| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:57 pm Post subject: What We (the US) Could Do for the Palestinians |
 |
|
What We Could Do for the Palestinians
| Amjed Atallah wrote: |
| What if field hospitals were set up on the Egyptian-side of the border right outside of Gaza that were run by the U.S. . . . or any of our European allies, and the ICRC were responsible for shuttling non-combatants, especially women and children, from inside Gaza . . . and you have American, Norwegian, Swiss doctors healing and saving the lives of these civilians and then sending them back inside Gaza |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Our immediate, tactical intervention in the conflict will change little or nothing. Less effective than even a band-aid. |
It may alleviate needless suffering and also show that the US, you know, actually gives a shit.
It wouldn't be intervention, either. It'd be medical treatment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A humanitarian mission like that mentioned above would get my vote. Healing the sick and injured is never a bad idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
What's to guarantee the Hams won't bomb it?
Otherwise I'm all for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| It wouldn't be intervention, either. It'd be medical treatment. |
When we intervene in a conflict between two warring parties, it remains intervention, no matter how we explain our motives for intervening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| It wouldn't be intervention, either. It'd be medical treatment. |
When we intervene in a conflict between two warring parties, it remains intervention, no matter how we explain our motives for intervening. |
The United States already intervenes in one way or another by giving Israel 3 billion dollars or so every year. It has a lot of military aid, and loan guarantees which Bush senior tied to freezing settlements when Shamir was around, but his son didn't care, and was supposedly called by Olmert (who knows what's the truth) and told to make sure the US abstained. I don't think Bush junior has handled the situation well, and that's part of the reason why it's in a big mess, though it was always messy. The US is involved with its Arab allies and Israel, it's ally, and it is not in the U.S.'s advantage for things to blow up in the region.
It has certain geopolitical ramifications that I think some pragmatists worry about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Adventurer: my point is not to hastily intervene into a warzone, reacting to this or that crisis-of-the-moment, putting our people in harm's way in a hate-filled environment, just because the weak-sisters among us see shooting and start crying that we need to make it go away (again). No more no less.
The Obama administration, if I read the situation correctly, will likely intervene into the strategic conflict in a circumspect and effective way -- and wait, among other things, until it actually assumes office this week before moving. And as far as W. Bush goes, he has had one foot out the door the last several weeks or so.
These considerations are not only relevant when considering why the American govt, at any level, remains in a kind of holding pattern on a number of things. But it also helps explain why Tel Aviv moved at this particular time -- and why it has now pledged to withdraw its forces before B. Obama's inauguration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| It wouldn't be intervention, either. It'd be medical treatment. |
When we intervene in a conflict between two warring parties, it remains intervention, no matter how we explain our motives for intervening. |
Then we're beyond the point of intervention, Gopher.
| Quote: |
The US Army Corps of Engineers has been helping the Egyptian government detect tunnels used to move weapons and other contraband into Gaza, the Pentagon said Thursday.
A small number of US civilians with the Corps have been providing technical advice to the Egyptians over a period of months, said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Army Corps of Engineers role was providing "strictly technical advice," he said...no US civilians were working near the border with Gaza... |
I agree that we are and have been engaged in this conflict, and for decades. I do not believe that the interventionism you cite here is comparable to the ill-considered proposal you ref, above, that we place civilians on the ground there, where they will likely take hits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:09 pm Post subject: Re: What We (the US) Could Do for the P | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
