Options limited in Iran stand-off

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

TheMercenary - for someone so enamored in military hype, why do you so easily fall for myths such as carrier power?

Because I know people who were on the ground in both Desert Storm 1 who flew off a carrier, now a Marine Col and a cousin of mine, and in the second Gulf War, numerous iterations. I have very good friends who were on the ground in the first 2 weeks of the Afgan Campaign that survived due to carrier based aircraft. The carrier based aircraft were critical in the opening weeks of both the Afgan Campaign and the first two weeks in the opening drive to Bagdad. Pretty simple, I have practical real world experience and you have left-wing talking points. Oh, and years of service on active duty, of which you don't appear to have any, unless you would like enlighten me with where you gain your fantasy wisdom.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Because I know people who were on the ground in both Desert Storm 1 who flew off a carrier, now a Marine Col and a cousin of mine, and in the second Gulf War, numerous iterations. I have very good friends who were on the ground in the first 2 weeks of the Afgan Campaign that survived due to carrier based aircraft.

Because you know someone or because a relative did nuclear physics, then you are also knowledgeable in advanced nuclear physics? Bull.

There were no carrier aircraft for Afghanistan if not for tankers from some 'unnamed' land base. Again, carrier was ineffective without land bases.

General Odom's comments come from a long list of Charlie Rose guests that are all talking about Iran including former Sec of State, generals, policy analysts, and ... well its been a parade for two weeks now.

In response to what Odom suggested, another lady with tremendous 'strategic' grasp notes a problem. The nuclear club is not isolated to one country. It occurs in bursts among equivalent neighbors. If Iran has a bomb, then Turkey must have one.

Worse is what the US is now doing to promote nuclear proliferation while spinning a message about stopping nuclear proliferation. The parade of analysts noted how America may cause the nuclear club to increase from 10 to 30. Except for the one that personally advices George Jr's administration, they were all critical of how American is encouraging nuclear weapon proliferation.

What does the world see? The US will 'Pearl Harbor' any nation that does not have nuclear weapons. The message could not be clearer because of a policy unique only to the George Jr administration - preemption. No other administration for 70 years was stupid enough to promote preemption. A nuclear Iran would be another example of why preemption (promoted by 'big dic' thinking) is so destructive to world stability.

Meanwhile, knowing someone in government or military does not induce knowledge. Worse, when that claiim is made, then lack of knowledge is often replaced by a political agenda and personal bias.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile, knowing someone in government or military does not induce knowledge. Worse, when that claiim is made, then lack of knowledge is often replaced by a political agenda and personal bias.

You ignore my own direct connection which brings personal experience to the table. And as I asked before, what do you bring? Having personal connections to people who are on the ground or in the air in these conflicts may mean nothing to you, but I believe it beats the qualifications of someone who sits behind a computer with no real world practical experince in the issue.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You ignore my own direct connection which brings personal experience to the table.

Experience without first learning underlying concepts and principles teaches nothing. Worse, conclusions from experience without those underlying concepts and principles results only in a political agenda - personal bias - little grasp of reality.

How many have seen a light bulb burn out when turned on? Conclusion is that turning on light bulbs causes the damage. Wrong. Completely and 100% wrong. An observation - that personal experience - without underlying science results in classic 'junk science' reasoning.

Since concepts such as tactical verse strategic are not grasped, then little was learned from that experience. Tactically the carrier is mostly a show of force - a support function that waves a big flag. Once one views what a carrier can do strategically and when one adds an underlying concept - the purpose of war, then it becomes obvious that the expensive weapon really has extremely limited abilities.

Junk science reasoning also concluded power on causes light bulb damage because of experience was confused with knowledge. "Common sense without both experience and those underlying concepts makes one his own worst enemy". Both are required to know something which is why so many with only personal experience still know so little.

The fact that you used others as proof of knowledge is a first symptom of one who never understood what is necessary to have knowledge. But then the ability to understand a bigger picture - to see the same thing strategically - only comes to some with age. After having so much experience and still not learning, they eventually discover why they were not learning from their experiences.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Experience without first learning underlying concepts and principles teaches nothing. Worse, conclusions from experience without those underlying concepts and principles results only in a political agenda - personal bias - little grasp of reality.

