Skip to main content

The Israeli bombing of Gaza and the potential bombing of Syria are being discussed these days, the bombing of Libya and potential bombing of Iran having receded from the general consciousness for the time being.

I’ve been observing the four different stances on the bombing of Gaza and the potential bombing of Syria and have noticed that the thought processes and justifications sometimes put forward are interesting to say the least.

- Some support the Israeli bombing of Gaza and the potential bombing of Syria by Western powers.

A political ideology which is a swampland of conquest and bloodlust (usually there is also a good measure of anti-Muslim sentiment added to the mix) and those with this view would probably have been very comfortable back in the colonial period - but of course only if you were one of the colonialists.

- Some are against both the Israeli bombing of Gaza and the potential bombing of Syria by Western powers.

This is my own personal view.

But there are the qualifications that Israel has to stop imposing conditions on Gaza which provoke militants there into believing that lobbing rockets at Israel is their only alternative, and that the militants in Gaza need to seriously reassess their tactics, and need to be supported in this reassessment by other countries.

And with the understanding that the upheaval in Syria can be resolved through dialogue and negotiation.  Western bombing would light the fuse of greater conflict rather than stabilize or calm the situation.

And the acknowledgement that the West needs to consign to history the leftover colonial practice of using military force against those who are on their very selective and self-serving ‘bad’ list - along with its condescending sibling that ‘We need to step in and straighten these people out because they are too underdeveloped to do it themselves’.

- Some support the Israeli bombing of Gaza but are against the potential bombing of Syria by Western powers.

A half-baked view which is usually the result a progressive mindset coupled with a belief that Israel is a ‘special case’ deserving indulgence. The only thing really ‘special’ about Israel is its success in convincing some people that it is special. Israel is just one of the 190 or so countries on Earth.

- Some are against the Israeli bombing of Gaza but support the potential bombing of Syria by Western powers.

This to me is the most fascinatingly bizarre view.

The mental gymnastics and/or ignorance of those with these views must be breathtakingly vast.

Some points which fascinate me about this view are that those with this view:

Condemn the deaths of civilians in Gaza but seem to be OK with the deaths of civilians who would be killed as a result of any Western bombing of Syria.

Vehemently believe that negotiations are the path to a solution in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel while vociferously stating that there is no room for negotiations in Syria.

Seemingly sincerely believe that the Palestinians in Gaza (along with all Palestinians) should have the ability to exercise their right to self-determination while oddly supporting the external imposition of a government in Syria which Western powers intend to be ‘Western-friendly’ and ‘cooperative’.

----------------------------------

So, who do you want to bomb or to be bombed?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (13+ / 0-)

    Lamb chop, we can quibble what to call it, but I think we can both agree it's creepy.

    by InAntalya on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:56:44 AM PST

  •  Pretty much nobody. (5+ / 0-)

    Both on moral grounds and on the fact that the results (Iraq, Libya, Gaza, etc.) don't seem to be all that impressive.

  •  Interesting approach, but it can be more complex (3+ / 0-)

    I have been approaching the situation from a short term, long term perspective:

    In the short term it makes sense for Israel to be bombing locations in Gaza today. That is because Israel is a sovereign state which has an obligation to its citizens to protect them from outside forces. No one in the world can tell another country the best way to protect its own partially because of how immorally most countries (such as our own) conduct self defensive actions.

    In the long term someone (and it won't be Israel, Hamas, or Fatah) needs to figure out how to give Gazans a quality of life high enough so that Hamas either has to moderate or go out of business because the public just won't tolerate pissing matches with Israel anymore. I do not think either side has even the motivation to do this on their own.

    Conversations about who is to blame, who shot first, or whose grandfather owned what are academically and even morally interesting but tend to get in the way of actual resolutions. Restated - can the rockets falling on the South of Israel be directly traced to past choices by the Israeli government? Yes. Does that in any way diminish the short term obligation to shoot back when their citizens are shot at? No.

    If you believe that ALL criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're an idiot.
    If you believe that NONE of the criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're a fool.
    If you call EVERYONE who criticizes Israel antisemitic, you're just an a$$hole

    by A Gutin Daf on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:07:10 AM PST

    •  Do you think Hamas and Fatah also (7+ / 0-)

      have an obligation to protect the Palestinians from outside forces?  If you say yes, the same logic you're applying to Israel also applies to them, and in the short term it makes sense for the Palestinians to be acting militarily against Israel, for the reasons you note above.  While I think two peoples shooting at each other is madness, if you answer no to the question, then you're saying that only Israelis have a right to defend themselves.

