|
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 4026272)
Sounds like you’re sold on worst case. Our objectives meritless. But are they really? Deny a preeminent state sponsor of Sharia code ICBM/MIRV leverage. Ensure safe passage of vessels on a critical free trade route. Create precedent that nuke ambitions short of existing superpowers capability will inevitably face deterrence at a cost too high to bear. Big picture wise, I’m more than less encouraged, so far, this move CAN payout.
|
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 4026272)
Sounds like you’re sold on worst case. Our objectives meritless. But are they really? Deny a preeminent state sponsor of Sharia code ICBM/MIRV leverage. Ensure safe passage of vessels on a critical free trade route. Create precedent that nuke ambitions short of existing superpowers capability will inevitably face deterrence at a cost too high to bear. Big picture wise, I’m more than less encouraged, so far, this move CAN payout.
Best case scenario is we find a way to declare some kind of empty “victory”, pull back to the previous status quo (IF the IRGC even plays ball with that) while leaving an enormous mess we might be forced to revisit down the line. Nuclear ambition can kicked down the road for a few years. We have 2.5 years of the current foreign policy, likely 0.5 years before they’re stymied by a non-compliant congressional branch. How long do the IRGC have? ALL they need to do is survive until those two milestones… As an aside, I’ve been enjoying this discussion and all the differing viewpoints, so mods thanks for keeping it open despite the inevitable political discussion that it’s creating. |
Originally Posted by MaxQ
(Post 4026281)
I believe lowslung is stating, and I agree with him, is that everything you wish for already existed prior to Feb 28th
|
Originally Posted by Extenda
(Post 4026283)
I wish I shared your optimism. Our repeated attempts to social engineer foreign cultures in that part of the world have failed miserably.
Best case scenario is we find a way to declare some kind of empty “victory”, pull back to the previous status quo (IF the IRGC even plays ball with that) while leaving an enormous mess we might be forced to revisit down the line. Nuclear ambition can kicked down the road for a few years. We have 2.5 years of the current foreign policy, likely 0.5 years before they’re stymied by a non-compliant congressional branch. How long do the IRGC have? ALL they need to do is survive until those two milestones… As an aside, I’ve been enjoying this discussion and all the differing viewpoints, so mods thanks for keeping it open despite the inevitable political discussion that it’s creating. |
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 4026299)
Humpty Dumpty. Gone. Where’s an adequate out, everything riding on that now.
|
Originally Posted by madmax757
(Post 4026416)
Oh stewardess, I speak jive
Ted: Elaine, because of my mistake, five men were lost on that mission. Elaine: Six, George Zip died this morning. |
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 4026426)
No, 18th century nursery rhyme icon. What’s done cannot be undone, any better?
Ted: Elaine, because of my mistake, five men were lost on that mission. Elaine: Six, George Zip died this morning. |
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
(Post 4026468)
Ahh whiskey and apc….at least you made sense in your mind
|
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
(Post 4026468)
Ahh whiskey and apc….at least you made sense in your mind
|
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 4026426)
No, 18th century nursery rhyme icon. What’s done cannot be undone, any better?
Ted: Elaine, because of my mistake, five men were lost on that mission. Elaine: Six, George Zip died this morning. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:04 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands