Iran expected to attack Israel soon

So many contradictions in this post.

 

like what?

 

I certainly don't know, but it seems that they would require diff assets....it seems attacking Iran would involve air force, rockets etc. rather than tanks, ground troops, etc.

 

Must push back against that as well. We can’t just define the “best case” as “not the worst case.” There is a whole range of possibilities between the two.

 

Apparently this is the primary source of your news.

Trump says White House staff had to convince Biden not to release pre-recorded message on Israel and claims Iran would never have attacked if he was president: 'This is no time for a taped speech' | Daily Mail Online
I'm not sure that I would consider the former president noted for his propensity to fabricate stories as a credible source.

 

Why wouldn't anyone trust Trump?

 

That we drop MOAB's on Iran's drone-manufacturing facilities?

 

There's more to this. Iran knew Israel and the US would have hours to setup defensive batteries. Meaning - Iran knew their drones would never make it. There's something else going on here. I don't think we've heard the end of this initial attack.

 

Maybe Iran needed to save face and "respond" to the Damascus attack. But in reality didn't really want to start shit cause they know the outcome won't be good for them. Just speculation.

 

Gosh, okay. You assert our military is “ludicrously bloated” but then again you want it to do as little as possible. That’s weird. You want Israel to “smash” Iran’s military, which will somehow cause the fall of the Islamic Republic, even though the IDF does not remotely have that capability and you’ve already sidelined the military that has a far greater capability (though I doubt, even combined with the rest of the West, we could achieve your stated political objective in any kind of way that is cheap, fast, or does not risk further widening the war). And our military is “ludicrously bloated” for what, exactly? Is it for the grand strategy of a rules-based international order, the enforcement of which is led by the U.S.? If so, then our military is remarkably under resourced for what is expected of it. And if your assertion is that should not be our grand strategy, then I recommend you take up your grievance with the White House and Department of State, not the military.

 

I hope this has been preserved and will be on display somewhere in the future.

 

Iran launches drones, missiles at Israel in retaliatory attack after consulate strike in Syria

So far it seems like the Iranian attack had very little military effect. Most of the incoming were intercepted by the Coalition. Only one person, a child, injured. Given that, I think the most we should do is target a single military point in Iran — say, an SA-20 — just to send a message (including to Russia) that we can strike back anytime we want to. And, therefore, this needs to end now.

 

Gosh, okay. You assert our military is “ludicrously bloated” but then again you want it to do as little as possible.

Where's the contradiction?

You want Israel to “smash” Iran’s military, which will somehow cause the fall of the Islamic Republic, even though the IDF does not remotely have that capability and you’ve already sidelined the military that has a far greater capability (though I doubt, even combined with the rest of the West, we could achieve your stated political objective in any kind of way that is cheap, fast, or does not risk further widening the war).

Did not say that AT ALL. Here's what I said & I quote: "I would be surprised if Israel does not use this as an opportunity to smash Iran's military capabilities."

Where's the contradiction?

the rest of your post is just objection to my opinion that our military is bloated. We do have 11 aircraft carriers & yet, IMO are getting our asses kicked by troll farms. David is winning IMO.

But, to the pt. where is the contradiction?

con·tra·dic·tion
/ˌkäntrəˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
   "the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
   • a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
     "the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
   • the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
     "the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"

Disagree or pt out my ignorance fine, but show me 1 contradiction.

 

Very well. You have won the grammar rodeo. Characterizing our military as unnecessarily over strength while prescribing that it sits on its ass and does nothing is totally not contradictory.

Perhaps I should have been impolite and said your position was “dumb” instead.

 

How is that a contradiction? GO! (&, I did not prescribe it do nothing*)

actual quote: "I hope our ludicrously bloated military only provides defensive help."

 

”Smoothing over” is not my intent. Deterring by punishment is my intent.