A Domestic Violence Call?

[ilovemytroops]

Having troops in the middle east is the equivalent of local law enforcement officers responding to a domestic violence call , which is probably the most dangerous call to respond to since those involved JUST DON'T CARE and will do anything to anyone intervening. The ironic fighting has been occurring since before I was born and numerous generations before many of those fighting over there now. But they're there now, and have to stand behind them 100% because they are doing the damn thang over there

What's even ironic is most of the fighting is over land rights. However, if one reads Deut. 28 (umm your bible for you heathens ), the persons chosen for that land were scattered SOUTH/WEST BEYOND THE RIVERS OF EGYPT, which is the United States and South America/Caribbean areas. So maybe we should all go over there, put 'em out and then have a big ass barbeque to put this problem to rest once and for all.

Just my two cents...my change please....

[RangerBob]

Love the post... here's your change -

I find it interesting that one of the signs of the apocolypse is Israel being a nation-state. To me, the irony lies in the fact that the Palestinians actually have no legal claim to the land that they keep trying to take from the Israelis - and yet, in relative terms, Israel has shown amazing restraint in not wiping the Palistinians off of the map in a full-scale attempt to defend their homeland.

To me, what the Palistinians are doing is akin to my neighbor trying to build their fence 5 feet over the property line in my backyard. Listen, Yassar - you best be movin' those fenceposts before I blow up your house!

[tamra]

LOL

but hopefully, this situation will end soon and once and for all. I thought this fighting just began a few years ago, only to find out, it's been occurring for generations as in hundreds of years.

but in asking many people involved in previous wars, the solution for the U.S. away, step out of it. but it's too late for that now.

[RangerBob]

Well, it's not quite as simple as walking away from the situation...

Our support for Israel as a nation state goes back to May 14, 1948. On the day that the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was signed by the National Council that had gathered in Tel Aviv. The Declaration went into effect at midnight and, 11 minutes later, President Truman (against various sources of advice) responded by officially recognizing Israel as a nation state. President Truman felt that the Jews deserved a sanctuary, of sorts, after the Holocaust. In addition, he believed that the creation of the State would help to foster stability in the Middle East.

Israel is a democracy. A parliamentary democracy, but a democracy nonetheless. The United States has always been of the mind that it would support, in good faith, countries that share, even at a very basic level, the same democratic values as we do. Israel also shares other ideals with the United States - more specifically (and more relevant to a very hot topic in the U.S. now) a very staunch anti-terrorism view. Let's face it, not too many countries can claim to be more of a victim of terrorism than Israel.

We cannot simply "step away" from the situation in Israel. To do so, I believe, would discredit the United States and always raise questions, in the minds of our allies, as to our loyalty and dedication to the very support we pledge. It would show weakness and vulnerability in a time when strength and might are the images that the United States wants to portray. I understand that our continued friendship with Israel puts us at risk for continued terrorist acts, and I'm not unsympathetic to this. However, as an American citizen, I would rather be hated for being unwavering in my values and support of our friends, than be hated for being undependable and wishy-washy on the world stage (hey, France - any of this ringing a bell?).

Israel is, of course, our best friend in the Middle East - we provide foreign aid to them (which is less than one-half of 1% of the federal budget, by the way) and they buy a schload of stuff (military and otherwise) from us. It's a symbiotic relationship where we also trade intelligence information. ha-Mossad le-Modiin ule-Tafkidim Meyuhadim (The Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks) is our greatest source of information in the Middle East. Without them, we would be suffering at the hands of terrorists much more than we already have been. Without us, they, most certainly, would have been wiped off of the map long ago.

So, with all that being said (yeah, I know - it's a bit of a novelette), again I say, God bless our troops around the world - may today be the day you finally get to come home.

[tamra]

actually, I thought Israel was the largest leader of world trade and one of the wealthiest countries/nations in the world.

given that, the U.S. is definitely not going to walk, there's too much financially involved. but then there's the U.S. relationship with both Palestine and Iraq.

either way we and several other countries are caught in the middle of 2 countries which have never got along and it doesn't look like there'll be an end anytime soon.

of course, no value can be placed on the lives lost. I just saw 2 more troops were killed in today's car bombing. and it looks like we'll be there another year or more. *sigh*

[christy]

Well it looks like the whole world will be at war soon. Wherever there's opposing views, there will be conflicts, bombings and civil uprising. The new world we live in now I guess.

