Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (192467)	7/21/2006 11:32:31 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

How do you fight someone in a limited way who has 12,000 rockets ready to fire at your cities as well as a network transporting new weaponry from iran thru syria to lebanon? I am not justifying what israel has done. Even given what i said above, it still may have been stupid policy reflective of overconfidence on an easy win. All things being equal if i were an israeli today, i would be demanding an end to hizbollah by any means necessary sans use of wmds. I wouldnt be looking for a cease fire. And i would be demanding post war an accounting of how israel did not know the extent of hizbollah weaponry.

To: bentway who wrote (192467)	7/21/2006 2:51:08 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think if it had acted proportionately to the kidnapping of it's soldiers, we might not be where we are. You are misusing the term proportionately (as is most of the media). It doesn't mean, that if the other side kills 10 of yours, you only get to kill 10 of theirs back. It means that you use means proportional to your military goals and try not to cause more collateral damage than you can help. It means that if you are trying to kill a militia, you aim at the militia and don't just carpet bomb the whole area to make sure of them.