WebsterMark wrote on Today at 13:47:02:I wasn’t a Trump guy either but from a practical point of view, he’s better than any alternative and he’s doing what needs to be done. I put up with his nonsense because of the benefits he gives me.
“What if” scenarios are legitimate. We do that at work regularly in an effort to stay ahead of our competition.
Iran was one a key player in the October 7th attack. It would be foolish to not consider, if they are capable of doing that, what AREN’T they capable of?
Someone needs to step up and remove this risk from the world like it would have been nice had someone done that back in 1939.
I get your point about thinking in terms of risks and ‘what if’ scenarios. But if you look at the Vietnam War, that was also framed as something that had to be stopped at all costs to prevent a bigger threat (communism spreading).
Looking back, it’s often seen as a conflict that caused enormous damage without achieving its goals, and the consequences lasted for decades.
So I think the real question is: how do you decide when a perceived threat justifies that level of intervention? And how far do you go with trying to ‘eliminate’ a risk, especially when the long-term outcomes are so uncertain?
History shows that even with the best intentions, interventions don’t always lead to better or safer situations.
Pages: 1
