Ron Paul's Take on Gaza

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:

Honestly I don’t think the world has much to fear from the entirety of jihading muslims. That said, you cannot allow them to fire rockets at whim into Israel. What if Canada were doing that to us? Regardless of their effectiveness you cannot allow your borders to be violated.

When Pancho Villa “invaded America” by raiding Columbus, New Mexico, he killed 18 Americans. This is three more than the number of Israelis who have been killed so far, after over one thousand Qassam rockets have been fired into Israeli territory by Hamas.

Notice, however, that General Pershing did not, in response, launch a full assault on Chihuahua State, did not pound civilian neighborhoods with howitzer fire, and did not lead a cavalry battalion through towns, shooting and sabering people indiscriminately.

The punitive operation concentrated on punishing the people actually responsible for the attacks. They took out Villa’s generals the old-fashioned way: by finding the varmints and plugging them. That it was ultimately unsuccessful in killing Villa himself is beside the point.

Similarly, during the Haitian Cacos Rebellion, the American Expeditionary Force did not indiscriminately firebomb Haitian villages in hopes of killing a Caco or two. Instead, a certain Marine sergeant named Herman Hanneken made his way through thick jungle in blackface, found rebel leader Charlemagne Peralte, took him out with one shot from his Colt 45, then brought him back to his commanding officer tied to a donkey.

Herman Hanneken’s action would be the equivalent of an IDF sergeant making his way through the crowded streets of Damascus, bearded and clad in shemagh, finding Khaled Mashal, taking him out with one well-placed shot from his Jericho pistol, then bringing him back to Jerusalem tied to the hood of his Humvee.

Highly improbable, perhaps, but probably more efficient than what the Israelis are doing now.

[/quote]

Wow, great post.

62

[quote]Enkiduu wrote:
A friend of mine made this comparison:

If a Mexican drug cartel was firing rockets into America and the Mexican government wasn’t doing anything about it (just as terrorists were firing rockets into Israel, and there was no government action to stop it), then America might wait how long? 30 minutes? an hour? before mobilizing some sort of military response.

I don’t know if this is a very good comparison, but I generally think that Israel has a duty to keep it’s people from being shot at.
[/quote]

Your friend’s analogy would be more apt if instead the Mexican drug cartel was the Mexican government doing the attacking in Texas, for example, and all the Mexicans were forced to live on a reservation with this cartel somewhere in Texas where they were never allowed to leave. Also, the Mexican citizens would outnumber the cartel 100:1 but they wouldn’t have any weapons to defend themselves against the Americans who indiscriminately kill the innocent Mexicans living on the reservation with the evil cartel/government.

Did I forget anything?

63

I thought that it was non-government terrorists who were doing the attacking? I’m not sure, so tell me if I’m wrong. The government wasn’t taking any action to stop it so they might as well be supporting it, but I thought there was a distinction.

And I think his point was more about how fast America would retaliate, rather than the tactics used. We wouldn’t wait a few years. I believe the missiles have been fired into Israel over a long period of time and only now is Israel retaliating in force.

64

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:

Honestly I don’t think the world has much to fear from the entirety of jihading muslims. That said, you cannot allow them to fire rockets at whim into Israel. What if Canada were doing that to us? Regardless of their effectiveness you cannot allow your borders to be violated.

When Pancho Villa “invaded America” by raiding Columbus, New Mexico, he killed 18 Americans. This is three more than the number of Israelis who have been killed so far, after over one thousand Qassam rockets have been fired into Israeli territory by Hamas.

Notice, however, that General Pershing did not, in response, launch a full assault on Chihuahua State, did not pound civilian neighborhoods with howitzer fire, and did not lead a cavalry battalion through towns, shooting and sabering people indiscriminately.

The punitive operation concentrated on punishing the people actually responsible for the attacks. They took out Villa’s generals the old-fashioned way: by finding the varmints and plugging them. That it was ultimately unsuccessful in killing Villa himself is beside the point.

…

Highly improbable, perhaps, but probably more efficient than what the Israelis are doing now.

[/quote]

Gosh, friend V, great post, but I had to review my history of the Villa Punitive Expedition.

Oh, you will notice in the article a picture of the Howitzer which, undoubtedly, Pershing had intended as a fancy plant stand.

Patton personally killed Cardenas, and is reported to have carved notches into his revolvers. Cárdenas was an important leader in the Villista military organization.
…The expedition bogged down due to its lack of success, tension with Mexican officials and citizens, and the attraction of liquor that was provided by cantinas that remained open all night to provide service to the thirsty soldiers. Another salient feature of the campaign was the regulated brothel operated under official auspices as the “Remount Station,” with the rate per copulation set at $2. A prophylactic was issued to each man upon his admission to the precincts, to prevent sexually transmitted diseases among the troops.[citation needed]
While the expedition did make contact with Villista formations and killed two of his generals, it failed in its major objectives, neither stopping border raids (which continued while the expedition was in Mexico, although both National Guard troops and Texas Rangers were stationed on the border) nor capturing Villa.

