I think you’re ignoring the core point of the above comment, which is that the long pauses in the show for the laughs are a planned part of the show. If you’ve never been to a recording, the audience noises aren’t spontaneous. There are signs telling the audience when to make noise.

Live audiences sound better than canned laughs, but in terms of pacing for a sitcom, it’s the same thing.

The majority of sitcoms are terrible. When you think of good older ones and compare them to bad ones today you’re doing the thing.

Nope, I was out of date. The private Newseum museum had it for years but closed and the FBI took back the cabin and put it on public display along with other notable items relating to the FBI.

In the article linked to the post, it explains that Kaczynski’s lawyers were the ones who wanted it originally removed from its location and preserved.

In an effort to protect it from snoops and vandals, lawyers requested to have the cabin moved from its original site outside of Lincoln, Montana, to a nearby Air Force base.

As the trial approached, the cabin became the focal point of his lawyers’ planned insanity defense. Only a madman, they argued, could have lived in such primitive conditions.

If you think the reason is stupid, sure, but it wasn’t the FBI that made it so important to a potential trial.

2026 and 1998 are different times. Kaczynski’s pled guilty in 1998. The cabin is currently owned by a privately run museum.

Just send more weapons

All of your examples were of supporting existing local insurgencies in order to help them frustrate foreign conventional occupying forces. The occupiers did not have to choose between victory or death, but could at their leisure withdraw. Having that option creates increasing political pressure to withdraw over time. The is exacerbated by military conscription to an unpopular war and a lack of ideological unity in the occupying nation. This is not the circumstance with Hezbollah.

Watch a Tom Hanks movie

Read ‘Mao Zedong’s Principles of Peoples War’ to understand the dynamics of a mid-20th century insurgency, and have a foundation for how that has adapted with technology.

What?

Those conflicts were conventional forces being extended to achieve friendly political stability in nations with a large enough population that was hostile to be a problem to root out. Vietnam had a conventional force element with the NVA, though the issue for the U.S. was still one of creating political stability in the south for a regime that was locally unpopular.

In your suggestion the U.S. is supposed to play the role of the Viet Cong in Lebanon, and Hezbollah is supposed to play the role of a foreign occupying conventional military.

The U.S. (and the Soviets in Afghanistan) always had the option of withdrawing to their home countries. This was easily doable at any time they wished, so the calculation of these fights for the opposing side was running the occupying side out political patience. That’s not really the same situation with Hezbollah. Defeat was not about racking up a body count enough to collapse the occupying military’s ability to exist, but to frustrate their efforts until occupying nation politics became fed up with the war.

So, how exactly would this be done?

How would you propose that be done?