Letters to the Editor
cestmoi123
Published Letters: 224 Editor's Choice: 8
-
@omooex
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Huh? That response makes no sense. My statement was positive, not normative.
1. FARC and Hezbollah are non-governmental military organizations.
2. FARC and Hezbollah are based in countries (Ecuador and Lebanon) neighboring the country against which they are fighting.
3. In both cases, the host country for the group is unable, unwilling, or both, to stop the group from attacking the enemy country.
4. In both cases, the country that is the target of the non-governmental military group launched a cross-border attack on that group.
5. In both cases, the host country for the non-governmental group chose not to respond militarily.
Those points are indisputable, whether you're a "Greater Israel" Zionist, a radical right-wing Colombian politician, a passionate Hamas member, or Che Guevara.
One can certainly argue that Colombia and Israel _should_ have taken a different tack, but I can't see how you can argue that their situations aren't structurally comparable.
-
@omooex
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think either Lebanon or Israel (or Hezbollah) would argue that the Hezbollah cross-border raids into Israel indicate that Lebanon attacked Israel - it was an organization sheltering within Lebanon, not the Lebanese government.
Also, I'm well aware that FARC is Colombian, but again, the comparison is appropriate - both FARC and Hezbollah are based in neighboring countries and are dedicated to overthrowing and replacing the government of the country with which they identify (Colombia for FARC and Palestine for Hezbollah).
Anyway, I'm curious - what sort of military incursion from a neighbor DOES justify a military response, if any?
-
@quickstrategy
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fair enough on Lebanon (it's clearly their primary focus), but Hezbollah is also officially dedicated to the eradication of Israel (although it's not their entire raison d'etre, as it is for Hamas).
Let me ask you this - if Israel pulled out of the Shebaa Farms (even though they're actually Syrian, not Lebanese, but that's another issue), would Hezbollah then say "ok, we're done, we have no beef with Israel any more?"
-
@Desigirl
[Read the article: Taking back the debate over Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Circumstances do matter, and deaths of Palestinian civilians are often the fault of Hamas, even if Hamas didn't directly pull the trigger. When Hamas fires rockets into Israel, and Israel responds, and Palestinian civilians get hit in the crossfire, Hamas is anything but blameless.
Think of it this way: if someone in your neighbor's house keeps shooting at you, and you end up shooting back (taking due care to target the shooter specifically), and accidentally end up hitting a child in that house, some of the blame clearly lies with the shooter who was hiding behind children.
To an extent, it's a win/win for Hamas: if Israel does nothing, Hamas gets to barrage Sderot with rockets and claim that it's fighting against the oppressor - if Israel fires back and tries to go after the rocketeers, Hamas gets to blame Israel for the (inevitable) civilian casualties.
-
@pancho
[Read the article: Taking back the debate over Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree, it has to stop, and firing on that cameraman certainly appears to have been unjustified.
How about this, then:
Israel says, starting today, we won't enter Gaza if no rockets are fired at Israel.
Do you think Hamas would hold up their end of that bargain and say fine, we'll stop firing rockets into Israel? I doubt it, but I'd be willing to be pleasantly surprised.
-
@pancho
[Read the article: Taking back the debate over Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Also, I don't think it's fair to say that Israel doesn't exercise restraint with regards to civilians - maybe it should exercise more, but it certainly exercises restraint. If it wanted to, Israel could flatten pretty much every structure in Gaza.
There is a real difference here. Think of the impact on civilians as being a function of X=military capability and Y=percentage of that capability being used.
Hamas has a very low X (the rockets are more a nuisance/provocation than any real existential threat to Israel), but their Y is at maximum (if they could fire bigger/longer range/more destructive rockets, I don't think anyone doubts they would).
Israel has a much higher X (in theory, it could nuke Gaza, after all), but is clearly running Y at a very low level (look at what it's done in Gaza vs. what it was easily able to do in Lebanon, which was still a lot less than the IAF could have done).
-
@readysf
[Read the article: Taking back the debate over Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The borders were set by the UN in 1948. Their current position is because the Arab world has repeatedly tried to change them (and ended up worse-off each time).
Also, last I checked, the Palestinians were also trying to use military means to change those borders - at least that's the stated goal of Hamas (making the Israeli/Palestinian border about 30 miles out into the Med).
-
Burma, not Myanmar, please
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Calling it Myanmar is giving tacit acceptance to the current regime, which renamed the country.
-
They're right on this issue (no pun intended)
[Read the article: Fox News and the Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Boycotting Fox during the primaries makes sense, but not for the general election, where:
a) voters who would be pleased that their candidate refused to appear on Fox are going to vote Democratic anyway (and be energized this election, even without a "Fox boycott" issue).
b) Obama/Clinton/whoever would certainly benefit by picking up some voters who do watch Fox but aren't Republican idealogues - their ratings are too high for the viewership to be _entirely_ dyed-in-the-wool dittoheads.
-
Scientific Method
[Read the article: McCain, Obama, Clinton push dangerous vaccine-autism myth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. It's not just thimerosal
*What is it then?
2. Yes, there are correlations if not proven causations
*What correlations? Real studies, please.
3. Yes, many scientists think there is a connection between autism and vaccines
*Which scientists? What's their expertise?
4. No, it's not all about hysterical parents who want to blame someone or something
*Simple assertion. No value.
5. Yes, there is a rise in autism, not just a reclassifcation from retardation.
*Again, simple assertion. No value.
I get pretty tired of those with 'tudes that are rather ignorant of this entire issue pretending they know better than many of those who looked deeply into it.
*People who looked deeply into it and decided to find something. By the same token, there are people who have looked deeply into 9/11, and decided that nobody actually died on the planes, or that it was all planned by the Jews, who didn't show up for work.