Heroic Indigenous Fighters Combat the West, and 14 Year Old Girls

[Bonam]

There's no reason to think so.

Thanks to growing civlized natured of the public--who used to be a lot more servile to power--there are fewer war dead. This is directly and specifically because the public won't tolerate mass killings.

I mean, of what fast wars with low casualty rates are you speaking? Vietnam?

1967 war. Desert storm. The final victory over Japan (2 nukes instead of a land invasion that would have cost perhaps millions of lives). And no, not Vietnam.

[wyly]

watching dogonporch trying to dismiss israel's responsibility for the atrocious acts in gaza is like watching a holocaust denier who refuses to accept germany's actions in world war 2.

not to mention the shear stupidity of evacuating 1.4 million people of Gaza to where? Gaza?.....Gaza is only 140 sq miles there is no where to evacuate to...

Calgary is 280 sq miles with 1.1 million, where would we evacuate the people of Calgary?, oh wait I know Calgary! ya that'll work...

[jbg]

Giving out advance notice of a pending strike is not how you win a war, but this is a product of how modern warfare is prosecuted by free nations with leftist influence. America and Canada did the exact same thing in Afghanistan, with RoE that extend an advantage to the terrorists. And why? In order to appease the usual suspects from the left who masquerade as "human rights activists".

Correct.

Sherman's March to the Sea, Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were not pre-announced. And notwithstanding this policy Japan and Germany remain Western allies.

[DogOnPorch]

not to mention the shear stupidity of evacuating 1.4 million people of Gaza to where? Gaza?.....Gaza is only 140 sq miles there is no where to evacuate to...

Calgary is 280 sq miles with 1.1 million, where would we evacuate the people of Calgary?, oh wait I know Calgary! ya that'll work...

Saving lives is stupidity? I guess Arab lives are cheap.

There's far more open area than you think. And Gaza City is not all of Gaza. The near-by former Jewish settlement would have been ideal. During the cease fires, why didn't they?

Edited October 20, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bleeding heart]

Since public opinion was divided during the time of which you speak, the American public was no more supportive of the war than it was opposed to the war.

No, from '65 till '67, opposition was low. People qwere more servile, more obediently willing to stare with dewy eyes at noblwe eladers bombing inferior foreigners. (some people remain this way; the technical term for them is "sycophants." )

In '67 opposition started to pick up, with the real firestorm occuring in '68.

[One of the main reasons there wasn't more support was the belief that there wasn't enough being done to try to win the war faster.

Yes, by some; others opposed it wholesale, on principled grounds.

[bleeding heart]

1967 war. Desert storm. The final victory over Japan (2 nukes instead of a land invasion that would have cost perhaps millions of lives). And no, not Vietnam.

I'll give you 1967

Desert Storm was sold to the public precisely on the grounds that they weren't going whole hog, because they didn't want a high casualty rate.

It's the exact opposite of your thesis.

And by the way, the more hawkish voices were making precisely the same complaint about "softness" that you are making now, which adds a rather interesting layer to your example, here.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a stellar example, either...as your own qualifier, "perhaps," exposes immediately.

So you've named one conflict (at best!) out of....how many, do you think?

Edited October 20, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

No, from '65 till '67, opposition was low. People qwere more servile, more obediently willing to stare with dewy eyes at noblwe eladers bombing inferior foreigners. (some people remain this way; the technical term for them is "sycophants." )

In '67 opposition started to pick up, with the real firestorm occuring in '68.

You said the first three years, which would include '67, and throughout those three years, support was divided at best:

• August 1965...........52%
  
• March 1966.............59%
  
• May 1966 ................49%
  
• September 1966..... 48%
  
• November 1966.......51%
  
• February 1967.........52%
  
• May 1967.................50%
  
• July 1967..................48%
  
• October 1967...........44%
  
• December 1967........48%
  

The highest support was 59% for two months in '66, which then dropped to just under 50% - while most of the time throughout the three years it hovered just above or below the 50% mark - making support divided, as I said. Burning draft cards and protests against the war started in '65. Also, as I pointed out, there was support for a stronger war effort in hope of winning the war quickly, especially in the years you referred to. It appears that a lot of the eventual opposition was due to the length and 'hands tied behind our backs' approach.

Yes, by some; others opposed it wholesale, on principled grounds.