I just saw on the new the bombing in Egypt of all places. And troops can't be everywhere given the majority of them are in Iraq.

[RangerBob]

Well it looks like the whole world will be at war soon. Wherever there's opposing views, there will be conflicts, bombings and civil uprising. The new world we live in now I guess.

I just saw on the new the bombing in Egypt of all places. And troops can't be everywhere given the majority of them are in Iraq.

Well, this isn't really anything new. International conflicts have been happening since the first border was thrown up between 2 different peoples. The reality is, most folks here in the United States just don't pay attention to it unless it involves (or could possibly involve) our troops. Would anybody really care if a bunch of morons over there blow the crap out of themselves if there wasn't the possibility of the United States becoming militarily involved? Probably not. Most folks would just shake their heads and think, "Oh, well - looks like those idiots are at it again." We've put their activities on our mental back burner for years, as long as it didn't involve us.

Now, is there anything wrong with that? Who knows. Being Jewish, sometimes I wonder myself if we should be as involved in the region as much as we are. We can't be the world's police force, but the question is, how "un-involved" can we remain before it becomes a threat to the United States or its interests? Well, that I can't answer. I'm certainly no expert when it comes to National Security.

I do think, however, that, at some point, we have to become involved in some way, shape or form. For example, what about the victims of genocide in places like Somalia and Rwanda? Do we sit back and let an entire people be eradicated? I say, "NO!". I absolutely agree that SOMEONE has to stand up and say, "THIS ISN'T RIGHT!". Forget the idiots who think we're just trying to project our morality around the world. What about the morality of the victims?

I do agree with Christy on one point - we can't be everywhere at once - not with the size of our current fighting forces. Something has got to give - and I've got a pretty good guess what's going to happen in the next ten years... can anyone say "draft"?

Ok, enough soapboxing for now... see y'all in the funny papers!

[tamra]

oh no please don't say draft. but if so, it means that the politicians' sons and daughters have to be drafted too, and should be drafted first since their father/mother couldn't resolve the problem with the high salaries we're paying them!

[christy]

Yes, but according to Bush's own words we're in Iraq to fight terrorism and to help these people liberate themselves.

We found no weapons of mass destruction, the war was not in accordance with UN policy, and the Iraqi's weren't crying for liberation or help, unlike the Sudan which is reaching out to its government and the world to stop the genocide. There's equally worse conditions in So. America that we're not getting as intensely involved in. And I still don't know the purpose of the Vietnam War because it was before my time, but I suspect money or power was involved.

But what I mean about new a global war is the bombings are now becoming an everyday thing at random places around the world. Before invading Iraq, which is still a mystery as to why we're still there now, we weren't seeing once a month bombings or bombing attempts like this (Russia, Korea, Spain, Egypt). And I mostly follow world news and have since high school. But I don't recall reading or hearing while travelling to same areas anything about large numbers of suicide bombings or random attacks on civilians as much as I have in the last year. Our family no longer takes yearly overseas trips because the world has changed dramatically.

Sure there's always going to be civilian conflicts, but this past year, they're more intense and specific and seem to be the start of a major problem worldwide.

And the conflict has already reached into the United States: on 9/11 and the 93 WTC bombing. These 2 attacks are directly related to the ongoing relationships the US has had with the Middle East and trying to burn both candles at the same time: oil and money.

I also find it strange that given we're concentrated over there now to fight terrorism that not one terrorist attack has occurred in the US since 2001. Does this mean we've actually killed those responsible or that the only ones responsible were killed in the plane attacks? I would think they would have "unleased the dogs on us" and we'd be experiencing the same amount of attacks in other areas of the world since we're now centralized in their land. Or is our homeland security just that good now?

[RangerBob]

Ahhhh, excellent points. I think I might have some insight. If not, then I'm just soapboxing again...

If memory serves me correctly (which isn't a 100% thing, believe me... lol) planning the attacks on the United States took years of planning and training by the terrorists. I certainly can't speak for the terrorists, but I would imagine that they thought that the attacks on 9/11 would have changed our Middle East policy drastically enough that a follow-up attack wasn't needed, or simply wasn't planned for. Perhaps they underestimated our resolve or what-have-you. I dunno. Then again, you might be right, Christy - maybe we've already killed those responsible for sponsoring the attacks. I doubt it, though. We've been cheesin' people off in the Middle East for 50+ years...

