there has been no answer, except you who said the numbers are wrong which is possible but for sake of argument lets assume they are right. How many civilians deaths would be acceptable? If isreal had to kill say 200,000 lebanese civilains, to kill all the hezzies would you think that was ok?
I think the question was answered by several. Perhaps it wasn't the answer you were looking for? I don't support what hezbollah and hamas are doing; hiding behind women and children, so there is no "still" about it for me. What about you ferret?
Israel isn't killing civilains at the same time its killing hezzies? Is that a yes? you think it would be ok to kill 200,000 civilians to get rid of the hezzies? Or No? What about a lesser number like 100,000 ? Will you say yes to that instead of hiding.
#1 the question is leading. If Israel had thought it'd have to kill 200,000 civ's to kill all the hezobalah people, a different tactic would be taken because that is not very efficient. If it wanted that kind of return, it'd just turn the place to glass. The strikes being taken are pretty narrowly focused trying to get people where they probably are. Israel isn't really lobbing missiles into lebanon hoping it may or may not hit someone, so your question (again) precedes on a false premise.
Nearly all of the money that US sends to Israel goes back to US itself. 1. Israel can only buy US developed millitary products from the 3 billion millitary aid. Egypt on the otherhand can by North Korean equiqment if they prefer that. 2. Isreal hands out research jobs for US. So US basically gets free technology. 3. Israel have to pay lots of money in rents back to US. I think that US actually earn more money on Israel then they spend. On the other hand, the 2 billion bucks for Egypt is just wasted money. Sounds like you are escaping from an argumentation that you went into and loosed.
Latehorn, wake up. My time is just too expensive to be wasted in pointless discussions with people that don't listen to what others have to say. I'm not the kind of person to bite the "sounds like you are escaping..." clishe. If you need something, you can message me anytime. Adios amigo.
Only if you suffer from reading comprehension. When you ask leading questions, don't expect a yes or no answer. Read what the author writes. If there was any part of my answer you could not comprehend, I'll be happy to expand on it.
So there is no nubmer that you can think of that would be acceptable? Would lower nubmers help? How about 1,000 civilians? That's less then dies in baghdad every month, surely that would be a reasonable trade?
Seems like you care for numbers more than you do for people. An active terror organization will kill an infinite number of people to achieve its goal. Do you think the countries fighting it have any other choice?
So how many Israeli civilians should die before a reaction is acceptable? Or should they just rely upon the UN for their protection? Are Israeli lives worth less?
And people die in wars, ferret. War is not an excuse to surrender, it's a reason to fight back. Given the two sides, Israel is going to extreme measures to make sure they target military objectives. Otherwise, you'd see a death toll unimagineable. Hezbollah/hamas are and have been, blindly launching rockets into Israel to kill anything with a lung. But some portray them as the "victims." Given your scenario, how long would you fight to keep from being converted to islam? Or would you be first in line to surrender? Think about it
can you provide a comparison that how many civilians have died from Hezbollah attacks and how many have died from israels attacks
Since when is the whole egalitarian-like belief correlated as making a war more or less moral? Is that really the gauge of someone being moral? If the exact number you kill is equal to the exact number of people that died.....that's an odd way of looking at things. I guess we'd better kill a couple million Americans, because in world war two we carpet bombed the living shit out of Germany and Japan. Not to mention the two nukes which actually don't compare to the carpet bombing. If that's the gauge, we're some fairly immoral bastards. Although we did win due to brutality, and had we not done that, we would have face a rather long and enduring battle in Germany and Japan. Morality is shot to hell when every war comes...there's no way around it. I'd say everyone is a million times more pc than what we all once were. For the most part we all try to not kill innocent people, but I'm sure there's exceptions to that.