whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
303Bear said:
whiterock said:
Danielsjackson114 said:
Firing and them hitting target are not the same
"Yeah, the mob put out a contact on me but the guy they hired is a terrible shot. No need to take any action."
How much time are you going to give them to improve their targeting systems.
What hit rate is acceptable…10%, 30%, etc…..?
How close are you going to let the rattlesnake get to your kids before you put your beer down and go kill it?
Using retaliatory actions taken after we attack is a really interesting way to justify the initial attack.
Also, you realize they now have the excuse to test/refine/figure out the variables and intricacies of long range targeting that they would have never been able to achieve with live fire tests, which would have brought UN resolutions and further rounds of sanctions.
At this point, which is it: is Iran collapsing and have we won (for the third or fourth time); or are they a dangerous threat to the very existence of the free world and we need $200 billion more in defense (ha) spending to keep the war going? They can't be both.
Where the hell have you been the last 40yrs.
I collected intel…human intel….on Iran, Hizballah, et al….for several years. Efforts to portray as innocuous to us a country which has killed thousands of Americans and is relentlessly (and successfully) pursuing nuclear weapons as well as the ballistic missile capability to deliver the us intellectual dishonest of the highest order.
Like this guy…..
No one doubts what you say on that.
The question is was the threat worth the cost of direct military action by the US?
For decades, we have had threats worth countering but not worth direct military action, such as the USSR, China and North Korea. We countered, but kept US forces out of direct military action, besides a few brushing incidents.
Iran was hands off because of the problems after. No one thought the US couldn't win a direct conflict, but what happens after and how do we get out? You know this because it is common reading, how did your models play out and what did your formulas show for the TOTAL equation, not just the threat inputs?
Second question, IF the full equation showed it was now worth the cost, why only Israel as partner? Even Great Britain and Canada, whom we can count on for standing with us were against? No one else, Turkey? Other Arab States?
You are great at showing Kelly on the threat, which is totally credible because he agrees with Trump. But, when he says there was no reason to do this now, it is not... That is what he said, not that Iran was not a threat, but we don't have to do THIS...
Pinhead argument.
They have demonstrated ballistic missile capability to at least the shores of the Arctic Ocean and admitted to having enough 60% enriched uranium make a dozen nukes. 60% enrich uranium is within weeks of nuclear weapon ready. They have made it clear they are going to rebuild their enrichment program.
Please explain EXACTLY how close you intend to let them get on capability of the weapons delivery system before you would act.
Please explain what level of confidence in intel you require before acting.
Please explain why their current ballistic misdile capability alone is not sufficient to do what we have done. It's okay to lob MIRV warheads into New Your City as long as they not nuclear? (Can you not hear the insanity of the argument yo are making?)
If you can dissuade a regime from pursuing policies that are unacceptable to you, how far are you going to let them go before you engage in diplomacy via other means?
Thank God we finally had a POTUS brave and wise enough to ignore ninnies like you and finish damned job.
You are so full of it. You will justify anything Trump does and reverse yourself, make stuff up. All with little equations to make it look official. So now with the logic du jour, we are going to attack anyone that has ballistic missile technology over 2500 km and doesn't like us? N Korea? China? Russia? Pakistan?
More importantly how are you going to find the enriched material? It can be anywhere.
The pinhead argument is to go into this with no idea where the material is, say we will count on the people rising up and actually giving Iran a reason to use a weapon against the US. Up until now, it has been against Israel and in the Middle East.
Why wouldn't they before? Because of us attacking and destroying everything. But, since we are already doing that and we are killing every leader they bring forward what incentive is there for them NOT to take as many shots as they can?
Which leads us to ground troops and occupying. But that was your plan all along, right. Typical CIA type ****, which has played out so well in the past.
Name once it actually worked!
