[PGR88]

The author is telling us that it’s all a clean, professional, surgical operation, where Iran will immediately be pounded into submission. Anyone who mentions negative 2nd/3rd order effects is a simp

When the history of US military intervention, particularly in the M.E., over the last 60 years tells us the exact opposite.

Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?

[Leaning Right]

You are on to something. This latest attack on Iran did something good. It evidently reduced (or eliminated) their nuclear program.

But as you noted, there will probably be 2nd/3rd order effects. On of which will be that the attack will motive Islamists everywhere to take revenge (death to the infidels, and all that). I hate to make the analogy, but it could be something like our Pearl Harbor moment.

I am NOT saying there shouldn’t have been a strike. I am saying that we had better be ready for blowback.

[cuz1961]

When the history of US military intervention, particularly in the M.E., over the last 60 years tells us the exact opposite.

\

we have had infiltrated cloward priven commies in our gov and military and white house most of those years

now we have a president and CIC who isnt a commie or grifter, a man who loves America and us citizens more than himself.

i dont worship the man, but he has , so far, shown to be trustworthy . he has risked all he has , fortune, freedom and life , to fight for the benefit of our citizens. most of us recognize and appreciate that more than the likes of you can seem to comprehend. you...at the best.. are the simp.

[odawg]

You say:

“The author is telling us that it’s all a clean, professional, surgical operation, where Iran will immediately be pounded into submission. Anyone who mentions negative 2nd/3rd order effects is a simp.

The author says:

“Whether they [bombing] were also effective in luring Iran back into the community of nations is a matter that only time will tell.”

Conclusion: you can’t read.

[Tell It Right]

When the history of US military intervention, particularly in the M.E., over the last 60 years tells us the exact opposite.

I respectfully disagree. It's only when there are no clear objectives for war in the ME that they last forever. Afghanistan and Iraq had Congress declare war (good) before we went in, but Bush defined the objectives as unwinnable like trying to capture fog (win over hearts and minds, we'll be fighting the war on terror all our lives, etc).

Those should not be confused with last night's strike on Iran, or TRUMP 45's strikes on ISIS in Syria, or Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan, Yeman, and Somalia. None of those resulted in a years long war. To be honest, I'm against those strikes (except for last night's, which IMHO is a clear use of the 1973 War Powers Act's elimination of an imminent threat to the U.S.), but I'd be lying if my argument against those strikes is that they put is in another years long war.