There are always those who oppose any war "wholesale, on principled grounds" - which should really read their principles, as the way you've presented it makes it come across as if they were the only ones basing their stand on "principles."

Edited October 20, 2012 by American Woman

[jacee]

not to mention the shear stupidity of evacuating 1.4 million people of Gaza to where? Gaza?.....Gaza is only 140 sq miles there is no where to evacuate to...

Calgary is 280 sq miles with 1.1 million, where would we evacuate the people of Calgary?, oh wait I know Calgary! ya that'll work...

Evacuate Gaza ... to the refugee camps? UN school?

Ya that worked ... to provide the IDF with easier targets!

The slaughter at Al Fakhora school in the Jabalya refugee camp was the worst single incident since the offensive was launched 11 days ago. Some 350 people were sheltering in the school and many local residents were in the immediate area, thinking it would be safe, when the shells exploded in mid-afternoon. Many of the victims were left lying in the street in pools of blood and the nearby hospital was overwhelmed. Photographer Majed Hamdan said: 'I saw parents slapping their faces in grief, screaming, some collapsed to the floor. They knew their children were dead.' He said he saw the marks of five explosions.

Five explosions ... not a mistake, not an accident ... targeted.

More refugee camp attacks here ...

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=ms-android-motorola&tbo=d&gl=ca&site=&source=hp&q=israel+bombs+refugee+camp+gaza&oq=israel+bombs+refugee+camp+gaza&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.12...130.28516.0.30215.30.26.0.4.4.0.605.8044.2-8j9j1j4.22.0.les%3B..0.0...1ac.1.qMksXnkWqTE

Edited October 20, 2012 by jacee

[Guest American Woman]

Evacuate Gaza ... to the refugee camps? UN school?

Ya that worked ... to provide the IDF with easier targets!

The slaughter at Al Fakhora school in the Jabalya refugee camp [...]

Five explosions ... not a mistake, not an accident ... targeted.

The school wasn't targeted.

[bleeding heart]

You said the first three years, which would include '67, and throughout those three years, support was divided at best:

Do you have a link for this? I'm not disputing it; I believe it shows that I was mistaken. I'm just interested.

Also, as I pointed out, there was support for a stronger war effort in hope of winning the war quickly, especially in the years you referred to. It appears that a lot of the eventual opposition was due to the length and 'hands tied behind our backs' approach

OK, but the "hands tied behind our backs" bit is absurd. The amount of bombs dropped, alone, was staggering. The number of people who were killed was immense.

There are always those who oppose any war "wholesale, on principled grounds" - which should really read their principles, as the way you've presented it makes it come across as if they were the only ones basing their stand on "principles."

"Their principled grounds"?

As opposed to...whose, exactly?

Hopefully I won't have add extra qualifiers to every word I use, just to point out what is alrady obvious.

Edited October 20, 2012 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

Evacuate Gaza ... to the refugee camps? UN school?

Ya that worked ... to provide the IDF with easier targets!

The slaughter at Al Fakhora school in the Jabalya refugee camp was the worst single incident since the offensive was launched 11 days ago. Some 350 people were sheltering in the school and many local residents were in the immediate area, thinking it would be safe, when the shells exploded in mid-afternoon. Many of the victims were left lying in the street in pools of blood and the nearby hospital was overwhelmed. Photographer Majed Hamdan said: 'I saw parents slapping their faces in grief, screaming, some collapsed to the floor. They knew their children were dead.' He said he saw the marks of five explosions.

Five explosions ... not a mistake, not an accident ... targeted.

More refugee camp attacks here ...

http://www.google.ca...c.1.qMksXnkWqTE

So you're saying that the IDF would slaughter civilians during a cease fire? I already provided a Google Map link as to where the evacuation could have occurred to.

Here's that link again so you have a proper idea what Gaza looks like.

Edited October 20, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

You said the first three years, which would include '67, and throughout those three years, support was divided at best:

• August 1965...........52%
  
• March 1966.............59%
  
• May 1966 ................49%
  
• September 1966..... 48%
  
• November 1966.......51%
  
• February 1967.........52%
  
• May 1967.................50%
  
• July 1967..................48%
  
• October 1967...........44%
  
• December 1967........48%
  

The highest support was 59% for two months in '66, which then dropped to just under 50% - while most of the time throughout the three years it hovered just above or below the 50% mark - making support divided, as I said. Burning draft cards and protests against the war started in '65. Also, as I pointed out, there was support for a stronger war effort in hope of winning the war quickly, especially in the years you referred to. It appears that a lot of the eventual opposition was due to the length and 'hands tied behind our backs' approach.

