Post #24010 by onepoorguy on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (144)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 1

The issue is whether the US is willing to change the fighting from a proxy conflict to a direct one.

Then the proxy war is one-sided, and we need to challenge Iran in a hot war.

Right now, their proxies are attacking us directly. Iran faces no cost (except for materiel). Low risk, high reward for Iran. They'll only stop if it costs them something. Otherwise, why stop?

I'm not terribly concerned about a "hot war" with Iran. They can't touch us. Their army is useless, and their air force and navy we could destroy in a day. They might go after Israel, but Israel would demolish them.

Right now, Iran has no downside to their actions. We need to give them one if we expect them to modify their behavior.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (144)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.