Would You Support Military Action?

[hrothgar]

I am rapidly becoming disallusioned with Israel and their justifications for warfare.

It seems Israel has bombed a nuke plant in Syria.

At the very least I thought some would call this an act of war but the world seems silent. Whether justified or not, ok or not, good or bad, I wonder what the moral difference is if the USA bombs a nuke plant. I guess there must be a huge difference based on the outrage and talk here.

Comment 1: The Israeli's seemed to have learned something from the Osirak attack back in 1980. Its best not to go gloating about these sorts of things.

 

Comment 2: I've heard a fair amount of commentary on this. NPR provided extensive coverage regarding the attack. It was also covered on Face the Nation.

 

Comment 3: I consider the attack complete unjustified. If there was a reactor, it was 10-20 years from completion. There was no need to launch a unilateral attack at this point in time. The entire situation could and should have been handled through the UN.

 

From what I can tell, the main reason that the Israelis decided to launch an attack at this point in time was to provide a signal to Iran. Personally, I don't think that one should bomb third parties as demonstration.

[Winstonm]

That's debatable. Syria harbors terrorists and supports terrorism. Terrorists are a direct threat to the USA.

 

There is substantial difference between allowing terrorists to thrive and supporting terrorists. If Syria were funding, feeding, and supplying these terrorists they would no longer be terrorists but be Syrian guerilla soldiers.

[helene_t]

Comment 3:  I consider the attack complete unjustified.  If there was a reactor, it was 10-20 years from completion.  There was no need to launch a unilateral attack at this point in time.  The entire situation could and should have been handled through the UN.

I remember a press conference just after the attack on the Iraqi nuclear facility (was that Osirak?). A journalist raised the point that it seems premature to attack a reactor that was many years from completion. Why not wait and see if it becomes a problem at all?

 

Menachem Begin's (Israeli prime minister) response was that if they had waited until a lot of radioactive material had been collected, the destruction of the facility would have caused devastating collateral damage. The reason I still remember this is the emotional impact of Begin's words: "We don't want to kill Bagdad's children".

 

After the press conference, Danish TV casted a telephone interview with an (obviously anonymous) Iraq-based military expert who said that the security facilities of the reactor (or whatever it was) were extremely weak at that moment and that the Israelis somehow must have known that it was the ideal time to strike.

 

Begin may have been a hypocrite and his argument may have been invalid, and it may not be comparable to this recent attack on Syria (AFAIK it is still unclear what the Israelis have attacked and why) but it made a lot of sense to me then. Even if Begin was a hypocrite, the bare idea that someone may care about what Israeli politicians think about the prospect of killing Iraqi civilians is remarkable in a region where it is the norm to kill as many civilians as possible and brag about it afterwards (and comfort the families of those who were killed in friendly fire by the fact that their sons will get 72 virgins each). Sr maybe the latter remark was inappropriate, I could not resist it.

 

As for this UN alternative, my impression is that there is a strong sense of the necessity for self-defense in the Israeli populace. If Israel got nuked, I don't think that many devote sionists would take comfort in a UN resolution that regretted the incident. (Sr I'm putting this in a cynic way but I suppose you get my point).

[Winstonm]

Helene:

It is no longer clear to me that Israel always wears the white hats - articles abound about the deplorable treatment by Israelis of the Palestinians.

[blackshoe]

Articles abound. That doesn't make them true. Doesn't make them false, either, but the mere fact a lot of people claim something or other doesn't mean anyone should believe them.

[Al_U_Card]

Syria is not a direct threat to the U.S.A.

 

That's debatable. Syria harbors terrorists and supports terrorism. Terrorists are a direct threat to the USA.

Hmmn..... car accidents kill 30,000 citizens per year

 

The effin' army in Iraq kills hundreds per month (forget about Iraqis)

 

How many died from Terrorism last year?

 

(Forget 9-11 it was CIA all the way)

[helene_t]

That's debatable. Syria harbors terrorists and supports terrorism. Terrorists are a direct threat to the USA.

 

There is substantial difference between allowing terrorists to thrive and supporting terrorists. If Syria were funding, feeding, and supplying these terrorists they would no longer be terrorists but be Syrian guerilla soldiers.

That offers hope for defeating terrorism: just put them on the pay list and there won't be any terrorists anymore. Like we do with pimps and drug dealers in the Netherlands :)

 

No seriously, I agree, there is a difference. Not sure if a professional soldier exercising terror counts as a terrorist, though. Semantics.

[Winstonm]

That's debatable. Syria harbors terrorists and supports terrorism. Terrorists are a direct threat to the USA.

 

There is substantial difference between allowing terrorists to thrive and supporting terrorists. If Syria were funding, feeding, and supplying these terrorists they would no longer be terrorists but be Syrian guerilla soldiers.

That offers hope for defeating terrorism: just put them on the pay list and there won't be any terrorists anymore. Like we do with pimps and drug dealers in the Netherlands :)

 

No seriously, I agree, there is a difference. Not sure if a professional soldier exercising terror counts as a terrorist, though. Semantics.

You are right, Helene. I wonder if the Iraquis consider Blackwater, Inc. state-sponsored terrorism?

[Winstonm]

Articles abound. That doesn't make them true. Doesn't make them false, either, but the mere fact a lot of people claim something or other doesn't mean anyone should believe them.

What, then, is the criteria for truth? If articles abound, wouldn't that be more indicative of a problem than if only one or two articles appeared - or are you suggesting this is a widespread reporter's conspiracy?

[blackshoe]

I'm suggesting it's a good idea to take whatever "journalists" say these days with a grain or six of salt. Seek independent verification where possible.

 

In the end, everyone must judge for himself the credibility of the "facts" presented to him - or of the presenter of those facts.

 

Y'all can do what you like, of course, but I wouldn't give much credence to the assertions of, for example, someone who claims the 9/11 attacks were a CIA plot.

[Winstonm]

I'm suggesting it's a good idea to take whatever "journalists" say these days with a grain or six of salt. Seek independent verification where possible.

 

In the end, everyone must judge for himself the credibility of the "facts" presented to him - or of the presenter of those facts.

 

I agree with your assessment - keeping in mind that pro-Israel articles are as subject to this scrutiny as are pro-Palestinian articles.

 

As for facts, doesn't it seem odd that we can no longer place faith in the "news" to deliver truth, but instead must "judge" its truthfulness? There was a time when reporters checked and double-checked sources. There were fact checkers on the staff. Now it only seems to be about the propaganda the owners/sponsors want presented as fact. Everyone, it seems, has an agenda to promote.

 

It would be refreshing to see truth as the agenda.