Well... I hate to say this, but I somehow doubt that the resolve of the Israeli army and their level of technological sophistication and the intelligence gathering capabilities of Mossad and the will of the majority ot Israelis (who, according to BBC yesterday, are solidly in favour of the Israeli counter-attacks) can be summed up as being 'tough cowboy talk'. If it's tough cowboy talk, they can also walk the tough cowboy walk and I don't think they are showing much compunction about walking it when they are pushed down that road. I think 'Don't fuck with Israel' is exactly the message here and I don't think it looks much like 'tough cowboy talk'.
ZZZ Am I right in understanding that you object to what the USA did in WWII where it used its military superioity to anihilate the German and Japanese military. You would have advised limiting their response to an exact tit for tat, nothing more? Or do you think they shoudl have tried a Gandhian approach to the war and surrended all their weapons to Hitler and laid down perhaps saying "go ahead kill us all, if you dare?" Perhaps that would work with the Middle east? Give Iran et al a few thousand nuclear misslies to show that the west treats them as equals?
I am opposed to indiscriminate bombing civillians. It really is that simple. Comparisons to WWII are so badly flawed, do you really want to go there? Why not try bombing villages in Viet Nam? That didn't work either... Actually, I read an interesting op ed pieces that suggested Iran get nukes, to balance the power in the region, and prevent all out war. http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2280/ My preference is that no countries have nukes...which is also the preference of most Americans: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-31-nuclear-fears_x.htm