WebsterMark wrote on Today at 03:37:53: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?
That’s the hard part. Back to my WWII question, if you go back to1939, would you throw everything you had at the Nazis Even if it was significant loss of life? Yes, of course you want. If you go back to the early 1960s, would you approach communism and Vietnam differently? Of course you would.
You play the cards you’re dealt as best you can. Some people do it better than others. I wasn’t old enough to assess Vietnam from a real world situation as it happened so I had to go on as what I read. But having seen the Iranian threat for decades and most recently October 7 in Israel, yes, I would throw the kitchen sink at them.
Throw the kitchen sink at it’ sounds decisive, but in practice that often means using maximum force without fully understanding the consequences.
If you look at World War II, yes, that was a case where extreme action turned out to be necessary. But if you look at the Vietnam War, ‘throwing everything at it’ caused massive damage without actually solving the problem.
So I think the real issue isn’t whether you act or not, it’s whether you understand the system you’re acting on.
Because if you don’t, you’re not fixing the problem, you’re just escalating it.
And that’s where leadership matters. Not just reacting hard, but being able to handle contradiction, weigh options, and adjust course when needed.
If you play the cards you are given, that doesn't always have to lead to these kinds of actions. Actually, Trump is acting on automatic reactions.
And he doesn't tolerate people around him who contradict him.
That makes his actions too extreme. A dictator is created by the people around him who keep their mouths shut and become yes-men.
Pages: 
