Would You Support Military Action?

[jtfanclub]

Did the USA just commit an act of war against syria. Is Syria fully justified now to attack the USA and its citizens in the name of self defense?

Well, in this case, no. Israel did not attack Syria, just violated its airspace. Syria is not disputing that, though Israel may or may not have dropped bombs without arming them in order to conserve fuel.

 

But in the general case, I really don't know.

[mike777]

Did the USA just commit an act of war against syria. Is Syria fully justified now to attack the USA and its citizens in the name of self defense?

Well, in this case, no. Israel did not attack Syria, just violated its airspace. Syria is not disputing that, though Israel may or may not have dropped bombs without arming them in order to conserve fuel.

 

But in the general case, I really don't know.

ok so Syria can fly over NYC drop bombs....that do not explode and it is not an act of war?

 

Anyway...maybe next time the bombs will explode....as you say....:)

[Winstonm]

Being a non-interventionist is great. What would you recommend doing in 2001, after 10 years of intervention? And if you're sure about your answer, I'll ask you to look closer.

 

Jt: You make good and reasonable points - you are right that handwringing does no one any good.

 

However, I am of the opinion that continuing incorrect action does not contribute to a solution - when one discovers his actions have been wrong, the first step in rectification is to stop doing what he has been doing.

 

Here is some daring thought. Poor countries have a desire to be less poor. As an example, instead of massing the world against Iran, how about offering our technical expertise and help in building nuclear reactors?

 

The quagmire in Iraq is difficult; however, Iraq has held elections and those in power have been chosen. At this point, if the elected officials want the U.S. to withdraw, what right do we have to stay?

 

There will be slaughter and bloodshed no matter what we do. It gets back to the original statement - when you are doing something wrong, the first stop is to stop repeating it.

[Winstonm]

USA give bombs and planes to our neighbor(Israel) They use it against another neighbor(Syria)

 

Did the USA just commit an act of war against syria. Is Syria fully justified now to attack the USA and its citizens in the name of self defense?

 

The simple answer is no.

 

I have a lemonade stand and you buy a glass of lemonade from me - or I decide to give you one because I know your brother. You then take the lemonade drink and pour it over your teacher's head. I am guilty of assault? No.

 

However, if you came to me and said, give me a glass of lemondade so I can pour it on my teacher's head, and you gave me the lemonade, then you would be guilty of conspiracy and probably aiding and abetting.

 

Was the U.S. in on the plans? That would be the key.

[mike777]

I think it is a bit unfair to equate giving lemonade to a neighbor or giving a neighbor a billion dollars worth of bombs and fighter planes that we know the neighbor will use.

 

I hope you do not just give billions in bombs and planes to your neighbor and shrug your shoulders and say....not my fault now.....I take no resp.

[Winstonm]

I think it is a bit unfair to equate giving lemonade to a neighbor or giving a neighbor a billion dollars worth of bombs and fighter planes that we know the neighbor will use.

 

I hope you do not just give billions in bombs and planes to your neighbor and shrug your shoulders and say....not my fault now.....I take no resp.

You just answered your own question when you said "know they would use". If we knew Israel would use the weapons for aggression then we are guilty of conspiring with them.

 

Isn't that the logic befind the Axis of Evil and the war of terror? Those countries who knowingly provide weapons for aggressive use....

 

However, if we were told the weapons were for defense then we are no more guilty than Smith and Wesson is when a homeowner mailman goes beserk and kills his supervisor with a Smith and Wesson handgun.

 

Here is another. Supoose 15 year ago we had provided Kuwait with these weapons with their assurance that they would only use them if invaded. Then, instead Kuwait attacked Iraq. Would the U.S. be guilty?

 

No. But Kuwait would then be the enemy.

 

The same goes for Israel. Israel cannot be held blameless for every aggressive action they take. There is a difference between friendship and blind loyalty, between allies and co-conspirators.

 

When Israel errs, they should be held accountable like anyone else.

[mike777]

ok so you say Syria does not have a right to attack usa or citizens and stop the weapons coming in.

 

Keep in mind this is not some theory...this example happened now!

 

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic...-ISRAEL-COL.XML

[Winstonm]

ok so you say Syria does not have a right to attack usa or citizens and stop the weapons coming in.

 

Keep in mind this is not some theory...this example happened now!

 

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic...-ISRAEL-COL.XML

O.K., what's your point?

 

Syria claims Israel violated its airspace - where is the U.S. in this and where is the threat of Syria attacking the U.S.?

 

It's not like Syrian-Israeli animosity is anything new.