How many have seen a light bulb burn out when turned on? Conclusion is that turning on light bulbs causes the damage. Wrong. Completely and 100% wrong. An observation - that personal experience - without underlying science results in classic 'junk science' reasoning.

Since concepts such as tactical verse strategic are not grasped, then little was learned from that experience. Tactically the carrier is mostly a show of force - a support function that waves a big flag. Once one views what a carrier can do strategically and when one adds an underlying concept - the purpose of war, then it becomes obvious that the expensive weapon really has extremely limited abilities.

Junk science reasoning also concluded power on causes light bulb damage because of experience was confused with knowledge. "Common sense without both experience and those underlying concepts makes one his own worst enemy". Both are required to know something which is why so many with only personal experience still know so little.

The fact that you used others as proof of knowledge is a first symptom of one who never understood what is necessary to have knowledge. But then the ability to understand a bigger picture - to see the same thing strategically - only comes to some with age. After having so much experience and still not learning, they eventually discover why they were not learning from their experiences.

Well of course you could also just be full of crap. Your pontifications in no way supports your contentions. You have failed once again to use the facts commonly available to anyone with a computer. An education in Military Science, a college minor, is in fact a form of formal education in the subject matter at hand. Since you have failed to provide any form of credibility to your own experience will take that as an answer to my previous inquiries that you have none. I am putting up my 20 years of active duty against your anonymous ramblings from behind a keyboard without the courtesy to share what you may bring, through your own practical experience, to this discussion. Using others as proof of knowledge is in fact how learning is passed down through the ages. For without the experiences of those who go before us we will make the same mistakes. All forms of education of about nearly any subject is gained through the sharing of personal experience from others so your premise that a "symptom of one who never understood what is necessary to have knowledge" fails in it's own right.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well of course you could also just be full of crap. Your pontifications in no way supports your contentions. You have failed once again to use the facts commonly available to anyone with a computer.

And then the post continues with personal attacks rather than address is issue. But again, a symptom so common among those whose solutiosn are found in 'big dic' thinking. Attack rather than learn. Destroy what feels bad. Deal with what can be seen rather than what is really there.

Such accusations are common among those who are somehow experts only because a uncle flew jets off a carrier or a father was a doctor. Knowledge only works that way when knowledge was not obtained.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

And then the post continues with personal attacks rather than address is issue. But again, a symptom so common among those whose solutiosn are found in 'big dic' thinking. Attack rather than learn. Destroy what feels bad. Deal with what can be seen rather than what is really there.

Such accusations are common among those who are somehow experts only because a uncle flew jets off a carrier or a father was a doctor. Knowledge only works that way when knowledge was not obtained.

Why don't you just answer the questions I have asked of you? What are your qualifications which provide you with such insight? You are obsessed with "big dicks". I have continually addressed the issues in every post. Please respond with something that lends credibility to your unique insight.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

There were no carrier aircraft for Afghanistan if not for tankers from some 'unnamed' land base. Again, carrier was ineffective without land bases.

This does not negate the effectiveness and superiority of the air power. It definately does not minimize the significant role played by ground support AC. I do believe the AC tanker support flies out of the US and the UK for support in both theaters of operation.

General Odom's comments come from a long list of Charlie Rose guests that are all talking about Iran including former Sec of State, generals, policy analysts, and ... well its been a parade for two weeks now.

I have not seen the video so cannot comment.

In response to what Odom suggested, another lady with tremendous 'strategic' grasp notes a problem. The nuclear club is not isolated to one country. It occurs in bursts among equivalent neighbors. If Iran has a bomb, then Turkey must have one.

Worse is what the US is now doing to promote nuclear proliferation while spinning a message about stopping nuclear proliferation. The parade of analysts noted how America may cause the nuclear club to increase from 10 to 30. Except for the one that personally advices George Jr's administration, they were all critical of how American is encouraging nuclear weapon proliferation.

Poppycock. The nuclear proliferation was propagated by Khan from Pakistan and most likely by the North Korean's. We have not been giving nuclear weapons to anyone. Both the Chinese and the Israeli's stole the technology from the US IMHO. Currently the failure of the Russian state to contain it's own resources is one of the greatest threats. The US had active programs to help the former satillite states of the USSR to dispose of thier n. weapons and those programs are well known.

