- Messages
- 6,378
In a vacuum, I totally believe that eliminating or crippling Iran's nuclear weapon production capability is a good thing. They of all countries (or, rather, their regime) simply can't be allowed to have nukes, IMO. So, in a vacuum, I think that last night's strike was good and commend the President and his team for acting decisively to confront (and hopefully eliminate) a problem that has plagued many a presidential administration through the years.
What concerns me, though, is that only in the movies or in the fantasy realm does a strike like this occur in a vacuum. In other words, anyone who thinks that Iran won't try to retaliate, IMO, is naïve or has their head buried in the sand. Whether or not Iran's retaliatory ability is legitimately threatening is a different question. It may be, it may not be.
My concern is that by directly striking Iran militarily, we open ourselves up to escalation against any and all U.S. targets abroad. And any U.S. targets that are, in fact, targeted would merit an even more escalatory retaliatory response militarily. So the question to me is, was it worth it? It very well may have been- I don't know. I don't pretend to know the answer. But my question is, was it worth striking Iran knowing that there is a probability that they or their proxies will attempt to shed U.S. blood- military or civilian- and thus prompt further military action from the U.S. (i.e., drawing us into a full-fledged shooting war, which has tremendous costs in terms of lives and capital).
As lynch34 says above, time will tell. We have to let it play out- that's all we can do at this point.
What concerns me, though, is that only in the movies or in the fantasy realm does a strike like this occur in a vacuum. In other words, anyone who thinks that Iran won't try to retaliate, IMO, is naïve or has their head buried in the sand. Whether or not Iran's retaliatory ability is legitimately threatening is a different question. It may be, it may not be.
My concern is that by directly striking Iran militarily, we open ourselves up to escalation against any and all U.S. targets abroad. And any U.S. targets that are, in fact, targeted would merit an even more escalatory retaliatory response militarily. So the question to me is, was it worth it? It very well may have been- I don't know. I don't pretend to know the answer. But my question is, was it worth striking Iran knowing that there is a probability that they or their proxies will attempt to shed U.S. blood- military or civilian- and thus prompt further military action from the U.S. (i.e., drawing us into a full-fledged shooting war, which has tremendous costs in terms of lives and capital).
As lynch34 says above, time will tell. We have to let it play out- that's all we can do at this point.
