Good post, Oober. I agree with a lot of what you posted. I think some of it is a little overboard, I mean, I'm not sure we could target a mosquito in the region without it affecting the world oil market so it's silly to think we didn't see that coming.
I was speaking specifically to his statement "That whole thing in Iran has been bungled from the start." Meaning, mission has started, for whatever reason you have decided, everything from that point forward. I was hoping he would respond but knew that probably wouldn't happen before everyone else did. I don't not agree with Daman, but I'm not sure I ever have. If he saw a headline that says Trump eats babies, he would 100% believe that and repeat it without reading another word.
I just think, whether war or football, it's always easy to armchair it after the fact. I see the necessity of dealing with this bully a lot differently than most here, I'm basically sitting shotgun with 'Peen in that respect.
I won't bother arguing about it though. It's mostly futile. It baffles me that we can talk about the possibility of Iran having a nuke and many people think (me included) that would be the direst situation, read: threat to humanity by humans, that this planet has ever faced... others think it's a nothingburger. There's not really much reason for those people to try to talk it out.
I was definitely writing with a bit of snark, so yes some was a bit overboard.
Personally, I don't mind a bit of short-term discomfort (price of oil and it's effect on other prices) if the reasoning and long-term benefit is there. So, to me, the issue is 100% why this whole thing was kicked off, and no amount of tactical execution can make up for an unclear or nonexistent objective. I agree with you on armchairing conflicts... except for the 'why'. And in this case critics don't even have to use the benefit of hindsight to question why we're attacking... it's been mixed messages since the aftermath of the first strikes on the nuclear sites.