      •  Simple answer? Yes (4+ / 0-)

        I take a philosophical approach to the concept of self defense as it applies to state (or state-like) actors - I argue that Israel's responsibility to its citizens is because of the social compact that exists between any government and her citizens.

        The question is whether Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza have such a compact with their respective populations.

        I think Fatah has a better social compact related argument than Hamas based on how I think Fatah has more consent of the ruled than Hamas does (Hamas does more rule through intimidation). However, given that Hamas was elected at one point by Palestinians they have a good argument for social compact based actions as well.

        I like the social compact argument in part because I find the entire institution of applying outside laws to state actors a bit silly - for better or for worse international law is more about might makes right than actual justice.

        If you believe that ALL criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're an idiot.
        If you believe that NONE of the criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're a fool.
        If you call EVERYONE who criticizes Israel antisemitic, you're just an a$$hole

        by A Gutin Daf on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:05:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fair enough. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          InAntalya, A Gutin Daf, Celtic Merlin

          I would even go further, though.  While I agree with your application of the social compact, it also involves one's right to property and to the protection of said property (property being what one owns, including one's body).  So that ultimately it's a question of the rights of individuals to defend their property, whether or not they are part of a socially-compacted organization.  Those who belong to such an organization give up part of that right to that organization, at least according to social compact theory, but even then they can reassert it if the organization isn't protecting them.  And those who don't belong still have that right.

          Clearly the danger here is that everyone will start shooting at (or bombing) each other, but that's no different than the danger of socially-compacted organizations doing that, so either way there need to be mediating bodies and laws.  

          •  Which is why I am so in favor of statehood (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            InAntalya, mahakali overdrive

            The best reason to accelerate the process of creating a Palestinian state (or states) is to make sure that Palestinians live under a real government with a real respsosibility to its citizens. As long as the occupation continues everything remains incredibly murky. That murkiness is what both Israel and Hamas take advantage of when they get into these exchanges.

            If you believe that ALL criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're an idiot.
            If you believe that NONE of the criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're a fool.
            If you call EVERYONE who criticizes Israel antisemitic, you're just an a$$hole

            by A Gutin Daf on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:31:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Israeli gov't will ensure that there will (3+ / 0-)

              never be statehood for Palestine. Every attempt at peaceful resolution has been foiled since 1967. The goal posts have been continually moved to ensure this outcome.

              Have a look at what is now left of Palestine. Each and every year, the red Palestinian areas shrink and even within these, fences and checkpoints separate Palestinian farmers from the land they have farmed for centuries and make it next to impossible to survive.

              http://wandervogeldiary.files.wordpress.com/...

              Here's the result:


              More at The Real News

              •  I'm not willing to be cynical about the change (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                A Gutin Daf, Subversive

                America was unwilling to end slavery for hundreds of years before it finally did repeal it. Likewise, apartheid was sanctioned in South Africa for a long time. Just because for fifty years, nothing has changed does not mean that it never will...especially when over 70% of all Israelis support a two-state solution.

                http://www.america.gov/...

                ...the “vast majority” of Palestinians and Israelis support a two-state solution, and believe as well that negotiated peace is essential. Some 71 percent of Palestinians and 77 percent of Israelis feel negotiations are “essential or desirable” and 78 percent of Palestinians and 74 percent of Israelis believe a peace agreement that leads to both states living side by side as good neighbors to be “essential or desirable.”
                The will of the people is on the side of this ending, even if the Governments are resisting this.
              •  About goal posts and roadblocks (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bevenro, mahakali overdrive

                You write:

                The Israeli gov't will ensure that there will never be statehood for Palestine. Every attempt at peaceful resolution has been foiled since 1967. The goal posts have been continually moved to ensure this outcome.
                Israeli decisions (and sometimes intentions) have been part of the problem but not the whole of the problem in achieving first a cessation of violence followed by (probably generations later) actual peace.

                Just about everyone knows what the final borders of Israel and Palestine would be; that is one of the tragedies of the whole situation. However, the first thing on most leaders of democracies' minds is first how to stay in power and second how to make things better for their citizens.