I suppose if there were phones, Pershing would have automatically phoned in the warnings to the Mexican population. And if Villa had been in an urban area, and not tunneled under the largest hospital in Chihuahua, Patton would not have bothered with his pearl-handled pistols, but would have allowed Cardenas to escape, or re-arm.

So, I guess that, historical analogies allow that if Villa had been a bicycle, he would have had wheels, and Pershing would have used thumbtacks, and the Expedition would have been a success.

Memo to Ehud Barak: find some thumbtacks.

65

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t remember if tanks were involved, but heavy artillery was certainly involved. Unless I am mistaken, Clinton killed every single Branch Dravidian member…Man, woman and child…Where is his war crimes tribunal?
Oh I forgot, democrat…Abominations are a-ok if not status quo.[/quote]

I really doubt that Clinton foresaw how badly the situation would degenerate; I also doubt that anyone on the govt side was happy with the end result.

I guess for some people, anything is partisan fodder.

66

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So, I guess that, historical analogies allow that if Villa had been a bicycle, he would have had wheels, and Pershing would have used thumbtacks, and the Expedition would have been a success.

Memo to Ehud Barak: find some thumbtacks.
[/quote]

The Pedalestinians are done for.

67

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
until all is accomplished

What part of that don’t you get? Didn’t Jesus “accomplish” it all? Didn’t he say, “It is finished!” before he died?

If you deny that “until all is accomplished” is a reference to the institution of the new covenant, how will you justify not living by ALL the Mosaic law today when Christ has said that not the least change will be made to it until “all is accomplished”?

In other words, from your perspective, you ought to be traveling down to Jerusalem to consecrate your firstborn at the temple, sacrificing sheep and goats, bringing in a tenth of your grain, living in booths during the feast of booths, and abiding by every jot and tittle of the Mosaic law, including the dietary laws. Had any pork lately?[/quote]

Yep, I think that’s the more accurate interpretation, with the end referring to Jesus’ return, rather than His resurrection. I’m not a Christian, so it’s merely an academic point to me.

68

[quote]pookie wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
So, I guess that, historical analogies allow that if Villa had been a bicycle, he would have had wheels, and Pershing would have used thumbtacks, and the Expedition would have been a success.

Memo to Ehud Barak: find some thumbtacks.

The Pedalestinians are done for.
[/quote]

Pookie,

You spoke well and have taken the air out of my argument!
I must tread more carefully in the future!

69

[quote]pookie wrote:
The Pedalestinians are done for. [/quote]

Pédale toi même!

70

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
pookie wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
So, I guess that, historical analogies allow that if Villa had been a bicycle, he would have had wheels, and Pershing would have used thumbtacks, and the Expedition would have been a success.

Memo to Ehud Barak: find some thumbtacks.

The Pedalestinians are done for.

Pookie,

You spoke well and have taken the air out of my argument!
I must tread more carefully in the future![/quote]

Rimember to keep your arguments well seated and you won’t tire yourself needlessly.

71

[quote]pookie wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pookie wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
So, I guess that, historical analogies allow that if Villa had been a bicycle, he would have had wheels, and Pershing would have used thumbtacks, and the Expedition would have been a success.

Memo to Ehud Barak: find some thumbtacks.

The Pedalestinians are done for.

Pookie,

You spoke well and have taken the air out of my argument!
I must tread more carefully in the future!

Rimember to keep your arguments well seated and you won’t tire yourself needlessly.
[/quote]

I feel like the of-fender! You are kind to offer the best basket of advice that I can handle bar none.

72

Pookie, it brakes my heart, but I must derailleur chain of puns before they get into gear, however well-spoke they may be.

And as for you Doc, I never thought you would actually use Wikipedia to rebut one of my posts.

Here’s an excerpt from a nifty little article entitled Field Artillery in Military Operations Other Than War by the Combat Studies Institute in Fort Leavenworth.

[i]Some US expeditionary forces incorporated artillery into their operational plans for the purpose of “firepower insurance.” When Brigadier General John J. Pershing entered Mexico in March 1916 in pursuit of the Mexican revolutionary and bandit, Francisco “Pancho” Villa, two field artillery batteries consisting of eight 2.95-inch howitzers were among his forces, just in case Villa had field pieces or the expedition became embroiled with Mexican government troops.

As it turned out, Pershing’s men fought three major engagements, one against the villistas, two against government forces, but artillery did not figure in any of the battles. It did, however, provide base security for Pershing, especially at the main camp of Dublán. The cost of this security was not cheap in terms of mobility and logistics.

The artillery pieces did not travel well over the northern Mexican terrain, and the wagons, horses, fodder, and men it took to transport them were not insignificant.

According to one account, “it required four mules to carry one gun, disassembled, plus another six mules to carry the ammunition; thus to transport one gun required ten animals, which needed shoeing and forage, plus a dozen men to look after the mules as well as assemble and fire the gun.”[/i]

So, to reiterate, even though Pershing had the howitzers, he did not pound civilian towns with them.

73

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Pookie, it brakes my heart, but I must derailleur chain of puns before they get into gear, however well-spoke they may be.

And as for you Doc, I never thought you would actually use Wikipedia to rebut one of my posts.

Here’s an excerpt from a nifty little article entitled Field Artillery in Military Operations Other Than War by the Combat Studies Institute in Fort Leavenworth.

