Letters to the Editor
cestmoi123
Published Letters: 235 Editor's Choice: 8
-
@arthurdecco
[Read the article: Bill Kristol, great man of sacrifice, on the duties of Passover]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, it's Hamas's fault. They want the restrictions lifted? No problem. Put out a public declaration that anybody launching rockets toward Israel will be arrested and handed over to the Israelis for trial. Then do it. So long as Hamas not only tolerates, but endorses, military attacks on Israel (quite apart from their stated dedication to driving all the Jews out of Palestine), it's utterly absurd to expect the Israelis to say "well, it's just a few rockets, no biggie."
-
@cloudberry
[Read the article: When my finger was on the button for Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can't answer that one for you, other than to say that anyone who says that one side is entirely right, and the other side are completely evil bastards, is wrong.
-
How could you possibly describe this as "unlikely?"
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"And even though it seems unlikely for numerous reasons, it's at least theoretically possible that the Syrians are attempting to develop a nuclear reactor for non-civilian purposes with the help of a cash-strapped North Korea."
*Syria has a nuclear-armed enemy at its border.
*Iran has gotten a great deal of attention and prestige (in certain quarters) from its work to develop nuclear weapons.
*North Korea hasn't been shy about distributing nuclear weapons technology.
What part of this scenario is in any way unlikely? In fact, it's tremendously plausible.
Also, don't you think that the extremly subdued response from Syria at the time of the attack (UN complaint, but very limited public comment, and no commentary on what exactly was hit), is rather interesting?
If your neighbor comes and burns down your garage, and you don't really do anything about it or try to call attention to it, that tends to imply that you don't want anyone poking too deeply into what exactly you had _in_ the garage.
None of this means that healthy skepticism isn't in order, but the evidence we DO have, imperfect as it may be, certainly argues that this was in fact a nuclear facility.
-
@prunes
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]By the same token, not trusting the Syrian government is rational.
Given that neither side has a lot of credibility, we need to look more closely at the allegations. I find them (that Syria would be working to develop nuclear weapons) more plausible than not, given the country's situation and track record.
Think of it this way: you're wondering what time it is, and ask two people, both of whom have lied to you in the past. One of them says "it's 3AM" and the other says "it's noon." You look out the window, and it's dark. That certainly tilts you to believe the 3AM claim, regardless of whether they've lied to you in the past.
-
@ CO Jones
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Syria isn't just like Israel, but that's beside the point. I can understand why Israel has nukes, and I can understand why Syria would want them.
-
@joshuanoyes
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...haven't a clue what it means to be skeptical
kufir, at least, somehow read that Glenn thinks the site was not a nuclear facility when he simply said that the evidence stating that it IS a nuclear facility isn't all that air-tight at this point"
Actually, Glenn opined that he thought that it "seems unlikely" that the site was nuclear. That goes beyond not having air-tight evidence, and indicates a belief that the site was in fact _not_ nuclear. There's a difference.
-
@Glenn
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Syrians have said it wasn't a civilian nuclear facility - Assad said it was a military site. Ergo, if it _was_ nuclear, it was weapons-related. Also, don't you think that the Syrians would have said exactly what the site was, if it wasn't nuclear?
-
@prunes
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All right, I'll be scrupulously fair. It is _possible_ that it was a "military-run nuclear power site for civilian purposes."
That being said, I think a reasonable observer would deem that as an exceedingly unlikely scenario.
-
@sysprog
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is Assad lying about it being a military site?
Possible, I suppose, but why would he lie? I can see why you'd want to claim that a military site was civilian (it wasn't a weapons depot, it was, uh...a factory making shoes for orphans!), but what's the upside in the other way around?
If Assad is telling the truth about that, does that mean it's necessarily a weapons site?
And even if it's a weapons site, aren't there a wide variety of possible reasons for Assad to maintain secrecy?
For instance, if it were a bio warfare and/or chemical warfare site, then Syria would have reasons not to say so.
Entirely possible that it's a non-nuclear WMD site, but I haven't seen any evidence claiming it _was_ a chemical warfare site, for example.
Bottom line, still, if this site has "legitimate" purposes (i.e. it was civilian, or non-nuclear/chemical/biological) military, the Syrian gov't would have lots of reasons to note that, but it hasn't.
-
@omooex
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, you have the Colombia/Ecuador analog 180 degrees reversed. Ecuador is really in the role of Lebanon, while Colombia is Israel.
Israel/Colombia launched an attack on Hezbollah/FARC forces sheltering in Lebanon/Ecuador.
-
@omooex
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Colombia and Israel were both attacked by militia groups based in a neighboring country (Ecuador and Lebanon, respectively). Both launched incursions into the neighboring country in order to attack those militia groups (the operations were clearly of different scale).
Both responded militarily against attacks from non-governmental groups based in a neighboring country by entering that neighboring country to attack those non-governmental groups.
Also, in both these cases, the countries which harbored the militia groups (Lebanon and Ecuador) chose to use diplomatic means rather than retaliate against their much-more-militarily-powerful neighbors.