[mike777]

I told you where the usa is in this. We are providing the bombs and the bombers that are bombing syria. Why is there no threat of syria attacking the usa or its citizens in some fashion. We are located....ten feet from their border. :)

 

If they wished, and they may not want to, they could pay someone to attack us. Again only if they thought we had committed an act of war against them....

 

 

Since you say we have not committed an act of war against Syria...I guess we got no worries.

 

Now back to this thread I hope we do not commit an act of war against Iran. Again we are only ten feet from their border on 2 or 3 or 4 sides depending on how you count a border.

[jtfanclub]

Here is some daring thought. Poor countries have a desire to be less poor. As an example, instead of massing the world against Iran, how about offering our technical expertise and help in building nuclear reactors?

We did.

 

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/...3A912C5E7A.html

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12816148/

 

The quagmire in Iraq is difficult; however, Iraq has held elections and those in power have been chosen.  At this point, if the elected officials want the U.S. to withdraw, what right do we have to stay?

 

None whatsoever. In fact, I think it should be the other way...if they won't vote for us to stay, we should leave. So far, there's been a resolution that has been proposed by them that we leave, and it has a majority of votes in a preliminary somethingoranother, but it hasn't actually reached the floor yet.

 

I would, however, feel much better if their Congress voted for us to stay another year. At the very least, it would make us seem less like occupiers.

[Winstonm]

Somewhat unrelated but somewhat to the point, I think.

 

Americans would be astonished at the criticisms in the Israeli press of the Israeli government's policies toward the Palestinians and Arabs generally.

 

On September 1, Haaretz reported that Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which represents 900 Congregations and 1.5 million Jews, "accused American media, politicians and religious groups of demonizing Islam" and turning Muslims into "satanic figures."

 

And another:

 

Muslims are disunited. Their disunity makes them a threat to one another, not to the West.

 

It is beyond a reach, at best, to think that because Israel overflew Syrian airspace that Syria would use that as an excuse to attack U.S. troops in Iraq.

[Winstonm]

Here is some daring thought.  Poor countries have a desire to be less poor.  As an example, instead of massing the world against Iran, how about offering our technical expertise and help in building nuclear reactors?

We did.

 

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/...3A912C5E7A.html

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12816148/

 

The quagmire in Iraq is difficult; however, Iraq has held elections and those in power have been chosen.  At this point, if the elected officials want the U.S. to withdraw, what right do we have to stay?

 

None whatsoever. In fact, I think it should be the other way...if they won't vote for us to stay, we should leave. So far, there's been a resolution that has been proposed by them that we leave, and it has a majority of votes in a preliminary somethingoranother, but it hasn't actually reached the floor yet.

 

I would, however, feel much better if their Congress voted for us to stay another year. At the very least, it would make us seem less like occupiers.

I have no disagreements with any of this. Guess that ends the party. :)

 

A final quote that sums up my beliefs:

 

But look at the map. Syria is a tiny country, dirt poor except for weapons, and ruled by a dentist. It also is being slowly undermined by the Islamists who the Assads have foolishly tried to co-opt. It is an insignificant dot on the map that poses no threat whatsoever to the United States.

 

Syria might be a threat to Israel, but the idea that it is a threat to the United States, that the armored Syrian horde may sweep across the Bronx, occupy Manhattan, and lasciviously ogle New Jersey, should be met with the most appropriate response possible – convulsive and derisive laughter.

 

And then there is Iran. How does one explain the U.S. governing elite's fear of Iran? Here we have a country that admittedly is led by one of the world's more histrionic politicians, but one that also is ringed by U.S. military bases and surrounded by an overwhelmingly more numerous Sunni world that hates Shi'ites far more than it hates Westerners. Iran‘s Islamic regime, moreover, is helplessly watching the final stages of the march of its energy resources toward oblivion, and preparing for the impoverishment and resulting internal political instability that event will usher in.

 

So where in this portrait is the threat to the United States?

[mike777]

I guess I am just worried that we will commit an act of war, some act of war that:

India

Pakistan

Iran

Syria

North korea

pick your country

 

will view as an act of war.

 

They do not need tanks...they need a few thousand bucks and boxcutters.......

they need money to pay someone who has some dirty bomb, that can attack thousands citizens somewhere in the world. Please note these attacks on us would all be in the name of selfdefense, we commited an act of war.

 

I worry we commit acts of war against all or many countries....every week..for decades.

