Where the plane was impacted is not necessarily material. Depending upon the defensive weaponry involved, it is quite possible the plane was in Syrian airspace at the time the weaponry was fired, the plane took evasive action in a direction out of the airspace, the impact occurred thereafter (evasion failing), and the plane travelled on to hit clearly international waters.
But my point was that a lower level field commander acting in a "second count" tense situation to defend his country should not be confused with deliberate aggression.
"[U]nwise aggression against Turkey" sounds like a Fox News-ism.
Aggression carries a connotation of intention to dominate or master. Violating Syrian airspace, flying at a low altitude at high speed to avoid detection . . . was the Syrian state engaged in deliberate aggression, or are we talking about the response of field personnel in a "hot" tactical situation? And Turkey is harboring and aiding in the supply of anti-Assad forces . . . nothing aggressive going on here?
If the Israelis shot down a plane violating its airspace at a low altitude run, would that be "unwise aggression" as well?
Barack Obama wants to get reelected. If Mubarak remains in power, there is no "downside" to his electoral prospects. On the other hand, if we push Mubarak out, one way or the other, there is a probability that the new regime will not be as "friendly" to American and Israeli interests, which will impair the chances for reelection.
The team conceit is fine, but the lack of political infighting is merely one aspect of the lack of interest. More significantly, there is no demonized "enemy" or "boogeyman" to pique the interest of the typical American.
First, there's no identifiable villain; no Hitler, no Osama, no Saddam. Second, Americans who have and continue to watch "Rambo III" and the Taliban take on the Russkis just haven't gotten around to hating and fearing their former allies.
Other reasons abound. Third, those we're propping up are corrupt as Hell. Fourth, the Average American can't really understand just for what we're wasting American lives and money. Fifth, there's an appreciation that NO ONE knows.
Now on the other hand, all this vagueness leaves Americans uneasy about OPPOSING the war. So everyone just . . . neglects it.
Jerusalem is holy to the "Big Three" monotheistic religions. Although the vast majority of practitioners believe in peace, each in its time has wreaked havoc (to put it mildly) upon "nonbelievers." Moreover, the Middle East will continue to be a cauldron for dispute. It would be difficult to implement shared sovereignty in these religious and political contexts.
A better solution would be along the lines of an "open city" administered by someone with no military or even temporal power whatsoever, who also has no "skin in the game." Like the Dalai Lama. Within the city there could be limited "territory" for both the Israeli and Palentinian states (much like embassies are deemed territory of the occupant nations).
Of course, when one can't open a muslim center a few blocks from the fallen towers without provoking an international furor, it's hard to believe that anything reasonable can be done about Jerusalem.
Where the plane was impacted is not necessarily material. Depending upon the defensive weaponry involved, it is quite possible the plane was in Syrian airspace at the time the weaponry was fired, the plane took evasive action in a direction out of the airspace, the impact occurred thereafter (evasion failing), and the plane travelled on to hit clearly international waters.
But my point was that a lower level field commander acting in a "second count" tense situation to defend his country should not be confused with deliberate aggression.
"[U]nwise aggression against Turkey" sounds like a Fox News-ism.
Aggression carries a connotation of intention to dominate or master. Violating Syrian airspace, flying at a low altitude at high speed to avoid detection . . . was the Syrian state engaged in deliberate aggression, or are we talking about the response of field personnel in a "hot" tactical situation? And Turkey is harboring and aiding in the supply of anti-Assad forces . . . nothing aggressive going on here?
If the Israelis shot down a plane violating its airspace at a low altitude run, would that be "unwise aggression" as well?
A different viewpoint:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC31Ak02.html
"It's" is the appropriate contraction for "it is." "Its" in the Headline is a possessive.
Barack Obama wants to get reelected. If Mubarak remains in power, there is no "downside" to his electoral prospects. On the other hand, if we push Mubarak out, one way or the other, there is a probability that the new regime will not be as "friendly" to American and Israeli interests, which will impair the chances for reelection.
The team conceit is fine, but the lack of political infighting is merely one aspect of the lack of interest. More significantly, there is no demonized "enemy" or "boogeyman" to pique the interest of the typical American.
First, there's no identifiable villain; no Hitler, no Osama, no Saddam. Second, Americans who have and continue to watch "Rambo III" and the Taliban take on the Russkis just haven't gotten around to hating and fearing their former allies.
Other reasons abound. Third, those we're propping up are corrupt as Hell. Fourth, the Average American can't really understand just for what we're wasting American lives and money. Fifth, there's an appreciation that NO ONE knows.
Now on the other hand, all this vagueness leaves Americans uneasy about OPPOSING the war. So everyone just . . . neglects it.
Sad. So sad.
Interesting that this post coincides with a BBC flash about an Indian court's decision on the division of a site holy to Hindus and Muslims. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11441890
Jerusalem is holy to the "Big Three" monotheistic religions. Although the vast majority of practitioners believe in peace, each in its time has wreaked havoc (to put it mildly) upon "nonbelievers." Moreover, the Middle East will continue to be a cauldron for dispute. It would be difficult to implement shared sovereignty in these religious and political contexts.
A better solution would be along the lines of an "open city" administered by someone with no military or even temporal power whatsoever, who also has no "skin in the game." Like the Dalai Lama. Within the city there could be limited "territory" for both the Israeli and Palentinian states (much like embassies are deemed territory of the occupant nations).
Of course, when one can't open a muslim center a few blocks from the fallen towers without provoking an international furor, it's hard to believe that anything reasonable can be done about Jerusalem.