It's funny that President Bush says that we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. A friend of mine made this point to me when this whole thing started about not finding anything over there... "Anything bigger than a slingshot is a weapon of mass destruction".

[tamra]

well i don't know. if u follow the news in nyc there's been several plots uncovered in the last few years. we've been on high alert since 9/11. but interesting we haven't had anything even minor since 9/11 here in the u.s.

maybe the attacks were limited to planes only since that's where they invested most of their planning and training. and that's y we're not seeing anything new?

but just in new york state alone, there's been a recent uncovering of plans to blow up subways, a video taped attempt to sell handheld missile launchers which resulted in arrests, and when suspected terrorists slipped thru the canadian border, the alerts and manhunt began. but luckily nothing here like the suicide bomb attacks. and our local agencies are doing the dayum thang additional training was even done in Israel

but....a large amount of financial damage has been done, so part of their goal was accomplished here.

[RangerBob]

oh no please don't say draft. but if so, it means that the politicians' sons and daughters have to be drafted too, and should be drafted first since their father/mother couldn't resolve the problem with the high salaries we're paying them!

Well now, hold on. What'd be so wrong about a draft? As long as the draft is balanced and fair in it's distribution, and un-corrupted by the government, it'd be just fine. Why not have an independent, non-governmental body be in charge of the draft? Like, say, the accounting firm that takes care of the Oscars?

My point is this - whether it be by draft or by birthright... everyone should have to serve in the military in some capacity or another. It should be viewed as a privilege that EVERYONE should be PROUD to serve!

Oh, and I should be in charge of hunting down and punishing draft-dodgers. I'd buy an island (with government funding, of course), put all the draft-dodgers on it, and let veterans (and their families) hunt them down and pummel them. Then, I'd hover over 'em and tell 'em, "Now, see... if you hadn't run to Canada, you'd have gotten the proper training to survive!"

[tamra]

actually start with Canada for draft dodgers. some didn't even have to go far, just stepped over the line.

what's interesting is that in some countries, all citizens are required to serve in the military, including women. but of course those countries don't have the same hypocrisies we have, which makes the U.S. so different.

but not everyone should go to war on behalf of anyone. there's some derranged folks out there who could do us more harm than good. actually for some people this may not be such a bad option after all.

but the only way I'd support a draft is if it was fairly done and the war was justified, as in betterment for all mankind, not just some.

what I don't like is that women who've served in the military knowing there was a possibility for war. then a war suddenly arose, decided to use the "woman factor", and claim couldn't go because "I'm a woman and have kids to take care of". huh? but you were paid for training and took care of you daily specifically for the purpose of war. didn't you plan for this with your children. and what does that say for men with children?

[christy]

what I don't like is that women who've served in the military knowing there was a possibility for war. then a war suddenly arose, decided to use the "woman factor", and claim couldn't go because "I'm a woman and have kids to take care of". huh? but you were paid for training and took care of you daily specifically for the purpose of war. didn't you plan for this with your children. and what does that say for men with children?

I saw that on the news. There are many people being called back into active duty to serve in Iraq. Or some new rule which states they didn't officially resign, so they're still considered active members and can be ordered to report to duty.

But I see what you're saying. Several cases were active women living in military housing who just had babies less than a year ago, but not newborns and chose not to go. Family offered to take care of child. But still refused to go, claiming they were mothers and should not be expected to go. End result: dishonorably discharged. Does she have to pay back all money spent on training? No.

[Whistling_scot]

The UK has suffered more from terrorism than most for the last hundred years. We tried the US "kick ass" solution many times before realising that all violence does is beget more violence. The more the US supports the invasion of Palestine and the poorer the Palestinians become, the more suicide bombers and anti-American feeling there is going to be. Once the US was a beacon of freedom and liberty for all the world and it can be again if it tries more "jaw-jaw" than "war-war". Nevertheless, in spite of the immorality of the invasion of Iraq my heart goes out to those brave US troops who are taking so many casualties in what they imagine is the defence of freedom.