Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you're going to rule out force and persuasion, that leaves less attractive options, like building a really big wall.
Can we involve Berkeley's traffic department? They would propose building traffic circles, putting in planters, and otherwise impeding the flow of traffic.
|
If that's all you can say, then you really have nothing to argue. Israel should stop weapons from coming in. But it shouldn't bomb, and it shouldn't destroy any civlian infrastructure (like the roads and bridges and airports through which the weapons come).
It also shouldn't invade or occupy.
Sorry to rule out diplomacy. If you think that is a viable option for Israel to use in dealing with Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, please do tell.
Quote:
|
If you mean nukes, I hear you. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean. If you look at the respective populations, resources, money, technology, etc., Hezbollah isn't in the same league. Hezbollah couldn't take out Lebanon's military, Lebanon couldn't take out Syria, and Syria couldn't stay in the same room with Israel.
|
By "existential threat" I don't mean conquest. I mean a threat to fundamental infrastructure, or the ability to threaten destruction that disrupts Israel's ability to function.
In 5 years, Hezbollah went from a few hundred rockets to many thousands, including very sophisticated, long-range rockets and cruise missles. Plus the ability to mount a fierce defense to an Israeli ground attack. In five more years -- even without nukes -- what will they build up?
