Israel has every right to defend itself against groups that are launching missiles into its cities.
Lasting peace will not come no matter how much land it gives away as long as Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood and the nuts running Iran exist. Some of you need to stop falling for the lie that Hamas is made up of a group of peace loving victims.
Israel should be able to act as a sovergin nation and deal with the consequences. My major problem, aside from the loss of life on both sides, is the amount of money we are forced to spend on this cause.
Where will our fincial support in dropping these bombs lead us? Are folks here willing to fight and die for Israel?
We should always be concerned about money spent. Desired outcomes should be clear and results should be assessed.
Somehow Americans were willing to fight and die for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan (and Vietnam, Korea, and others). I'd hate for it to happen, but rhetorically speaking, the answer to your question is historically 'yes if we have to'.
When are Israelis ever asked to do anything useful to the US, nevermind dying in great numbers. Netanyahu says that God gave the rest of Palestine to the Jews. Because taking 70+% wasn't enough land I guess. The Israeli policy is slow motion ethnic cleansing, with almost 1 million settlers now squatting outside their borders.
Google Catastrophic Zionism, which is the foreign policy of Israel. US traitors like Richard Perle wrote what ended up being the Bush Doctrine of preemption for Netanyahu in 1996. The same guy tasked with writing the Bush Doctrine of Preemption was the same guy in charge of gutting anti-terrorism efforts in the Bush transitional team. He also stated flatly that the US invaded Iraq to protect Israel, but that it wasn't an easy sell to the US public, so they made up other reasons.
Oh, this guy also became the Director of the 9/11 Commission, which was described by even the two Chairmen as a whitewash.9/11 Commission Director: Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel:
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.
It was on his wikipedia page for a while, but they scrubbed it. http://www.antiwar.com/ips/mekay.php?articleid=2208
Think about that for a minute, research whether or not Israel-firsters were in every key position on and after 9/11, and then tell me you want to send other US goys to go die for Israeli land grabbing.
Catastrophic Zionism is the policy, destabilizing the entire middle east and all the terror that requires, while installing puppets.
General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years
Our country has been taken over by spies, and nobody is allowed to point it out.
All they needed was a New Pearl Harbor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow
"In writing about the importance of beliefs about history, Zelikow has called attention to what he has called "'searing' or 'molding' events [that] take on 'transcendent' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene."
In the November–December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article Catastrophic Terrorism, with Ashton B. Carter, and John M. Deutch, in which they speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently."