What Hamas and Hezbolah did was an act of war (and not an act of terrorism). The armed intrusion into another country with the intent to kill and capture the soldiers of the other country is an act of war. The rockets being fired into Israel were also acts of war. To say that because Hamas only sent a few men across the border that Israel should also only send a few men or they are disproportionate is the thinking which keeps the left from being trusted with the White House post 9/11.

Taking the starting military attack and then saying the response is disproportionate can apply to just about any war won by the side that didn't strike first. The Israelis may have killed more Arabs but that is because the Israelis have been winning their wars. The Arabs got their equipment from Russia. History has shown that that's not the store to buy from if you want to win.

Saying that a nation that has endured cross border attacks, rocket attacks, suicide bombings, etc should some how not fight to win (aka should be proportionate in their response) is just not a reasonable position.

The two H's have played their card and Israel is trumping it.

You can hadly equate the MURDER of a sitting leader with the KIDNAPPING of a foot-soldier. Israel's attack is simply a way to take the heat off of American forces in regard to Iran. I am all for that, as it is THEIR war anyway. I just have a problem with the US bankrolling the Israeli military. We need to back away from them ASAP.

John,
Your argument is a little specious, given the carnage Japan had exacted up to the Hiroshima bombing on CIVILIAN populations around Asia (millions). Israel on the other hand has always had the upper hand, thanks to US technical and monetary support. They have killed more Arabs than the other way around. This is a case of using a sledge hammer when a fly swatter would have been more appropriate.

The idea that this is some sort of overreaction to an isolated kidnapping event is lucicrous.

OK, I guess a guy cans say more than, "Hear Hear."

A nation cannot - simply cannot - passively accept the "kidnapping" of its soldiers ON ITS TERRITORY, comibined with the constant shelling OF ITS TERRITORY by its neighbors.

I mean just look at the 'kidnapping' in the north. A missile barrage from across the border, armed troops going across the border killing Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two others.

It's clear, just the kidnapping was the only causa belli that exists. Sorry James, I think you wrong on this.

Did the Israelis send more men, use tanks and planes, etc to counter the attacks across their border? Yes. They are the stronger nation militarily. Does that mean that the attack was 'disproportionate'? No.

It would be like arguing that Hiroshima was disproportionate to the pearl harbor attack. It ignores all the other history going on.

Countries typically do not launch full scale war because of a kidnapping.

Well, no, but there is that whole Archduke Ferdinand thing. And since when has any war in the Middle East been undertaken for rational reasons.

I think the veto is justified, even if only to assert OUR WILL for a change, and demonstrate OUR power and support for our ally. How many times have we been shot down on legitimate problems, for relatively stupid reasons?

I don't think the kidnappings can be seperated from the other acts of war: the incursion, attacks, etc. When you're surrounded by enemies, you have to act. Has the U.S. acted any differently on the kidnapping of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, surrounded by terrorists?