What does the world see? The US will 'Pearl Harbor' any nation that does not have nuclear weapons. The message could not be clearer because of a policy unique only to the George Jr administration - preemption. No other administration for 70 years was stupid enough to promote preemption. A nuclear Iran would be another example of why preemption (promoted by 'big dic' thinking) is so destructive to world stability.

Your opinion, which I do not share.

lack of knowledge is often replaced by a political agenda and personal bias.

Which is exactly the position I believe you are in right at this very moment.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Poppycock. The nuclear proliferation was propagated by Khan from Pakistan and most likely by the North Korean's. We have not been giving nuclear weapons to anyone. Both the Chinese and the Israeli's stole the technology from the US IMHO.

And again you are only posting a tactical perspective - only concluding from what you can see rather than learn why all this was happening.

Why has Russia stopped another program to minimize nuclear material proliferation? Did you know this and know why that program has been terminated? Why Russia terminated cooperation. To understand is not from simple observations about Khan. There is a far larger story here. Even America's deal with India is only promoting nuclear proliferation by those who cannot think beyond their nose.

'Big dic' thinking is typical of those who think tactically - cannot think strategically. That is why 'big dic' thinking always see solutions in preemption - even when history repeatedly demonstrates that is a politicy for long term empire destruction. Its not just opinion. It is fact that preemption is necessary even to create Armageddon.

Your comments so limited to Khan demonstrate thinking no farther than what is in front of your nose. Such thinkers are always enamored by 'big dic' solutions - preemption. The United States - mostly out of ignorance - an intellgence shortage made worse by political objectives - is promoting nuclear proliferation. To see it requires one to see more than current events.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

And again you are only posting a tactical perspective - only concluding from what you can see rather than learn why all this was happening.

Why has Russia stopped another program to minimize nuclear material proliferation? Did you know this and know why that program has been terminated? Why Russia terminated cooperation. To understand is not from simple observations about Khan. There is a far larger story here. Even America's deal with India is only promoting nuclear proliferation by those who cannot think beyond their nose.

'Big dic' thinking is typical of those who think tactically - cannot think strategically. That is why 'big dic' thinking always see solutions in preemption - even when history repeatedly demonstrates that is a politicy for long term empire destruction. Its not just opinion. It is fact that preemption is necessary even to create Armageddon.

Your comments so limited to Khan demonstrate thinking no farther than what is in front of your nose. Such thinkers are always enamored by 'big dic' solutions - preemption. The United States - mostly out of ignorance - an intellgence shortage made worse by political objectives - is promoting nuclear proliferation. To see it requires one to see more than current events.

Your opinion is far from the reality on the ground. You make many assumptions in an attempt to explain that you have some form of superior understanding of the strategic objective you believe that our government should and is in the process of achieving. I believe you are deluded by your political slant that all actions by the current government are evil and based on nefarious intentions. Again, I believe you are deluded as evidenced your assessments.

“big dic” has become your obvious mantra for all things related to military action at any point in the continuum of strategic military objective. It is a straw man diversion of the subject at hand, nuclear proliferation as propagated by third world nations who have no other objective other than to see the destruction of Western Civilization as we know it. All military action, be it local or on a global sense is in fact nothing more than the projection of strategic political objectives based purely on policy as proposed by which ever government entities happens to hold power in the US at the time of implementation. To imply that Armageddon is somehow part of any equation of achieving political or military objectives is fantasy. Your inability to understand how big a role Khan played in the proliferation of nuclear technology to many third world nations, and more specifically to those that were and are empathetic to the pursuit of the Muslim caliphate is telling about your understanding of global politics in the 21 Century. People who hold similar views to your own are placing the future stability at risk. I do not believe that we are actively engaged in any process of proliferation. Quite the contrary.

I am no apologist for Bush or the current administration. I am neither a supporter of the Democratic or Republican Parties. The mess in Iraq is the fault of the Bush Administration.

Please be more specific and less cryptic in your statements concerning the other Russian “program to minimize nuclear material proliferation”. Cryptic descriptions detract from the discussion. I was specifically referring to the removal by the US of weapons grade material from Uzbekistan and other former Soviet satellite states.