should america support Israel?

[little_monkey]

Sure, again one possible outcome that I have admitted to, which you are clearly focussed on because you are looking at this through your emotions rather than logic.

Noi. I've addressed your suggested policy on the logical level as well, when I pointed out that such a policy is unlikely to be effective given the absence of a strong central government which can compel obedience to surrender/cease-fire agreements. Recent events have supporteed my points.

Recent events completely disprove your point: there were not ONE but TWO 72-hr truces, and in both cases, no rockets were fired, indicating without any doubt that Hamas has complete control over its fighters in Gaza.

You can ask ten people on what constitute morality, and you'll get hundred opinions on what morality is. Are you proposing that you have an absolute monopoly on what constitutes morality?

No, but I certainly have my opinion. My opinion is that killing unarmed civilians in wartime is immoral. Not surprisingly, it's a pretty widely-shared view.

My opinion is that a country has a right to defend. To quote you, Not surprisingly, it's a pretty widely-shared view.

And to answer the question you're about to ask, yes, parking your rocket batteries in civilian areas so that civilians get killed is immoral, as well.

And Israel has every right to answer that by bombing, even though civilians are going to get killed as a result of Hamas decision to shield its fighters among the population. Those civilian deaths are entirely Hamas responsibility.

Secondly, at the times, the reason behind that bombing was to send a clear message to the German population that they were losing the war, and only an unconditional surrender would be acceptable for two reasons: 1) the Nazis had vowed to fight to the last man - they were even enlisted young boys as young as 10 year old to fight; 2) in WW1, many Germans, including the Nazis, firmly believed that Germany had not lost the war as little destruction had taken place on German soil. So this time in WW2, the Allies were making sure that their message was clear. Debating whether that was moral or not is an exercise in futility.

I disagree, in part, and I agree, in part. Forgive me while I go into it a bit:

The German population had already by that time a clear knowledge that they were losing the war. They knew this in 1944, when the Russians marched into Prussia and the Western Allies came up upon the Rhine. They knew it when they viewed the bombed-out centers of Cologne, Hamburg, Lubeck, Schweinfurt, and Berlin itself. Indeed, the very fact that the Germans were indeed impressing young boys from the HJ into battle told the civilians exactly how desperate matters had become. So firebombing Dresden was not necessary to "send a message".

I guess that Dresden had factories producing weapons for Germany had nothing to do with it.

The alternative - invading Japan - could have produced more fatalities both on the US and Japanese sides. Thinking that this altenative is more moral is a futile debate.

That wasn't the only alternative. The submarine/mining blockade was dragging the Japanese economy to a halt very quickly by August of 1945.

And forget that during the war, the Japanese were quite willing to Kamikaze (Stat: 3,860 kamikaze pilots died in that war).

Get your facts straightened: the PA rules over the West Bank; Hamas rules over Gaza. And Hamas has clearly demonstrated it has complete control over its "extremists" in Gaza.

So what makes you think that Hamas can compel those extremists to abandon their position after the bombing of civilians?

See above answer.

That you can't get many of the facts straight proves otherwise.

That I've made one mistake here doesn't undermine my point. That you cannot view the problem from any lens other than your own does, however, make your views irreparably biased, and unworthy of further consideration.

No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to post. You're the one who jumped in and started to spew your left-wing Palestinian apology.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Recent events completely disprove your point: there were not ONE but TWO 72-hr truces, and in both cases, no rockets were fired, indicating without any doubt that Hamas has complete control over its fighters in Gaza.

You might wish to read a little:

http://news.msn.com/world/rockets-airstr...-collapses
http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/...685249.php

My opinion is that a country has a right to defend. To quote you, Not surprisingly, it's a pretty widely-shared view.

Of course. The question then becomes, [i]are the defensive actions creating the conditions for peace? And are they avoiding innocent casualties?

I'd submit that carpet bombing probably doesn't fall under that rubric.

And Israel has every right to answer that by bombing, even though civilians are going to get killed as a result of Hamas decision to shield its fighters among the population. Those civilian deaths are entirely Hamas responsibility.

