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
I don’t understand this thought by ndsapper
Over 120 ballistic missiles, accompanied by drones launched to arrive at same time, and it wasn’t a serious attack meant to do significant damage? Iran would have to have incredible faith in Israel/coalition defense systems, faith we ourselves do not have, to think not one would reach a target causing significant loss that garners an equal response. It isn’t logical.
I do think they thought it would be relatively limited due to the air defense, but certainly not as ineffective as it was, in fact that was probably unsettling. But they had a communications plan, this was retaliatory in nature, hard but finite, and now we’re even.
They are not as big a foe, nor as isolated a regime, as we prop them up to be.