                It is generally assumed that in a final status agreement there will be a number of settlements that are evacuated. Evacuating the settlements will be an incredibly painful experience for Israeli Jews (whether you think they have a right to feel this way is irrelevant - that is how it will feel). Any government that decides to orchestrate this pulling out will need the full trust of the Israeli people in order to even remain a government while the process is being implemented. The Israeli people will not trust their government if they remain in fear of a belligerent and armed Palestinian state next door. Even though one of the reasons rockets are flying from Gaza is the mess that Gaza was when Israel pulled out every rocket that is launched serves to convince a greater percentage of Israelis that they would be crazy to cede control of the West Bank the way they did with Gaza.

                There is no way progress will happen if Israel and Palestinian representatives are left to their own devices. At the same time, there is also no way progress will get made with these silly roadmaps that get drawn up every few years as each interested party interprets the roadmap in the light that is most favorable to themselves and use made up slights to resume attacks on whoever they don't like at that moment.

                If you believe that ALL criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're an idiot.
                If you believe that NONE of the criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're a fool.
                If you call EVERYONE who criticizes Israel antisemitic, you're just an a$$hole

                by A Gutin Daf on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:51:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Also, please use maps that are factually accurate (0+ / 0-)

                The map you linked to compares the 1948 UN partition plan to the crazy-quilt map of the West Bank today.

                While I admit it is from a biased source (note the use of "Judea" and "Samaria" in the Jordanian territory) the borders used in this map along with the distances are, AFAIK, pretty spot on.

                Here is the link: http://bearingdrift.com/...

                The map you showed compares the UN partition plan of 1947 (which was never in effect) to the crazy quilt West Bank of today. That is very deceptive of whoever posted it.

                The point of a Palestinian state is that the West Bank crazy-quilt becomes one uninterrupted sea of red.

                If you believe that ALL criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're an idiot.
                If you believe that NONE of the criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're a fool.
                If you call EVERYONE who criticizes Israel antisemitic, you're just an a$$hole

                by A Gutin Daf on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:59:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here's the newest map. It shows how much (0+ / 0-)

                  of the 1967 borders have been eroded. It's not much different (except for Gaza) than the one I posted. Both maps show the extreme fragmentation of Palestine that is going on unabated. Israel has no intention of stopping them or even slowing it down.

                  http://www.thesun.co.uk/...
                  Barack to 1967
                  •  A few important notes about the maps and (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mahakali overdrive

                    the future State of Palestine, may it come speedily in our time:

                    (1) The left side of the new map you linked to portrays the entire West Bank in 1967 as "Palestinian," implying sovereignty with internationally recognized borders:

                    • There has never been sovereign Palestinian rule in control of the West Bank with the possible exception of the Jordan occupation from 1948-67; it is debatable whether Palestinians ever considered tke King of Jordan to be their king.
                    • From 1948 to 1967 everyone in the world with the exception of the UK, Iraq, and pakistan considered Jordan to be the occupying power over Palestinians. Even though they were granted Jordanian citizenship and seats in parliament many Palestinians decided to remain in refugee camps run by UNRWA.(Source)
                    • Beginning in 1967, with the conclusion of the 6 Day War, Israel replaced Jordan as the occupying power in the West Bank. The refugees were not offered citizenship and they are the ancestors (grand and great grandparents) of today's Palestinians.
                    • The West Bank is not densely populated. Instead, the Palestinian and Israeli populations each have their own centers (Israeli - around Jerusalem, Palestinian - big area around Hebron) with a lot of empty land - both cultivated and wild - ion between.
                      • Having driven through parts of the West Bank I can attest to how beautiful the hills are between population centers. Not relevant to this post but it is nice to think of beauty when this stuff is going on.
                    • (2) The right side of the new map portrays areas in which the Palestinians, led by Fatah, are probably more independent than they have ever been since the idea of Palestinian nationalism took root. That does not mean they are sovereign though, which is what they should be.

                      (3) Here is a much better idea of what the West Bank looks like today (it is 4 years old but little has changed):
                      http://palsolidarity.org/...
                      The source of the map is a Pro Palestinian Independence organization. I have some quibbles with the map but they are with the explanation on the side:

                      • It is unlikely that Israel will ever agree to place the Old City of Jerusalem, with its holy sites, back in Palestinian (or even into international) hands. When the map mentions "East Jerusalem" it includes the Old City.
                      • All the settlements are mentioned as "illegal." This classification is based on international law, which I consider to be a farce. No country or group of countries have any right to tell a sovereign state what rules it must follow; if they could, what then is the meaning of sovereignty? International law is legislation without representation, something that is very against my own political philosophy (I even consider war crimes tribunals to be on shaky ground in terms of their legitimacy)
                      • The idea that the security fence is entirely/primarily on Palestinian land is based on highly contested claims of land ownership by people who fled from Palestine (some by choice, some by force) when Israel declared independence.

