bascule

As far as I'm able to ascertain there aren't but I don't think that's the right question to be asking here. I mean, there aren't equally effective alternatives to nuclear weapons either, but you don't see anyone suggesting we should use nukes over conventional bombs because the latter aren't as effective. The more important question to ask is whether or not it's humane to use white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas. My answer to that question (and the answer of Amnesty International) is clearly no, but obviously others have different opinions. It's all well and good to bring up that it's war and war is ugly, but this is a war taking place on the doorsteps of countless innocent civilians, not on a battlefield.

I prefer YYYY-MM-DD myself

Who is arguing Hamas should be given a pass on inhumane behavior? That's a total strawman. I have a greater interest in Israel's inhumane behavior because they're perpetrating it with weaponry provided by the United States, which happens to be the country I live in, and also the topic of this thread.

Well then, I suppose my argument would be white phosphorus is not applicable for use in one of the most densely populated areas in the world, due to the potential for massive collateral damage. Sounds like you want to minimize IDF military casualties at the cost of Palestinian civilian casualties.

The ostensible answer would be: not using white phosphorus in densely populated urban areas. But it's war! They should be given carte blanche to do whatever they want... with US provided munitions... and I as an American shouldn't be offended by it. Zuh?

When that unpopular decision is repeatedly signing an executive order circumventing a Constitutional check of executive power by the judicial branch, I'd hope there's at least 10 screaming demagogues trying to do something about it.

Given the scale of civilian deaths and serious injuries from the Gaza invasion, I am lead to seriously question the latter. That's quite the euphemism you're trying to place on 1000 dead Palestinian civilians and an unprecedented level of civilian injuries from white phosphorus. Furthermore, you haven't made your case that Hamas is "orders of magnitude" worse (so minimum 100x?)

Orders of magnitude worse? I'd be interested to know by what figures you arrive at that conclusion...

Maybe when they borrowed story elements and Edward James Olmos from Blade Runner they also borrowed the missing replicant and surrounding continuity errors

I think it's unacceptable in either case. Putting the issue of motive aside this incident did represent unprecedented exposure of civilians to white phosphorus. Well, read their report and tell me if they're "rushing to judgment": http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/012/2009/en/5be86fc2-994e-4eeb-a6e8-3ddf68c28b31/mde150122009en.html#1.0.7.Misuse%20of%20conventional%20arms%20by%20Israeli%20forces|outline Chalk that up to collateral damage if you want, but it still doesn't answer the question of why they are using white phosphorus in densely populated urban areas in the first place.

I think the cartoonist should be fired because his comics aren't funny.

Okay, so I've been playing catchup on all of BSG for the past few weeks. I've watched four seasons! And I just watched what I believe is the latest episode: entitled "No Exit" I really liked the show when it started out, from a hard SF perspective. FTL drives that basically meant you're causally disconnected from where you "jumped" from after you jumped? That's cool. I liked it! But more and more, I'm not liking the end. This episode did about as much as they could to reveal the "final Cylon" without revealing him (OR HER??? lol not spoiler) And let me say I am... confused? UMM SPOILER ALERT STOP READING HERE IF YOU REALLY CARE. Whatever you do don't highlight the stuff below. Please. If you do I am not to blame! I tried, really! [hide]Two "final cylons"? And "Daniel" as the final Cylon? Who's Daniel? A new character introduced at the very very very end of the show? Can this ending really be cool?[/hide]

I really hate to do this because it's the same tactics 9/11 truthers use, but... ...look at the picture. Does it look like white phosphorus is being used as a smokescreen? Or does it look like they're just trying to use it to f**k people up? Do you think Israel really indended to be bombarding a building with a couple UN vehicles parked in it with white phosphorus? Or, perhaps, were they just using it randomly to inflict pain.... I don't know the answers to these questions but clearly I have a guess. If you have evidence which contradicts my guess I'd like to hear it. The fact the US provided the white phosphorus makes us part and parcel to these attacks, which really makes me wonder why we're giving Israel weapons again.... Well, more importantly, they found a US-manufactured bomb... and as an American I can't say I support the use of US-provided armaments in this attack. Perhaps Amnesty International is wrong a lot. However, you conveniently dodged my question, so let me phrase it a bit more specifically. Do you think they're wrong in this particular case? Have arms been used in this conflict in ways that violate human rights? Also note: Amnesty International's accusations don't apply specifically to the Israelis. They have accused both sides of human rights violations.

