Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I have never understood the logic of a "proportionate" response. It seems to me that a proportionate response just encourages whomever you are responding to, to transgress again. If your goal is to stop them from seizing soldiers, or if you are trying to get your soliders back, isn't the disproportionate response what you want?
After the Japanese attacked us, was it a "proportionate response" to ask for the total and unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan, and completely refusing all their attempts at a negotiated peace.
Why would anyone ever want to use a "proportionate response"? What possible use could that serve?
|
We didn't invade China during the Korean War, or use nuclear weapons. So it's not like we never accept limitations on our use of force.
And I'm not sure "proportionate" is the right word (though it is on the
front page of the NYT today). If Israel continues to see Hezbollah targets to shoot at, they should keep shooting. My issue is with the damage they're doing to Lebanon's infrastructure. We were talking about the airport the other day. Power stations. I could understand why Israel would want to destroy roads and bridges leading to the south if it were planning to move in ground forces, but since that doesn't seem to be in the cards it more appears that Israel is trying to punish Lebanon for what Hezbollah is doing. Is that appropriate?