                      Even with all that, the linked map gives one a great idea of the facts on the ground. Looking at the map, since the pink/purple settlement areas are in the way of contiguous yellow Palestinian areas, how could there ever be a Palestinian State?

                      This has already been worked out in theory. There is a reason that leaders like Obama always refer to the '67 borders as a starting point, not an ending point. The plan is to:
                      1 - Calculate the total area that was in Jordanian hands from 1948-1967.
                      2 - Subtract from that land some sections, by the river, that were given back to Jordan as part of the peace treaty signed on my birthday in 1994.
                      3 - Further subtract certain settlement blocks that will be absorbed into Israel proper - generally assumed to be Maale Adumiom and the Etzion Block.
                      4 - Add back into Palestinian lands a number of isolated settlements that Israel will empty out of their Israeli population.
                      5 - Also add back the closed military areas of the map
                      6 - Now add land to the future State of Palestine that was never part of Jordan in order to make up for the land that the Palestinians will lose to those settlements

                      The final map, in theory, gives Palestinians something they have never had - a sovereign State of Palestine on at least part of the ancestral homeland that both Jews and Palestinian Arabs claim to be theirs.

                    If you believe that ALL criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're an idiot.
                    If you believe that NONE of the criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're a fool.
                    If you call EVERYONE who criticizes Israel antisemitic, you're just an a$$hole

                    by A Gutin Daf on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:15:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Here's a better map that shows exactely (0+ / 0-)

                      what has been done to the Palestinian areas since 1967.

                      The West Bank is not densely populated. Instead, the Palestinian and Israeli populations each have their own centers (Israeli - around Jerusalem, Palestinian - big area around Hebron) with a lot of empty land - both cultivated and wild - ion between.
                      Have a close look at the following. A land swap is impossible. There is no way the many relatively large and established Israeli settlements will be dismantled.

                      http://peacenow.org.il/...

                      As you can see, the Israeli settlements have gone on unabated which has fragmented the Palestinian areas to the point that a two-state solution would be untenable w/o a massive removal of Israeli settlements. Note the walls and fences that divide the entire area as well as the different road systems that prevent Palestinian movement from one area to another.

                      I will repeat what I've said before - the Israeli government will never allow Palestine statehood. Even if it takes 50 years, Israel will gradually displace Palestinians until the entire West Bank has disappeared. The only thing that will stop this process would be a massive war in the ME.

                      Israel got it's statehood through international law yet you deny the same for Palestine. Your post smacks of hypocrisy.

              •  the best chance was in the early 90s and that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Claudius Bombarnac

                was foiled by a right-wing psychopath--not the government changing the goalposts.  Rabin/Arafat could POSSIBLY have made this happen.

            •  Yes, but the problem is that that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              A Gutin Daf

              distinction between the rights of individuals qua individuals and the rights of individuals who belong to social organizations can also lead to sectarianism (see, e.g., Iraq or what's starting to happen in Syria or is currently happening in Bahrain).  If one takes the rights of individuals approach, then all individuals have the same rights whether or not they belong to a social organization.

              But either way, there need to be structures in place to keep people (or social organizations) from bombing and shooting at each other.

              I have to sign off, but thanks for the discussion.

              •  Really enjoyed it as well. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aunt Martha

                Thanks!

                If you believe that ALL criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're an idiot.
                If you believe that NONE of the criticism of Israel is antisemitic, you're a fool.
                If you call EVERYONE who criticizes Israel antisemitic, you're just an a$$hole

                by A Gutin Daf on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:25:51 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Odd... (3+ / 0-)

    I see no mention of opposition to the Gaza attacks on Israel.

    I do not see the Gaza/Israel mutual bomb/rocket fest as the same as US/West involvement in Syria. Gaza and Israel are mutually attacking eachother causing civilian casualties on both sides. If we bomb Syria it is one sided. Syria will be our target and we will have no civilian risk.

    Now I think overall how and when we intervened in Libya was a good thing, though I would have understood a non-intervention stand as well. I am not aware enough about current situation in Syria as I was about Libya to judge if it is equivalent, but I think I am most comfortable with us not intervening on either side.

