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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (430637)	10/27/2008 6:44:23 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1575181

"Losses were high? Not according to what both Ted and the mainstream media said." Read the paper on the link. Not sure what media you were watching/reading, but there were many reports about Israeli concerns over losses. Given that IDF is a fully mechanized army going against a group with no heavy weapons or armor, the Israelis got their head handed to them. "The accusation is that Lebanon suffered more, which is why they got more sympathy from the press. But if losses were indeed high for Israel, then surely Israel would be suffering more, unless of course you hold one standard for modern militaries and other standard for terrorist insurgencies." You do know the difference between military casualties and civilian ones? The country of Lebanon suffered greatly. Over 1000 killed, cities flattened. It shattered the country. Hezbollah, not so muchm estimates are down around 500. IDF had maybe 120 killed, not a good ratio given the force imbalance. They lost a lot of tanks, more than 20 were destroyed. Their Merkava tank is considered to be on par with our Abrams tanks. Do you know how many we lost in our two wars with Iraq? Zero. And we went up against an opponent with armor and heavy weapons.