This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
The Administration is walking a fine line by novadamer
Talking tough in this case, but they announced the strikes two days before they began. Methinks any important Iranian RG personnel were safely out of harm's way, as well as any truly important equipment. So we sent a signal, but I am not sure what it was. Will the 100+ attacks in Iraq and Syria stop now? What about the Houthis?
And how long can we keep up this barrage of cruise missiles and precision munitions against a dispersed enemy?
Granted, the long game here is Israel-Saudi-US, and a war with Iran at the moment does not help that. We had to do something, so we did just that: something. I haven't heard much about battle damage assessment or curtailed abilities yet.