re: I was told Boots on the Ground were needed to defeat Iran?

quote:

---

And you’re assuming everyone has the same “current understanding?”

---

I will state that people are knowingly changing the definition in order to imply some strategic political victory rather than having good faith discussions.

quote:

---

I get that, but can’t those same people think the same thing, but in the other direction?

---

Both things can't be true. I'm asserting they are intentional being deceptive. If I am right, they can't also assume the people who are using the term that they are changing are also changing the meaning of the term.

And see in my view what you just stated there could just as easily be described as one of many options to deploy as justifications or reasons why a particular result isn’t victory. “Flooding the zone” with similar options/justifications/reasons why. These are all examples of what I conclude is people’s deeply rooted confusion between opinion and fact/reality.

quote:

---

Because I was right and the conflict showed that.

---

Naw, that's a logical fallacy.

The only way the conflict could have showed that is if regime change was attempted without boots on the ground, failed, then attempted with boots on the ground and succeeded.

Just because it wasn't achieved without boots on the ground doesn't mean it would have been had boots been added.

It might have been proven that only nuclear weapons are what would have been necessry to achieve a regime change, for example.

Lol

Ooof, downvote, that’s gonna leave a mark. Medic!!

Something’s weird, but it ain’t that.

Good boy.

Don't mind him. He's engaging in satire.

quote:

---

You don't understand highly gifted people.

---

Wow

The only gift you have is being wrong about everything and tds