Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I was asking a question, and not to you. But earlier you said we should target Iran's leaders. Earlier than that you said their nuclear program and military capacity. Then i noted the problem of figuring out exactly where those are. So you said their leaders, who Israel could find for us. So I asked about nuking Tehran. so you said we should just target their military capacity and nuclear programs, or every place where we might believe those to be. But you say you don't advocate nuking Tehran, so I guess you know that there is no reason to believe that Iran has any military capacity or nuclear efforts in Tehran. But attacking every potential military or nuclear site with tactical nukes would pretty much wipe the country off the map anyway. But now you'll say that's not what you are advocating. So now you'll say something else that is different than what you said before or now or later because, well, you are either crazy or just a troll.
In any event -- my question stands, and I mean it seriously. Do we really have a military option -- one that this Admin might actually use? I submit that the Iraq adventure has so depleted our military resources, alienated our allies, and damaged the credibility of our intelligence and military that we do not.
|
We could target their leaders without nuking Tehran. Ahmadinejad is not in hiding. He makes public appearances.
I am guessing that they don't have major military installations in downtown Tehran.
I am also guessing that we have some intelligence, however imperfect, as to where there are actual military targets.
We go with that without putting any troops on the ground.
I believe, as I noted Seymour Hersh has reported on, all of those scenarios are part of the military planning that the administration has done. Why do you ignore it and keep asking the same question? Why is the above, or part of it, not the basis for a military option? I am not claiming that is a perfect or full and final resolution option, but it is an option.
Isn't only a military option if it has a 100% chance of being 100% successful? What part of the above is not viable, in whole or in part?
See if you can answer without personal denigration.
