To: Hawkmoon who wrote (197727 ) 8/18/2006 2:49:54 AM From: Bilow Read Replies (5) | Respond to of 281500 Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Then I guess we're all the way back to 1991. " Things are steadily getting worse for Israel. There basic problem is that they can't return to status quo ante anything. 1991 is a dream to them. Re: "If Hizbullah won't disarm, then Israel is unlikely to leave. " They're already getting ready to make a prisoner exchange. They're already ignoring Hezbollah rearming. This administration, at least, looks to be leaving too. Re: "It all depends upon if Hizbullah, while pulicly proclaiming itself the winner, privately realizes that the next time, Israel won't be so lenient. " I would think that wearing rose colored glasses would interfere with your ability to properly site your weapon. A few days ago even Nadine admitted that "military men knew that Hizbullah was dug in, well trained, and would be tough", so why didn't you warn us about it? Instead, you were going on about how Israel was getting ready to mount a massive invasion and the reason I couldn't find information about a massive call up of the reserves was because of "opsec". In fact, every one of Israel's decisions was painfully made public and telegraphed before they did it. I agree that Israel was not thrown out of Lebanon militarily. Instead, they quit shooting because they were tired of having rockets dumped on them. And they were still taking casualties from places they'd already "cleaned out", so there was hardly any reason to think that going all the way to Beirut (recall it took 2 days in 1982) would cut either the rockets or stop the military casualties. With those sorts of choices, they chose to quit. I think that there is a good chance that the people of Israel will refuse to face the facts and will blame the defeat on their leadership. I think that that is what many in the neocon ranks will do as well. But I think that we may be as little as one war away from the majority of people on all sides in the Middle East having an understanding of what the true nature of the balance of power is in the area, and that means that I am optimistic that we are only one war away from a more permanent peace. In short, I think you, and others like you, have to see Israel lose one more time before you will understand the true situation there. The US had no rational reason for invading Iraq and it has very few rational reasons for staying in a losing situation there now. We're still there largely because it's relatively bloodless (at least for us). Israel is 40x smaller than us, so losing over 100 soldiers in 30 days was a bit of a shock to the system. But Israel lives in the Middle East. They should have a higher tolerance for death, if their country's survival really is at issue. Every now and then I hear an idiot claim that the US pulling out of Iraq would cause the US homeland to fall to Al Qaeda, but in Israel you could make the case a lot easier. And yet, here it is just 30 days of mild conflict and Israel begs the US to get a cease fire that appears to have no chance of giving them any of their war objectives. You and I both know what kind of casualties a real "total war" would cause in the area. Is Israel really ready to take those kinds of casualties? Are they really ready to dish them out? I think that the evidence suggests that the answers are no. And if the Israeli public isn't willing to fight a real war, the hell do you think that the American public is going to sign on to even an occupation of Iran? Remember that I never said that a US occupation of Iraq was impossible, I said that the butcher bill would be too high and the US public would never agree to it. That's also the problem for Israel. -- Carl