Comments on: Is Gaza Bombing Too Much? Bush Won't Say

While Backing Israel's Right To Defend Itself, White House Won't Say Whether Offensive Matches Threat

[Stratmaster7]

Typical response from the Bush Admin. when they are challenged with logic and facts, they pull out words like "disproportionality" and make the discussion about te word instead of the problem.

Bush checked out weeks ago. It took the POTUS a week to say anything about an attack/response (pick your perspective) by one of our biggest allies that is greatly exacerbating an already volatile world situation.

[gogwgo]

I do wish all you Hamas camel molesting POS posting on here would be honest enough to admit which of your kinfolk awoke this morning to discover an Israeli rocket stuck up their keester??

LOL!!!

[middleman8]

The Bush white house idea of going GREEN is to kill off the people of the world.

[tpraskac]

Keep it up. Show Hamas dont mess with Israel

[renojmc]

Go Israel, go! Hamas has been killing innocent Israeli citizens for years with relative impunity from the international community. It''s time to stand up and demolish this terrorist organization once and for all.

[samthetvcat]

pt 1

---"there exists this bizarre notion of %u201Cproportionality%u201D"---
Posted by AlanW1077

I THINK people are looking at the casualties - like 14 dead in Israel over 2 years or something like that, and 400 dead in Gaza. They''re not factoring in total bombs overall, or the pschological warfare aspect of having to constantly live in fear with the drip drip of bombs as opposed to having one targeted carpet bomb (?)

I''ve tried to look at it from the angle of have the bombings of either side acted as a deterrent? No. Have either side inflamed the other side? Yes. But will either side stop? No.

So on the question of proportionality, I don''t know if it''s as clear as people make it out to be, but I don''t even know that it''s as relevant as how do we get both sides to de-escalate, more importantly over the long-term.

[samthetvcat]

pt 2

I''m kind of troubled by Bush''s staunch support for Israel, not because it sort of gives us ownership of all the deaths in Gaza because if it were in furtherance of a greater quest for peace I''d just accept it. But I''m worried he''s making things worse rather than better because he''s not associating us with the concept of peace and resolution.

Does standing up for the idea that Israel ought to exist necessarily mean we have to give them bombs to kill hundreds of people, support aggression without qualification even as a duly elected Government on the other side is being targeted for destruction?

I don''t know . . . I''m sorry if I''ve offended anybody with my opinions - maybe I just don''t know enough about the situation to appreciate all the ramifications.

[alanw1077]

endrepubs , good one!
Even as a Reagan supporter, I thought your post was pretty clever.

[rocketjl]

Someone is trying to kill you and yours. Fighting back is not limited to what ''non-involved'' folks feel would be appropriate. Israel should listen to what the world is saying, then bomb Gaza as much as possible before the pressure forces them to stop. Throw in more gunboats and use a little artillery.

[alanw1077]

This all begs the question: since Israel is being criticized for their disproportionate response to Hamas attacks, does that mean that the critics would be fine and dandy with Israel responding by firing thousands of small random rockets at Hamas neighborhoods? Would that work for you? Of course not. Imagine the international response to Israel randomly targeting civilian neighborhoods, rather than how they target only Hamas leaders at this point. And why would that be? It%u2019s because Israel is held to a much higher standard than Hamas. We EXPECT Israel to be smart and humane and selective, and we expect Hamas to be vicious terrorists. Gee, I wonder why is that?