We're already starting to see dire consequences of Israel's disastrous war. Al Aqsa thinks that it now knows how to defeat Israel:

"Hizbullah proved what we have already known and felt here in a number of opportunities. The Israelis are lying when they paint their military as unbeatable. A few hundred Hizbullah fighters showed them what an army is, and how to conduct a battle."

According to Abu Nasser, Nasrallah's organization still hasn't had its last word.

"From our acquaintance with them, there is no way they are going to disarm. The organization has strategic objectives and the current battle proves that if it will decide to initiate another battle – the road is paved. The next time Iran will be in the picture and missiles on Tel Aviv will be part of the game. When this happens, it will be a lot easier for us. We are proud of our brothers, the Hizbullah fighters. They are inspirational teachers that demonstrated everything we have been feeling in recent years – Israel is falling apart," he said.

Many of the Arabs are now feeling their oats, and the street in Damascus may be starting to demand (foolishly) that the chinless optometrist take back the Golan Heights. This would be an effort doomed to failure, of course, but the enemy, heady with their recent success, don't understand that.

It's a cliche that it's hopelessness that causes the Arabs to behave the way they do toward Israel, but in fact, the opposite is true. It's when they have hope that they become most aggressive, and Israel's failed campaign has provided them with an overabundance of it. The next battle is not a question of if, but when and where, and whether Israel will be ready for it this time (perhaps with a new government). It also makes it all the more incumbent for Israel to procure and develop effective defenses against missiles.

Attacking a country strongly believed to have hundreds of nuclear weapons with obselete Soviet era monkey model export armor is Darwinism practiced on a national scale.

A few hundred dirty savages, using civilians for cover, against a civilised nation which practiced restraint and announced strikes beforehand via leafletting. Showed 'em what an army is. Gotcha.

Imagine a world with no Islam.

Gee, some Arab terrorist bragging that they're the baddest cats in the land and that they can beat Israel? That's uncharacteristic.

I wouldn't blame Israel for ignoring the UN, us or anyone else the next time they are attacked and just unleashing the whirlwind like the six day war. It's obvious the UN and most of Europe want to see them lose so I hope they show no mercy. Their enemy doesn't deserve it.

So do I hear Rand volunteering for duty
in Lebanon?

The Israeli's could use some replacements.

Considering the Israeli nuclear deterrent, how exactly can Israel be defeated without also destroying the middle east? Do those intent on destroying Israel embrace that eventuality? Presume Israel, even in the face of ultimate destruction, will be unwilling to strike at “civilian” populations? Or have they just not thought this far ahead yet?

Pete Lynn, you forget that to those who believe in the coming of the Second Imam, the destruction of the Middle East (at least) isn't undesireable, it's a necessary precondition for Utopia.

So do I hear Rand volunteering for duty
in Lebanon?

Ah, the idiot argument that won't die. Guess it's a zombie that keeps eating its own brain.

Rand, Pixy Misa and I have agreed that there is only one legitimate response to the ":chickenhawk" slur, and it rhymes with "pluck cough."

Gee, some Arab terrorist bragging that they're the baddest cats in the land and that they can beat Israel? That's uncharacteristic.

Andrea, there's nothing new about the bragging. What's concerning is that this time they may actually believe it.

It's easy for Rand to talk war when he lives in Florida.

He would have more skin in the game if he lived in
the Israeli border region.

BTW, how does Rand square the idea of Hopelessness
and the Egyptian war in 1973. Certainly based upon
67, the egyptian cause was hopeless. The israeli's had
twice smashed egypt's forces, driving across to the suez.

Certainly in 1983, the Palestinian cause was hopeless.
No arab army was providing support, the PLO was
in tunisia, yet, the palestinians' arose and with bricks
fought against men with guns, tanks and jets.

And it's easy for you to talk stupidity (who doesn't know history) behind anonymity. It's pretty amusing that cowards like you are calling people "chicken hawks."

As I've said numerous times, anonymous moron, I think it's low. Unfortunately, it's still higher than any realistic Democrat alternative.

Perhaps Anonymous Coward should volunteer to go and help out his Hizbollah lovers. I hear they lost a lot more terrorists than Israel lost soldiers. and they do use the fighting tactics of cowards hiding amongst the civilian populace and attacking civilians so he should feel righ at home. He can try his hand in the next round against Netanyahoo and see how much fun he has.

One more chickenleftist. They don't make 'em like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade or the Weathermen anymore, I guess.

whatever makes anyone think I like these islamic pieces
of crap. The difference is my uncle and grand uncle
spent their careers fighting them effectively.

You want to fight Al Qaeda, you fight in the dark.
You want to fight you have a objective congruent with
your capabilities and methods and political support.

It is foolish to chase flies with hammers.

It's also treasonous to hitch this nations foreign policy
to the interest of Israel.

Quote from anon: "The difference is my uncle and grand uncle
spent their careers fighting them effectively."

And what magically glorious conflict was this that proved so effective? Playing make beleive in your head you maybe able to fly, but that doesn't mean you should run around with tights and a cape.