'[130.PzW.Fuchs;4843845']Alot of countries had the Ministry of War but later on this sounded too hostile for neighbours so they changed it into Ministry of Defense.
Absolutely, that's why I propose we call it Ministry of Peace (Minipax in Newspeak)
Lobo;4844179Absolutely, that's why I propose we call it Ministry of Peace (Minipax in Newspeak)
Shh! Keep it down or they will take you to Room 101... :(
I take what n0e says way too seriously
9th April 2005
Biiviz;4843622Kind of shitty of how they label their army as "Israel Defense Forces" when they keep attacking their neighbours. It gives the rest of the world's defense forces a bad name.
agreed. i have always been in favor of changing the united states "Department of Defense" back to the "Department of War". after all, thats what it is.
this is with the exception of the Japanese Self Defense Force. which has been exactly that. rarely venturing far from the home islands, and only for humanitarian reasons.
Its called a defense force not because they are capable of waging war. Its labeled a defense force because the Military is not geared for long range offensive actions.
No strategic bombers, long range attack aircraft, no ability or logistics for sustained operations in foreign lands, etc. Israel like Japan can mount limited offensive operations for a short period of time then its done. They are mostly geared and organized around short term operations close to home.
I understand your message. Bad things happened to people that should not have happened.
War crimes happened in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and II, etc. I am not saying they are excusable. I am saying they are not normal actions.
As per the soldiers interviews such things as soldiers arguing with officers over whether to shoot persons, soldiers and entire units refusing to enter Gaza in protest att the treatment of Palestinian civilians, and the mere fact that soldiers have come forth to tell the truth shows that there are soldiers not willing to obey orders that go against their conscience. There are some that still follow a moral code.
I still stand by what I said in the Gaza thread. If Israel had wanted to eliminate the Palestinians as you and others claimed the civilian casualties would have been much, much MUCH higher.
I also still stand by the claim that in general the IDF tried to avoid causing unnecessary casualties as much to avoid protests at home as well as to avoid causing too much pressure internationally.
As for Israel drawing up plans for attacking Hamas six months earlier, it is simple military doctrine that dictate plans be drawn up for any eventuality. The US has battle plans and has wargamed scenarios with most every nation including Allies such as the UK. Im sure the UK has plans and wargamed a scenario for combat against the US with a guesstimated timeframe before a cease fire is drawn up and combat would cease.
I fully believe the IDF did not doubt Hamas would attack Israel when the cease fire expired. It wasnt a matter of IF Hamas would attack but how soon. The Israeli's planned accordingly. I think it is also a matter of point that the IDF waited to see what Hamas would do.
I fully agree that the Israeli's should have had better troop discipline and more rigid rules of engagement as to its involvement and treatment of civlians. What remains is to see what actions the IDF do to address these issues?
Whether they be US, British or IDF troops, if they commited war crimes then they deserve to be investigated and if necessary punished.
I agree some of the shirts such as the "1 shot 2 kills" are tasteless and improper. Its how some soldiers get into the blood lust for combat. Sometimes too much blood lust is bad especially if it gets out of control.
During first Gulf War some US soldiers had T-shirts saying "Hey I just stepped in some Shiite!" and another that said "I'd fly 4.000mi to smoke a Camel!", and "73 Virgins Express Delivery Service".
That's all I have to say on this subject.
Anlushac11;4844566I still stand by what I said in the Gaza thread. If Israel had wanted to eliminate the Palestinians as you and others claimed the civilian casualties would have been much, much MUCH higher.
This is an oversimplification of what me and others said but yeah, let's stop it here