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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (300665)	8/18/2006 4:40:15 PM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579278

<<So in your world the issue of who initiates and perpetuates the conflict is a non issue. > Never said that. Sure you did. By claiming the Israelis were killing civilians and the poor Lebanese civilians are left homeless, you take the stance that there are zero consequences for allowing hezbo to hide behind the Lebanese civilians and shoot rockets into Israel. Your stance : <Lebanese civilians were handed their lunches.> Mine : Lebanon got hit. Hezbo/Iran/Pal : Israel can be taken out and is weak... very clear that even though Lebanese infrastructure was decimated and Lebanese civilians were used as Hezbo shields WE WON ! <Round 2? I think you need to read some of the Israeli press. You might be surprised what's happening in Israel at the present time.> Read what I can daily. Heres something you might enjoy : hashmonean.com Strategic Picture: Lebanon Under Fire (Comprehensive Analyses II) Part I - Strategic Picture: Lebanon Under Fire (I) How does one measure victory in War? Is it total surrender, or perhaps one measures it in who paid the greatest cost, is it measured in territory or KMs conquered? Perhaps the diplomacy itself after the fighting has entirely ceased determines the victor.. Maybe it involves all of the above, or none but clearly such questions are complex. If we look at wars, and there are literally well over a hundred a year on this planet (though you would never know) you will find that very few result in total surrender, many do not involve movement of even a single km in fighting forces, many have little to no casualties, and some show terrible - almost unquantifiable by the mind losses in human life. The lesson that we can glean from this is that there is NO 'Fox Around the World in 80 Seconds' answer to such a question, irrespective of which war we choose to discuss. (To be clear, that is not a shot at Fox, but media in general covering this conflict.) One thing is also clear, I have never before seen anyone venture forth that 'not being totally annihilated from the face of the earth' is a claim for victory; it might be if you are a perennial loser. But where does such a fallacy come from? In this case it came from the media, which was fed from the Arab World (perennial losers) and then it snowballed like these things too often do.