my only advice to israel (call me bibi!), the us and so on is to have specific attainable goals in these things. look at afghanistan. what was the goal? to get bin laden? somewhere along the lines we widened the goals to such an extent as to invite failure, and fail we did. whatever the response is to iranian's attack -- and it isn't eve…
my only advice to israel (call me bibi!), the us and so on is to have specific attainable goals in these things. look at afghanistan. what was the goal? to get bin laden? somewhere along the lines we widened the goals to such an extent as to invite failure, and fail we did. whatever the response is to iranian's attack -- and it isn't even clear to me that defeating their attack almost 100% isn't THE response. it should be clear, concise and well gettable. what that means is for those sitting in meetings right now watching grandiose powerpoint slides on "now this is a perfect opportunity to ..." -- those should be considered very very carefully. and probably just dispensed with.
Iran as the center of the Shiite universe has a deeply engrained “us against the world" mentality. This mentality is impervious to military attack.
Someone suggested that we take out the drone factories, which might actually be a good move. We can destroy the means, but we cannot destroy the mentality.
I mean -- Iran would if it could "get rid of Israel". It doesn't have the ability. It's developed some kind of drone, cruise tech but we can handle it. Today They're working on nukes. This bothers me. It bothers me in the same way the North Koreans do, who are doing the same. The ability to send target-able ballistic nukes to any place on the world by either regime is more than troubling. While deterrence might work, both of these countries are run by mad-men, or at least mad-people -- it's not clear deterrence is enough.
Given all that -- there's some kind of case to be made that perhaps, in this immediate one, that some message should be send to Iran. But I'm not making it, I can just see the case's outlines a little. But having said that, the case if it can be made has to be very clean and concise -- otherwise, it'll just be another roll of the proverbial snowball down the hill and pretty soon this thing will go side ways... or it seems likely at least.
Well, deterrence is the best we have. If we invade either country to take out the nukes, we almost guarantee the regimes will use them. BTW, I think Iran cares about its civilian population somewhat more than North Korea does—N Korea is willing to tolerate some percentage of its population starving to death.
Ah but they don't have them yet. And I didn't say anything about invading. The point I was going for was for a possible calibrated response -- we're talking Iran. That there could be a case to made about a calibrated response because "nukes" (in development). I mean I'm not making that case, I'm just saying I can see some perhaps making it.
Yep. Maybe someone is making that case, but I fail to see how attacking Iran will make them less likely to develop nukes. I think it would make them want to speed up their program. The only way we can prevent the development of Iranian nukes is either to bribe Iran (unlikely) or take out the nuclear facility by infiltration or cyberattack. Or assassinate key personnel.
well wanting to and being able to are two different things. also i note there seems to have been a mid-east coalition against the attack. perhaps these same countries are not that interested in iran attaining well.. anything, either.
my only advice to israel (call me bibi!), the us and so on is to have specific attainable goals in these things. look at afghanistan. what was the goal? to get bin laden? somewhere along the lines we widened the goals to such an extent as to invite failure, and fail we did. whatever the response is to iranian's attack -- and it isn't even clear to me that defeating their attack almost 100% isn't THE response. it should be clear, concise and well gettable. what that means is for those sitting in meetings right now watching grandiose powerpoint slides on "now this is a perfect opportunity to ..." -- those should be considered very very carefully. and probably just dispensed with.
Iran as the center of the Shiite universe has a deeply engrained “us against the world" mentality. This mentality is impervious to military attack.
Someone suggested that we take out the drone factories, which might actually be a good move. We can destroy the means, but we cannot destroy the mentality.
I replied in the wrong spot, to myself!
I mean -- Iran would if it could "get rid of Israel". It doesn't have the ability. It's developed some kind of drone, cruise tech but we can handle it. Today They're working on nukes. This bothers me. It bothers me in the same way the North Koreans do, who are doing the same. The ability to send target-able ballistic nukes to any place on the world by either regime is more than troubling. While deterrence might work, both of these countries are run by mad-men, or at least mad-people -- it's not clear deterrence is enough.
Given all that -- there's some kind of case to be made that perhaps, in this immediate one, that some message should be send to Iran. But I'm not making it, I can just see the case's outlines a little. But having said that, the case if it can be made has to be very clean and concise -- otherwise, it'll just be another roll of the proverbial snowball down the hill and pretty soon this thing will go side ways... or it seems likely at least.
Well, deterrence is the best we have. If we invade either country to take out the nukes, we almost guarantee the regimes will use them. BTW, I think Iran cares about its civilian population somewhat more than North Korea does—N Korea is willing to tolerate some percentage of its population starving to death.
Ah but they don't have them yet. And I didn't say anything about invading. The point I was going for was for a possible calibrated response -- we're talking Iran. That there could be a case to made about a calibrated response because "nukes" (in development). I mean I'm not making that case, I'm just saying I can see some perhaps making it.
Yep. Maybe someone is making that case, but I fail to see how attacking Iran will make them less likely to develop nukes. I think it would make them want to speed up their program. The only way we can prevent the development of Iranian nukes is either to bribe Iran (unlikely) or take out the nuclear facility by infiltration or cyberattack. Or assassinate key personnel.
well wanting to and being able to are two different things. also i note there seems to have been a mid-east coalition against the attack. perhaps these same countries are not that interested in iran attaining well.. anything, either.