There are always those who oppose any war "wholesale, on principled grounds" - which should really read their principles, as the way you've presented it makes it come across as if they were the only ones basing their stand on "principles."

AW...most people think Viet-Nam was a US invasion. That's the level of understanding of that conflict to the average Joe. That is: No understanding.

[DogOnPorch]

I'll give you 1967

Desert Storm was sold to the public precisely on the grounds that they weren't going whole hog, because they didn't want a high casualty rate.

It's the exact opposite of your thesis.

And by the way, the more hawkish voices were making precisely the same complaint about "softness" that you are making now, which adds a rather interesting layer to your example, here.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a stellar example, either...as your own qualifier, "perhaps," exposes immediately.

So you've named one conflict (at best!) out of....how many, do you think?

There are no definitive results in warfare. Just definitive tactics. Pray the guy in charge is a General Lee and not a General Burnside.

http://en.wikipedia....mbrose_Burnside

Edited October 20, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bleeding heart]

There are no definitive results in warfare. Just definitive tactics. Pray the guy in charge is a General Lee and not a General Burnside.

http://en.wikipedia....mbrose_Burnside

I'll drink to that.

[DogOnPorch]

I'll drink to that.

Command control is everything in battle. Even more important than ammo. The army that has it generally wins on the battlefield. CC used to be a huge problem with Arab armies...still is. Wave assaults were the only option as few had radios and Arabs used a top down/back up way of CC where only top brass made decisions. Oddly, the cellphone has stepped in where leadership can not and provided basic CC to the average Arab irregular like Hamas, making him more effective than past Arab soldiers.

[jacee]

The school wasn't targeted.

Yes it was.

Israel had claimed Hamas militants were hiding inside the school, but the UN had denied this.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes it was.

Israel had claimed Hamas militants were hiding inside the school, but the UN had denied this.

Care to respond to my question about why Hamas did not evacuate the citizens of Gaza City to the former Jewish settlement?

[Guest American Woman]

AW...most people think Viet-Nam was a US invasion. That's the level of understanding of that conflict to the average Joe. That is: No understanding.

Oh, I agree - and they seem to be quite satisfied with their level of "understanding."

[Guest American Woman]

Yes it was.

No, it wasn't; and it was never hit. Hamas militants were fighting in the vicinity of the school, and Israeli soldiers fought back. Those killed were outside the school.

[Guest American Woman]

Hopefully I won't have add extra qualifiers to every word I use, just to point out what is alrady obvious.

As opposed to having already pointed out the obvious?

[DogOnPorch]

Plus, if you look at the pictures, you see this resulted from a tank shell striking part of a building. The damage itself was light. But, those gathered to watch Hamas shoot off rounds also got hit.

Edited October 20, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest American Woman]

Plus, if you look at the pictures, you see this resulted from a tank shell striking part of a building. The damage itself was light. But, those gathered to watch Hamas shoot off rounds also got hit.

The school was never targeted, never hit - but of course that doesn't prevent the untruth from being perpetuated.

[DogOnPorch]

The school was never targeted, never hit - but of course that doesn't prevent the untruth from being perpetuated.

This is where pro-Hamas posters start refusing to answer. When the questions get a tad tricky and can't be explained away by the term 'Zionist'. My question is a valid one and it was greeted with derision and outright Blood Libel...AS IF the IDF would attack civilians evacuating Gaza City in cold blood. Yeah...there's a plan...

[DogOnPorch]

Here's the damage. It's from a direct fire weapon...likely a tank shell or rocket launcher round. Judging from the lack of damage it was a HEAT round of some sort. Designed to punch straight through. Pro-Hamas types claimed Israeli shelling...but mortar rounds land on roof tops...not into sides of buildings. What can't be discounted is that a round cooked-off in the mortar tube the Hamas terrorists were firing causing most of the mayhem.

Round cooks off in the tube: example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50HXHcl8rbE

HEAT rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_anti-tank_warhead

Edited October 20, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest American Woman]

I should correct myself regarding "never hit" and modify it to never directly hit. It was not a target. There were militants in the area, and Israel fought back.