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: Keith Feral who wrote (198610)	8/22/2006 3:43:40 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

If the IDF sends out 10 missiles to destroy Hez missile sites from which they have already sent out massive launch packages, IDf has every right to decimate the spot from which the missiles were fired. I have a bit of a different opinion on this. Imagine if we had relied upon the policy of "proportional response" in dealing with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? What about the sinking of the Lusitania? The shelling of Ft. Sumter?. etc, etc.. I personally believe the Iraelis, had they so desired, would have been completely justified in declaring war against the Lebanese government, and launching a full-fledged invasion of the country. Because, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the sovereign state to control the sanctity of its borders. So far as international law is concerned, any attack from Lebanese territory could be construed as an attack sanctioned and orchestrated by the Lebanese government and Israel would have been in their right to take whatever action was necessary to defend herself. And given that Syrian weapons were found in the Hizbullah inventory, they could have taken a stretch further and authorized a resumption of the war with Syria as well. It all depends on just how far they want to go in responding to the provocation, and the consequences for all sides involved in the terms of human life. Hawk