Reply to thread

You are going to far into the analogy. Libya is a recent example where we got involved (however wrongly in my view) without a sustained ground campaign -- and frankly without much of a sustained air campaign. To delay an Iranian weapon, we don't have to enact regime change, we don't have to support rebel groups, we just have to hit a few key sites. (in theory of course)

 

Of course there are all kinds of problems with the air raid scenario, but it does not mean a ground campaign or really anything outside of a air raid.

 


 

I'm not buying it either -- but the problem is no one is selling what we are not buying. :) The point is simply we can delay a weapon (in theory) via air strikes without further involvement.

 


 

And another side thinks we can deal with the scenario through sanctions and diplomacy alone, and another side thinks an Iranian weapon is not a problem, and yet another side believes we can accomplish the mission solely in a clandestine fashion. There are indeed rifts.

 


 

This graphic doesn't look like anything...except a rudimentary 5th grade drawing. That is no plan -- and the source for these so called invasion plans in the article? None.

 

But let us think logically for a moment -- The Pentagon damn well better have a war plan drawn up Iran (and other hot spots) -- that is how they operate, and it is their job.

 


 

I never made such a statement -- you did, and then argued against it.

 


 

The above "joint attack plan" is unsourced lunacy -- but the mere creation of a plan (which one hopes we have) hardly means that is the decided policy.

 

 

Edit:  I see that the article references a special unit within the UK MoD that is tasked with working on a plan -- something that is not surprising -- and something the Pentagon should have already been doing.


Back
Top