 

 

http://web.mit.edu/cms/reconstructions/def.../actsofwar.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

[Winstonm]

They do not need tanks...they need a few thousand bucks and boxcutters.......

they need money to pay someone who has some dirty bomb, that can attack thousands citizens somewhere in the world. Please note these attacks on us would all be in the name of selfdefense, we commited an act of war.

 

Your concern is misguided. The fall of America will come from within, not from an outside threat.

 

It also appears to me that your bigger concern is that few other posters seem to believe the "Islamofascism"as threat to civilization bugaboo or buy into the global war on terror as strongly as you do. :)

[luke warm]

They do not need tanks...they need a few thousand bucks and boxcutters.......

they need money to pay someone who has some dirty bomb, that can attack thousands citizens somewhere in the world. Please note these attacks on us would all be in the name of selfdefense, we commited an act of war.

 

Your concern is misguided. The fall of America will come from within, not from an outside threat.

 

It also appears to me that your bigger concern is that few other posters seem to believe the "Islamofascism"as threat to civilization bugaboo or buy into the global war on terror as strongly as you do. :o

i don't believe that is his point... he's asking if, in your (collective) opinions, we (the usa) are committing an act of war when we supply arms to a country who uses those arms aggressively against a neighbor

[mike777]

They do not need tanks...they need a few thousand bucks and boxcutters.......

they need money to pay someone who has some dirty bomb, that can attack thousands citizens somewhere in the world. Please note these attacks on us would all be in the name of selfdefense, we commited an act of war.

 

Your concern is misguided. The fall of America will come from within, not from an outside threat.

 

It also appears to me that your bigger concern is that few other posters seem to believe the "Islamofascism"as threat to civilization bugaboo or buy into the global war on terror as strongly as you do. :)

If you can think of a week..or mutlitple weeks in the last few decades we have not committed an act of war ok......

 

Just tell me the weeks.

 

Tell me the current weeks..now!

 

You may be 100% correct...I only hope so I can sleep.

[Al_U_Card]

If a war is declared and you are a declared neutral then you are protected when in the vicinity UNLESS you are serruptitiously involved....then it may be considered an act of war and you are fair game.

 

If you are not a declared neutral then you have no protection in the war theater.

[Winstonm]

If you can think of a week..or mutlitple weeks in the last few decades we have not committed an act of war ok......

 

Just tell me the weeks.

 

Tell me the current weeks..now!

 

You may be 100% correct...I only hope so I can sleep.

 

Isn't this in itself enough reason to stop all the nonsense, come home, and stop trying to police/change/rule/influence the world?

 

I realize that not everyone is a strict constitutionalist; I also realize that this was a small country when that document was produced; I am also aware that some very bright individuals argue that the consitution is a living document and subject to revisionist thinking.

 

But I think the consitution as written is still valid and should still be held inviolate of interpretations for this one reason: it was written to address the problems inherent in human nature, and human nature does not change, regardless of the size or complexity of the country.

[Al_U_Card]

At the height of every empire since recorded history.....who had the best lot? The arms manufacturers. A police state with police actions throughout its territories needs bullets and guns etc. etc.

 

The neocons see that their buddies in the arms biz and mil will be happy only when world war is waged on a regular basis. Then they will have something of "value" to do.

[mike777]

The OP was about USA attacking Iran over nuclear issues.

 

There are more and more reports popping up that suggest that Israel may have bombed a Nuclear plant in Syria that had ties to North Korea.

Israel may have flown over Turkish airspace to attack Syria, Israeli drop tanks were found in Turkey, very near Syria.

 

All four countries seem to be confirming nothing so far except that something happened.

 

Sounds like an act of war to me. Practice run for Iran?

[Winstonm]

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

[Al_U_Card]

Well, the US does need a "reason" to get involved....right?

[mike777]

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.

[Winstonm]

I wonder what the moral difference is if the USA bombs a nuke plant.

 

Syria isn't next door to the U.S.A. Syria does not have ICBMs. Syria is not a direct threat to the U.S.A.

 

 

Whether or not Israel had justifiction for striking is best left to another thread.

[blackshoe]

According to International Law, an unprovoked military strike by one nation against a target in another nation is an act of war. So yes, Israel bombing a nuke plant in Syria is by definition an act of war, unless Israel had provocation. I suspect Israel would say the mere existence of such a plant is provocation enough. Others' mileage may vary.

 

"Moral difference" if the USA had done it? AFAICS, there is none. So what?

 

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.

 

The attitudes of the Founding Fathers of the United States towards "entangling alliances" and other foreign relations were admirable for their time. I wish we could afford those attitudes now, but we can't. The world has grown much too small for that.