3 ms·
> Because the US doesn't do military action without death, without shooting, without explosions. I don't know any nation that does. Either this is a strawman o
by tkahn6 15y ago
> Because the US doesn't do military action without death, without shooting, without explosions. I don't know any nation that does.
Either this is a strawman or you should go back and trace the thread of argument again.
> What we can't do is military action without using the military (who use deadly weapons).
I don't know what this means.
> Any military action in Iran would be full-scale, classic-style war like America hasn't seen since WWII.
This sounds like wishful thinking and again, military action in any capacity (e.g. dropping bunker-busting bombs on their nuclear facilities) is not synonymous with 'full scale, classic-style war'.
- freehunter 15y ago>Either this is a strawman or you should go back and trace the thread of argument again. What I understood was "we don't want civilian deaths". You said you didn't see how military action wouldn't result in civilian death. I made the argument that military action means shooting and explosions, which would almost certainly result in civilian deaths (because it always has). >I don't know what this means. You can't use the military without using the military. Using the military means death. >dropping bunker-busting bombs on their nuclear facilities Which of course, Iran would just sit by and accept and not fight back. If we attack Iran, they will attack back. I think you're missing the bigger picture. If we attack Iran (who has a strong, central army like us), we will enter into direct nation vs nation warfare (unlike any war the US has fought since WWII).