Why don't we just start throwing some of our missiles around?

Bold statements, not sure how that would go over in the rest of the world. I think things will get pretty interesting without having to use a nuke. Keep up the good work,

Monty

TERRORIST. You're a terrorist. And a genocidal madman.

And by the way, here's a picture of Israel's "strategic bombing" of Beirut, which is quite a few miles North of the Latani river where the armed wing of the Hizbollah militia actually operates.

http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00433/APTOPIX_MIDEAST_FIG_433987s.jpg

And I guess all those milk and food factories, aid convoys, civilian (Christian) broadcasting stations, red cross ambulances, UN personnel, electrical stations, hospitals and clinics, political officers and soup kitchens were of great "strategic" value. Yeah, that's why on the last day before the ceasefire, Hizbollah was able to launch a record number of Katyushas into Israel. And the two days prior to the ceasefire, Hizbollah killed 33 Israeli soldiers and wounded at least 85. Yup. Those were some great strategic gains!

Now that the war between Israel and Hezbollah is (perhaps, arguably) over...Israel is being accused of using disproportionate force. But, in my opinion, they should have - even if that means being called a Terrorist by Svlad Jelly.

My position is that using disproportionate force is how you win a fight in such a way that you avoid having to fight another one with the same opponent in the future.

I'm not sure that Isreal succeeded because, in their use of force, while they injured civilians, I'm not so sure that they decapitated Hezbollah. That remains to be seen.

Unfortunately, you can't fight a war without at least some collateral damage...especially if your opponent is essentially hiding behind hostages by setting up bases in places that he knows you probably won't attack with "disproportionat" force for fear of causing collateral damage. But, if after the first battle, your enemy doesn't end up fearing you, the war - and that may require harsh decisions about how much collateral damage we're willing to cause. Thus, I'm not advocating nuking civilian populations...but, we should stop wringing our hands over "terrorist rights" and "collateral damage" to civilians and civilian infrastructure. If the civilians in question weren't accepting and/or supporting the extremists, there wouldn't be a war in the first place.