What I can’t seem to figure out is that no matter how many times this discussion goes on, almost every time it’s phrased as “does the kidnapping of two soldiers…”
What about the fact that Hezbollah was launching ordinance into Israel for about a month before that? What about the fact that on the day they captured and killed the soldiers, they launched ordinance attacks at Israeli villages?
Why not phrase the situation honestly and accurately?
“After a proxy force had launched ordinance at a country for some time, does that group’s cross border attack which kills and captures several soldiers and occurs at the same time as continued ordinance attacks upon civilian populations justify a military reaction?”
And, about how the proper response to a series of military attacks is diplomatic negotiation… would you say the same thing if Israel, without provocation or cause, began targeting civilian areas and lobbing missiles there willy nilly, attacked the Lebanese military, and captured several of their soldiers? Would you say that, as a result, Lebanon should make concessions to Israel?
Killing /eight/ soldiers and capturing /two/ is annoying
anybody who believes that the three (one in Ghaza) will ever get back alive, needs to keep taking the medicine
however, a really good way of p*ssing off combat troops, their friends, relatives and the guy running the local kebab shop, is to just write them off.
Think about it, UK and USA troops are daily shipped back from Iran and Afghanistan in bodybags. If an environmentalista even muttered a word about CO2, people would trade in their hybrids for Hummers.
It is a form of double-think, but without it the system would fall apart.
Perhaps I’m not as familiar with the leadup to this war as I thought, and if I was wrong I blame the pro-terrorist, anti-semitic, American media for not informing me enough. The OP actually WAS, though, about the expendability of soldiers and recent events only triggered it. It was not my intent to start yet another Lebanon thread.
An aside, though I’ve probably told this before: In college my wife had a friend just back from Israel who told glowing stories of life on a kibbutz. Wife was all set to go back with her when, at ten AM on the first Tuesday of the month, the tornado sirens got their monthly test.
Her friend screamed, "Where’s the shelter? WHERE’S THE FUCKING SHELTER?!?!?
NPR did a segment on the U.S. military, an interview (someone schlepping their book no doubt) which posits that the “antiwar” movement, oddly enough, has actually made the American military much more lethal - because of political pressure, (casualties being a bad thing, obviously) training has improved, medical care is in many cases second to none, equipment has improved, after-action-review of tactics is quickly performed, and the kill-ratio ratcheted upward. Hm. I have a book in my personal library entitled “They Were Expendable” picked up golly knows where, stamped by the library as “Obsolete” no less, which gives a harrowing account of pacific area combat during World War II.
The OP actually WAS, though, about the expendability of soldiers and recent events only triggered it. It was not my intent to start yet another Lebanon thread.