    Regarding Israel/Gaza I don't feel I have the right to say either side should refrain from retaliating. Of course I hope a negotiated settlement happens fast, but for many years now NEITHER side has effective, sane leadership, leaving these hostilities almost inevitable. Personally I condemn both the Gaza attack on Israel and the Israeli attack on Gaza and see no benefit to either side from this exchange. But it is largely between the two, though both sides have support from nations (like the US, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.) who seem to like having instability in the area. But the main decisions to bomb are in the hands of the governments of Gaza and Israel. Not the same as the question if we intervene in Syria.

    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

    by mole333 on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:10:44 AM PST

  •  It's the American way... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    InAntalya

    "if they can't take it, they'll burn it, if they can't burn it, they'll fuck it"

  •  Who is advocating (4+ / 0-)

    the potential bombing of Syria by Western powers? I've seen some advocacy here of more direct arming of the opposition to the al-Assad regime but, with the possible exception of one diarist (who seems to have dropped out recently, and even so I'm not sure he was pressing for Western bombing), I can't think of anyone here pushing for a Western bombing-campaign. The French gov't is, at the moment, the most hawkish with respect to assisting the opposition but not even they (so far as I know) have proposed more than a desire to provide defensive weaponry. This seems a bit of a strawman, unless I've really missed something, in which case I'm happy to be corrected.

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:17:48 AM PST

    •  Maybe it's because I live in Turkey (7+ / 0-)

      that I see more discussion of and coverage of discussions about the West intervening in Syria and bombing is almost always listed as the first step in that intervention.

      It is true that there generally hasn't been much discussion of Western bombing of Syria here at DailyKos.  

      Lamb chop, we can quibble what to call it, but I think we can both agree it's creepy.

      by InAntalya on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:24:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It requires the bombing of radar and missile sites (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      InAntalya, sandbox

      in Syria in order to impose a no-fly zone. It also requires constant 24 hour air patrols to strike (bomb) SAA ground forces.

      France and Turkey have been pushing for a no-fly zone since the beginning of Aug. Just recently, there have been reports about Turkey's request for NATO missiles to be installed at the border. This would be required to prevent retaliation from the Syrian government in the event Turkish planes started enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria. Turkey is the only country in the area that can base the required military force to do the job.

      If Syria responded to Turkish attacks enforcing a no-fly zone, NATO would automatically be drawn in. The conflict would then rapidly spread throughout Syria.

      The militant jihadists would welcome such a scenario as it would swell it's support base throughout the ME and Europe. The recent bombing of Gaza is priming the situation.

  •  Lol!!! (4+ / 0-)

    I know the subject of this diary is no laughing matter but I just spewed coffee over my keyboard after reading the following:

    The only thing really ‘special’ about Israel is its success in convincing some people that it is special.
    ROFL!!!

    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

    by zenox on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:27:41 AM PST

  •  I supported action in Libya 100% (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    InAntalya, akmk, mole333

    I do not favor direct action in Syria at this time, however I would if Syria's expansive chemical weapons stockpiles were compromised.  Syria's various rebel groups have in recent days made important steps towards unity and political coherence...and on the battlefield are steadily chipping away at Assad's air force (destroying a Mig-23 a couple days ago, seizing an airfield near Derr Ezzor.)

    In Syria its clear the preferred outcome is not the wholesale dissolution of the regime (putting the entire region at risk), but rather forcing Assad out at the top and a political transition & reconciliation process.  I only support the rebels to the extent they can attrit Assad forces and prevent wholesale massacres of population centers opposed to the regime.

    While Israel would have been justified in taking limited action against Hamas's Fajr missile stockpiles...I feel their action and rhetoric in recent days is heavy-handed and horribly misguided.  I sincerely hope it does not escalate into another Israeli invasion of Gaza.

    With regards to Iran, I think the evidence is strong that the sanctions are doing their work and will soon compel Iran to negotiate a deal that will see them abide by their NPT & IAEA obligations.  Unlike North Korea or Saddam's Iraq or Gaddafi's Libya...Iran is a functioning nation-state where there are more political power centers than just one cultish dictator.  Khamenei ultimately does have to answer to the needs of the Iranian people.