"Entirely"? Not at all. Israel decides to attack those targets. Perhaps they should instead work at infiltration? Or perhaps they could ameliorate the conditions which drive the Palestinians into the arms of the extremists?

When all you have is a hammer, I suppose everything does indeed look like a nail.

I guess that Dresden had factories producing weapons for Germany had nothing to do with it.

The biggest industry in Dresden at the time of the bombing was making cigarettes. They had some optics and other factories, but those generally weren't targeted. Of course, the RAF, practicing nighttime bombing, was unable to precisely target those factories anyways, which is why they used incendiaries mixed with HE.

The only weapons produced in Dresden at that time were FlAK guns, and some small arms ammunition. Do you think that justifies 25,000 -- 40,000 civilian deaths, which the more accurate estimates settle on?

And forget that during the war, the Japanese were quite willing to Kamikaze (Stat: 3,860 kamikaze pilots died in that war).

So what? Bombing Hiroshima or Nagasaki didn't address kamikazes at all, nor were they intended to do so. We're talking about the morality of killing civilians in war, not the use of suicide fighters against military targets.

This is a red herring.

See above nonanswer.

fixed for accuracy.

No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to post. You're the one who jumped in and started to spew your left-wing Palestinian apology.

Lol, firstly, I'm not "left-wing", secondly, I'm not an apologist for Palestinians. I was hoping you'd be insightful enough to have a good discussion; but you generate more heat than light. I think iit's a good thing to look at an issue from all sides, and I had hoped you'd be able to do so.[/b]

I won't make that mistake again ... I've taken your measure, now.

[little_monkey]

Recent events completely disprove your point: there were not ONE but TWO 72-hr truces, and in both cases, no rockets were fired, indicating without any doubt that Hamas has complete control over its fighters in Gaza.

You might wish to read a little:

http://news.msn.com/world/rockets-airstr...-collapses

The article is about the first 72-hr truce. Read carefully: "The Islamic militants resumed their rocket attacks Friday shortly before the 72-hour truce expired..." They waited until the final hour. This was a show of force because Hamas felt none of its demands were met. A clear sign that Hamas is in control.

My opinion is that a country has a right to defend. To quote you, Not surprisingly, it's a pretty widely-shared view.

Of course. The question then becomes, [i]are the defensive actions creating the conditions for peace? And are they avoiding innocent casualties?

How in your right mind can you avoid civilian casualities when Hamas is positioning its fighters right amid the population, when they've dugged the tunnels right underneath residential areas? WTF.

I'd submit that carpet bombing probably doesn't fall under that rubric.

Sure but limited, rectricted bombings have not led to peace. We've had such bombings and short term incursion by IDF for several times, and that has proven to be ineffective. Will it work this time? If it doesn't, then it will be time to try something else.

And forget that during the war, the Japanese were quite willing to Kamikaze (Stat: 3,860 kamikaze pilots died in that war).

So what? Bombing Hiroshima or Nagasaki didn't address kamikazes at all, nor were they intended to do so. We're talking about the morality of killing civilians in war, not the use of suicide fighters against military targets.

This is a red herring.

No it's not, it was to highlight the determination of Japan to fight to the last man. Anyway it's totally ridiculous to argue that other alternatives would have produced less casualities. You can't prove it, you're just grasping at straws.

No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to post. You're the one who jumped in and started to spew your left-wing Palestinian apology.

Lol, firstly, I'm not "left-wing", secondly, I'm not an apologist for Palestinians. I was hoping you'd be insightful enough to have a good discussion; but you generate more heat than light. I think iit's a good thing to look at an issue from all sides, and I had hoped you'd be able to do so.[/b]

I won't make that mistake again ... I've taken your measure, now.

If it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. Your apologies for a group of people that has waged war on Israel from its birth in 1948 is well noted.

[psychoslice]

Yes America should keep their nose out of it, every time they stick their nose into someone else's problem they stuff it up more than ever.