This message was self-deleted by its author

[TheKentuckian]

8. No one is obligated to sit under rocket fire because they haven't killed enough of them yet.

I don't get this argument of it is okay to shoot at people as long as you generally miss or they can generally avoid getting hit.

Is the intent not to kill and injure as many as possible?

It's okay, our body count isn't bad isn't going to sell anyone, anywhere. It is bullshit folks like to spout off about when they are not and likely never will be in such conditions with no memories of friends and relatives killed in nearly constant attacks for decades.

Nobody is going to sit for such shit, brother. Nobody, I can't even imagine what the US reaction would be based on our global reaction to a constant and direct threat and nobody ever is going to just let such a thing slide until the enemy gets better rockets and better at using them.

No matter what, to expect some game of tit for tat is absurd and a govern that plays it will be replaced by one who does value the lives of its citizens over an enemy (why do you think the current folks are in place?). Few believe such platitudes, they just are quite comfortable they will not have to live as they espouse.

Your advice to cut off aid is poor too, what do you think the reaction that would force would be in the region? Thinks Israel would not have to seriously consider a Michael Corleone solution.You sure they wouldn't be forced into one even if they didn't give in to such an inclination?
What leash do you think we'd really have, they have the bomb. What keeps them from going after all the old enemies while they still can? What is their viable option otherwise? Short term thinkers may not remember 1967 or put such considerations in their calculus but folks in the region aren't so quick to forget.