Great! But... Zuh? The Constitution works because people stand up for the Constitution, so we should... let Bush get away with violating the Constitution, because he's been judged, not by a court of law, but in the court of public opinion? Sorry to inform you, but the court of public opinion doesn't really matter. OJ killed Nicole Simpson, but that's not what the official record says. Bush hasn't had a real trial but we're just going to let him pull an OJ? Without even standing trial? At least let him try on the bloody glove!

I think the first thing you should be asking is if it can come anywhere close to satisfying existing demand for credit, and if it can't, what would the impact of that be upon the economy? My guess: not good.

That doesn't address the question of whether, given the circumstances of how Israel used white phosphorus, it should be considered a war crime. You're a resolute "no" I gather? Amnesty International's argument would seem to be that the intent was, at least in certain cases, to burn the flesh of Palestinian civilians, as opposed to using it for a smokescreen. Israel's response has been "we didn't use white phosphorus" followed by "no comment" followed by "we used it for a smokescreen". Who's right?

Just for the record: Schwarzenegger says Republicans should "put aside ideology" and reach out more to Democrats: http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/02/schwarzenegger.html

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israeli-armys-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-clear-undeniable-20090119 Is Amnesty International wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_grenade )#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations Does that answer your questions?

Apparently the stimulus bill requires that spending decisions be syndicated in standard RSS format: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/rssstimulus Brilliant!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/23/military-aid-israel-amnesty The white phosphorus used on Gaza by Israel (seen above, accidentally hitting UN vehicles) was provided by the US as part of a military aid package. Sorry, can't accuse me of "spreading rumors" at this point. It's confirmed. This is potentially a war crime, and worse, the US had a part in it. Why are we giving military aid to countries perpetrating war crimes?

Yep. The President shouldn't be above the law. Indeed, it's a red herring to insist that the investigation will have partisan motivations. Of course it will! However that's irrelevant to whether or not crimes were actually committed. The investigations into Clinton were certainly as partisan as you can get. But it is true he lied under oath. He did commit a wrongdoing. It appears Bush has committed crimes substantially worse than Clinton. Should we not endure partisanship as bad as the investigations of Clinton for the sake of exposing the crimes Bush has committed? While it's bad such investigations cannot be completed without severe partisanship, it's our only option for exposing the truth of what crimes have been committed. If you disagree, you should denounce the investigations of Clinton. But personally, I would advise you don't. If the President has committed crimes, they should be investigated and exposed. Pangloss insists Clinton committed crimes, and I don't disagree. So Pangloss, shouldn't we investigate Bush as well?

...except taxes are levied in proportion to "the economy", whereas "the budget" describes how taxes are spent. Given the context, I think the comparison is appropriate.

Wow. This thread went an entirely different direction that what I was expecting. I guess I'm starting to agree with iNow that too many threads are turning into a bitchfest about the stimulus. Not that I'm against bitching about the stimulus, except I don't think that's particularly relevant here. So perhaps we can make discussion about the stimulus relevant as part of this thread. Do you think Obama is actually funding the stimulus bill transparently, or do you expect accounting gimmickry similar to what Bush used to fund the stimulus or any other bills?

It's wrong to compare Bush (or Obama) to a monkey? Zuh? Personally I'd be totally cool with someone likening our current (or any former) president to a giant mound of poo if they wanted to.

Hey mods, can you correct the thread title to $2.7 trillion? Whoops