Pentagon believes that they can take down Iran in less than a month

[Virgil0211]

Isn't that more or less what the US did in Libya?  Didn't that end up working out about as well as I predicted it would?

I meant an improvement over trying the whole nation-building thing, like with Iraq and Afghanistan. Not that this would actually be desirable. One might compare it to choosing between having a 20 lbs weight dropped on your foot and having your foot amputated. They both suck, but one might not be as bad as the other.

Also, in my defense, I was rambling/hypothesizing. Keep in mind that it IS finals week and I have a tendency to just freetype during this period. :-P

[Gumba Masta]

Of course if the weight hits your foot in a bad way and the foot gets the wrong treatment afterwards it might as well mean amputation anyway.

[Virgil0211]

Of course if the weight hits your foot in a bad way and the foot gets the wrong treatment afterwards it might as well mean amputation anyway.

Even so, you're talking about guaranteed amputation versus potential amputation. Which one would you pick? :-P

[evensgrey]

Even so, you're talking about guaranteed amputation versus potential amputation. Which one would you pick? :-P

I'm not sure if trying what they're calling 'nation building' is better or worse than what was tried in Libya.  I didn't see any chance at all that Libya was going to turn out well.  The odds of the US managing to actually make matters better with 'nation building' aren't good (yes, they do know what they need to do to win against insurgents, they just find it very hard to actually do) but if you're going to go and overthrow a state, it seems to me to be worse to just let the whole thing collapse into anarchy than to try and set up a new state that you at least TRY to make better than the old one.

[Gumba Masta]

Even so, you're talking about guaranteed amputation versus potential amputation. Which one would you pick? :-P

If you'd put the choice down to me I'd pick fuck you and the horse you rode in too.