    However, if there is strong evidence Iran attempts to 'breakout' and build a nuclear weapon, I would support limited military action to disrupt, degrade, destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure.  I do not see this as a Israel vs. Iran issue but one of the greater problem of nuclear proliferation.  As a genuine believer of the concept of 'global zero' (a world without nuclear weapons) the path has to not only include the reduction of the massive stockpiles of the US & Russia (steadily ongoing thanks to the START treaties) but preventing any more countries from joining the nuclear club.  

    The two most recent additions to the nuclear club...Pakistan and North Korea, have become two of the world's most dangerous actors...supporting unprovoked violence against neighbors, harboring wanted terrorists, and most worryingly have become epicenters for further nuclear proliferation.  Gaddafi's Libya, Assad's Syria, Myanmar, Sudan, and Iran have all patronized the nuclear and missile technology offered by North Korea and Pakistan on the black market.  There is every reason to believe a nuclear armed Iran would be equally if not more reckless than those two states.

    Follow Me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/#!/ZeddRebel

    by TarantinoDork on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:00:25 AM PST

    •  And clearly bombing is still no solution for the (0+ / 0-)

      long term in any of these countries.  Bombing is a bad choice for the people who live on this planet.  So glad we have a President that avoids it as much as possible.

  •  As I suspect you would agree, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    InAntalya, Brecht

    I see the question as not just about bombing or not bombing, or who should be bombed or not bombed, but one of intervention: Where should we (whoever "we" is) intervene or not intervene, and if so, why and how so, and if not, why not?  And then there's always the question of possible blowback and unintended consequences.  I'm really antimilitaristic, but I'm also not willing to say that one should never bomb.  But I don't think that Syria, Israel, Gaza (or Iran) should be bombed.

    •  Intervention (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive, Brecht

      Intervention could be military, economic, diplomatic or humanitarian.

      The first should be last and the other three should be fair and balanced and if they are they will yield better long term results.

      Lamb chop, we can quibble what to call it, but I think we can both agree it's creepy.

      by InAntalya on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:24:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Like Aunt Martha posted above, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    InAntalya, Celtic Merlin, Brecht

    I too am not willing to say that one should never bomb, but I think if you are to bomb, you damned well better have exhausted all other options. I see nothing to suggest that is the case in Gaza. I don't think I have enough data on Syria.

    Unapologetic Obama supporter.

    by Red Sox on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:30:44 AM PST

  •  My views accord with yours (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    InAntalya

    I would like to see an end to all bombs being tossed, and I certainly would not like to see the U.S. step in to start tossing any either. I advocate for a ceasefire and a return to peace, with a subsequent attempt to restabilize these regions. I think every human has a right to live without bombs falling on them for reasons that have nothing to do with these people, and for me, even one death will always be one death too many.

  •  The wars and the bombings are not accomplishing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    InAntalya, mahakali overdrive

    anything good for the people who live those countries.

    Good diary.  Thanks.

  •  War is a racket. So are bombs. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    InAntalya, allenjo

    How can anybody be right when everybody's wrong?

    "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 11:45:06 AM PST

  •  How many artillery shells/mortars/rockets (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sandbox

    were fired into Turkey before that nation responded militarily?

    •  Four mortar shells. (0+ / 0-)

      And the Turkish military responded by shelling a Syrian military installment which was many kilometers ouside of the area from which the mortar shell - which killed 5 in Akcakale and caused the Turkish response - could have been shot. Up to 12 Syrian soldiers were reportedly killed.

      Additionally the Turkish Government has never been able to state that the mortar was shot by the Syrian military because most of the area from which it could have been shot had only rebels in it.

      The deaths of these Syrian soldiers resulted in a negative public reaction in Turkey - many asked why these 12 were killed when they could not have shot the mortar and it was not definite that it had ben shot by the Syrian military.

      Lamb chop, we can quibble what to call it, but I think we can both agree it's creepy.

      by InAntalya on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 03:31:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It is grotesque to say the UN "bombed Libya." (0+ / 0-)

    If it was your  neighborhood the rocket fire was marching through, I don't think you'd have any difficulty understanding that taking out the rocket batteries was the right thing to do.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 02:28:12 PM PST

    •  'Grotesque' would be a word better applied (0+ / 0-)

      to your comment.

      Grotesque - Characterized by ludicrous or incongruous distortion
      The UN was not mentioned in this post.

      Lamb chop, we can quibble what to call it, but I think we can both agree it's creepy.

      by InAntalya on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 03:19:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site