4 ms·
> No, nor have I said a ground invasion will happen Oof, OK, I suppose not, you only said "The [my emphasis] ground invasion hasn't started yet". There is som
by tome 1y ago
> No, nor have I said a ground invasion will happen
Oof, OK, I suppose not, you only said "The [my emphasis] ground invasion hasn't started yet". There is some degree of ambiguity there. Forgive me for thinking you were saying one will happen.
> The goals of israel are regime change and nuclear disarmament -- these cannot be achieved from the air.
Ah! Is that a prediction you insist will happen? That there will be no regime change and no end to Iran's military nuclear programme without a ground invasion? Great! That's a testable hypothesis. Let's see.
> It's also an inherently ridiculous thing to say -- if I am wrong about highly complex geostrategic outcomes then i should never think about them again?
No, not at all (and I certainly didn't say "think", I said "speculate"). It's just a way of seeing if you put your money where your mouth is. If there is an incentive to someone predicting wrongly I'm more likely to take them seriously!
- mjburgess 1y agoP(neither of those aims being achieved from the air|current strategy) = 90% if either were, this would be the first instnace in history -- so, presumably, i could be forgiven for the mistake but either way, I dont think israel believes they can be either