[i]Some US expeditionary forces incorporated artillery into their operational plans for the purpose of “firepower insurance.” When Brigadier General John J. Pershing entered Mexico in March 1916 in pursuit of the Mexican revolutionary and bandit, Francisco “Pancho” Villa, two field artillery batteries consisting of eight 2.95-inch howitzers were among his forces, just in case Villa had field pieces or the expedition became embroiled with Mexican government troops.

As it turned out, Pershing’s men fought three major engagements, one against the villistas, two against government forces, but artillery did not figure in any of the battles. It did, however, provide base security for Pershing, especially at the main camp of Dublán. The cost of this security was not cheap in terms of mobility and logistics.

The artillery pieces did not travel well over the northern Mexican terrain, and the wagons, horses, fodder, and men it took to transport them were not insignificant.

According to one account, “it required four mules to carry one gun, disassembled, plus another six mules to carry the ammunition; thus to transport one gun required ten animals, which needed shoeing and forage, plus a dozen men to look after the mules as well as assemble and fire the gun.”[/i]

So, to reiterate, even though Pershing had the howitzers, he did not pound civilian towns with them.[/quote]

Oh, no: I did not rebut your post. I freely admitted my ignorance of military history here. Nothing in that Wiki article (with the observation on the costs of sex and condoms) indicated that the Howitzer was used, and knowing that you were a better scholar in these matters, I presumed you correct that the Howitzer was not used.

But Pershing brought it, and intended it to be used, not as a plant stand, but against fortifications or entrenchments that he might encounter.

Hence the ramble: if Villa had kept his camps in cities (and not in villages or in open country), if Villa had been Hamas, and used human shields, and tunneled under hospitals and schools, and so on…would Pershing have received his orders to use the big guns?

I don’t know. But he brought them; I suspect Howitzer fire is not surgically accurate, and there would have been regrettable civilian loss. And, BTW, Pershing failed where other techniques succeeded.

If the IDF were fighting a brigade in the open desert…If if if. If only you could choose your enemy and its rules of engagement, then bicycles would never need thumbtacks.

74

Doc:

Duly noted. Still, I believe that it was a different Army back then. Even if it had been logistically practical to wheel in the field artillery and just shell that hacienda that Cardenas was hiding out in, for example, I think all concerned would have thought it a base and cowardly thing to do, particularly since it would mean risking the deaths of Cardenas’ servants, wife and children, who were also present.

It took a cocky young lieutenant with a pistol to bring down Cardenas, while somehow managing not to hit any non-combatants.

It took a one-ton bomb to take out Nizar Rayan, knocking down a four-story building and killing eleven other people, including two of his wives and four of his children.

Not for me to say which method is the superior one, though.

75

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
I feel like the of-fender! You are kind to offer the best basket of advice that I can handle bar none.[/quote]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Pookie, it brakes my heart, but I must derailleur chain of puns before they get into gear, however well-spoke they may be.[/quote]

Damn, you guys are good. It’s not often that I find myself punless.

Fear not, I’ll be bike when I’m in a better frame of mind.

76

Oh, and I just couldn’t let this one slide.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

pearl-handled pistols
[/quote]

I’ll let the General speak for himself.

“Only a pimp in a New Orleans whorehouse or a tin-horn gambler would carry a pearl-handled pistol! These are IVORY-GOD-FUCKING-DAMN-HANDLED!!”

77

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, and I just couldn’t let this one slide.

DrSkeptix wrote:

pearl-handled pistols

I’ll let the General speak for himself.

“Only a pimp in a New Orleans whorehouse or a tin-horn gambler would carry a pearl-handled pistol! These are IVORY-GOD-FUCKING-DAMN-HANDLED!!” [/quote]

He really should’ve worked on his potty mouth.

78

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Oh, and I just couldn’t let this one slide.

DrSkeptix wrote:

pearl-handled pistols

I’ll let the General speak for himself.

“Only a pimp in a New Orleans whorehouse or a tin-horn gambler would carry a pearl-handled pistol! These are IVORY-GOD-FUCKING-DAMN-HANDLED!!”

He really should’ve worked on his potty mouth.[/quote]

AND he had IVORY handled pistols!

79

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:

I don’t remember if tanks were involved, but heavy artillery was certainly involved. Unless I am mistaken, Clinton killed every single Branch Dravidian member…Man, woman and child…Where is his war crimes tribunal?
Oh I forgot, democrat…Abominations are a-ok if not status quo.

I really doubt that Clinton foresaw how badly the situation would degenerate; I also doubt that anyone on the govt side was happy with the end result.

I guess for some people, anything is partisan fodder.
[/quote]

They had Bradley combat vehicles. Close enough to tanks…It is the job of the president to take into account all possible out comes. Whether he he knew how bad it would be or not he did have precedence in the event of Ruby Ridge.
It is typical American amnesia to forget these things and look upon the past with rose coloered glasses.

Our short memories are our greatest disservice to one another.

80

[quote]pat wrote:
Our short memories are our greatest disservice to one another.[/quote]
And really the irony is that a “short memory” is the product of long term prosperity.