If you wish to interpret that in the exact opposite meaning of what I stated, feel free - but I'm hardly compelled to respond as if I maintain a position 180 degrees contrary to the position I hold and vocalized based on your obviously incorrect interpretation of my rather absolute statement.

I am not. I am not buying it.

Not buying what? Clearly, if Israel attacks someone there is risk because they are left open to attack from someone else because their military resources are either depleted or preoccupied. If the US steps in and restocks the weapons that have been depleted by attacking, the US clearly has removed a risk associated with the attack. Moral hazard is the notion that those insulated from risk would act differently than they would have if they were subject to the risk. Can you maintain that Israel would behave the same way if their weapons (ie their risk) were restocked (ie they were insulated from risk)?

Other instances of US Taxpayers being forced to do this: bailouts.

 

[Dante]

First the only innocent human being to ever walk the face of the earth was ...

go away.

 

[pfife]

The Palestinian people are guilty of aiding and abetting Hamas.

Are you talking about when Hamas won 100% of the vote, or when they took over Gaza via Coup?

 

[Dante]

So is Israel just really incompetent then? Why do they keep repeatedly making the same mistake of killing civilians?

you are being disingenuous. I will not keep playing if you keep at it.

Israel is striking at it's enemy who is hiding behind civilians using them as shields.

I said they were unintentionally killing civilians. If you wish to interpret that in the exact opposite meaning of what I stated, feel free - but I'm hardly compelled to respond as if I maintain a position 180 degrees contrary to the position I hold and vocalized.

you are not fooling me at all.

Not buying what?

The principle that is the basis of your premise. Your use of it is not what I am buying. Your high horse needs feeding.

Clearly, if Israel attacks someone there is risk because they are left open to attack from someone else because their military resources are either depleted or preoccupied. If the US steps in and restocks the weapons that have been depleted by attacking, the US clearly has removed a risk associated with the attack. Moral hazard is the notion that those insulated from risk would act differently than they would have if they were subject to the risk. Can you maintain that Israel would behave the same way if their weapons (ie their risk) were restoked (ie they were insulated from risk)?

not buying it.

Other instances of US Taxpayers being forced to do this: bailouts.

sigh