[SlackAli]

Well the hostilities seem to be over for the moment, and both sides - Hizbollah and Israel - claim to have scored historic victories.

Clearly the Lebanese suffered the greatest number of casualties and the greatest damage, bu t Israel may have suffered something worse, ie an inability to 'do the business' with its customary efficiency, suffering a blow to its prestige. Perhaps Israel has caught the soft Western disease: a reluctance to take big casualties.

Was going to start a poll, but seems a bit crass and insensitive

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by SlackAli

Perhaps Israel has caught the soft Western disease: a reluctance to take big casualties.

That remark is uncalled for. The US has taken many casualties, when they first invaded Iraq where the death toll was uncertain the armed forces willingly layed their lives on the lines with most of the American people supporting it. Initial estimates were in the tens of thousands.

What you see now is the unwillingness to lose more life for what appears to be a endless and fruitless endeavor. Don't confuse soft with common sense.

To answer your question they are both losers.

[Littlefield]

I will back you up on that one Coalman regarding US in Iraq. Hezbollah now claims they were able to last aganist a mighty power.Israel has lost in that sense. Iran will ressupply weapons thru Syria and Israel will have to deal with this again. Hezbollah gained but the poor people of Lebanon lost and Hezbolah will use money from Iran and probaby The US to rebuild Lebanon and get more support for their cause.

[linskyjack]

I don't think anyone won. In order to say one side got the advantage would require one to be able to predict the future. About the only thing we can be sure of, is that this will be going on for another 50 years or until Iran gives Hezbollah the bomb and we get into the mutual self destruction mode.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

That remark is uncalled for. The US has taken many casualties, when they first invaded Iraq where the death toll was uncertain the armed forces willingly layed their lives on the lines with most of the American people supporting it. Initial estimates were in the tens of thousands.

Why is his remark "uncalled for?" He is absolutely right--people in the west are unwilling to accept any significant casualties no matter what the cause. Any time any conflict goes more than a few months and the deaths go into the hundreds, you are going to get a ton of negative press from the left, which affects public opinion. People in this country have absolutely no idea about what's going on in Iraq because they are fed only one side of the story and swallow it as truth.

People in the west are generally anti-war and will not support a conflict for very long. If WWII had happened today, I shudder to think what would have happened--we probably would have pulled our troops out of Europe long before the war was over.

[linskyjack]

Now why do you think that Olmert played the chicken? Do you think that some pressure was exerted upon him? If so, by whom? (Do you think it might be the chief terrorist fighter in the world--GWB?)

[Mulderator]

As to who lost, clearly Israel. These terrorist groups know that they can play on the irrational prejudices of the Xicos and bassets and compushlep's et al (or the Linksy if it doesn't involve Israel) and obtain tons of mileage out of these scourmages. The left is their biggest ally making it more and more difficult to ever use the only thing that will ever work with these groups and that is military force. They'll just keep doing it over and over and over and the appeasement crowd wll continue to call for ceasefires and peace treaties and the insanity will go on and on because we are not permitted to take full scale measures to completely nueter these groups. And make no mistake about it, the west has the power to do it, if the liberals would allow it.

[katonca]

No one won because it will never be over for Israel. Their trials will continue.

[linskyjack]

Hold on Mulder, do you actually think that Olmert called back the dogs of war because of pressure from his own people (who overwhelming supported driving Hezbollah to the Litani). I would wager a tidy sum, that GWB forced the Israelis to play nice with the terrorists. Can you give me another explanation?

[Littlefield]

Yep we could have leveled Fallujah .We are more worried about civilian causulties then our own in that instance .We go in and pull out. In that way we are soft but I do not think it was about losing our soliders as much as it was not killing civilians.
Also Rummy wanted to do it on the cheap so it involves more then us not wiiling to suffer casulaties.

[linskyjack]

Well Littlefield, we agree. There was never an intent by Bush and Rumsfeld to win the "war" in Iraq. The day that let Sadr go, I knew there was no hope.

[techno_lust]

without a doubt, Iran

[linskyjack]

Iran always wins, particularly with the present administration running this bizzare foreign policy. They have cow-towed to the Shia hordes that are controled by Iran.

[GoneForNow]

You can't determine who won because it's not over yet. I'm betting they are back at it before the week is out. The Islamofacists just can't control themselves.

This one of the few times I have been disappointed in the actions of this Adminstration. They should have given Israel unrestrained support and military backing.

[Littlefield]

If we had done it the way Mccain said we would have a lot better off but you would still have the Shias vs the Sunnis .