Obama's Hubris

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The Iranian regime is fundamentally a revolutionary regime and their irrational fanaticism places them outside the realm of the rational actor. Indeed, their fundamentalist eschatology informs their foreign policy and geopolitics. A nuclear Iran presents, not only a cover for the escalation of their conventional and terrorist hostilities, a disastrous destabilising alteration of the regional balance of powers and an actual existential threat to the sovereignty of Israel.[/quote]

In short, there is nothing to negotiate. Either by coercion or force, Iran is to not have a bomb for any reason.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But have you ever served? Get to know our NCOs. [/quote]

Have you?[/quote]

Of course. Where do you think I get my opinion? Along with 90% of the guys I know. [/quote]

Officers have a significantly richer understanding and appreciation for strategy , while the enlisted ranks have a predilection for the operational and tactical levels.
[/quote]
Fair enough, as far as it goes.

I don’t know. The enlisted personnel are more likely to know than either of us.

Silly implied non-sequitor. If enlisted personnel do not at least believe the strategy might be adequate, it could adversely impact their morale regardless of what they get paid to do. One might as well say enlisted personnel and officers do not get paid to have bad morale, therefore their morale is always excellent.

[/quote]
Enlisted personnel do not formulate strategy. They are concerned with the operational and tactical levels. I am not referring to strategy in the military sense, but the grand strategy of the state.[/quote]

Sure, the brass is response for strategy. And yes, I just followed orders (beat you to it). But that’s not the issue. I am referring to morale. That’s where you get the mood of the troops. Talk to a MSGT over a beer, a guy who put in 20, and you will get story.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]

If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]

MOAR TEXTBOOK RECITAL![/quote]

What an articulated and cogent argument. Arguments are supported by evidence. I cited an influential work in the field of political psychology, “The Psychological Assement of Politcal Leaders”, whose author, Jerrod M. Post, served 21 years with the Central Intelligence Agency where he founded and directed the Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior. Dr. Post brings a lifetime of experience to the groves of academe. [/quote]

If you need to talk about the fragile persona you put forth, desperately seeking a positive reinforcement in the form of attention and recognition of intelligence that you so desperately want others to see in you; hiding an underlying weakness and insecurity about yourself, my door is open.
It’s a little sad that you consistently have to be seen as ‘the smartest guy in the room’ in order to garner some modicum of self esteem in order to move forward in life with some degree of self worth. At least the people on T-Nation think your a genius, right? It’s not much, but it’s something.
Your life and humanity is not worthless, you shouldn’t need feel as if you have to ‘wow’ a bunch of anonymous people on a forum in order to feel good about yourself. This need to be superior by using big SAT words on a forum should not be what defines you. You’re fragility is duly noted. If you need we can tell you everyday what a superior intellect you are, but in the end that means very little. I hope you get better.

Pride is an interesting trait. It almost always masks another.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The Iranian regime is fundamentally a revolutionary regime and their irrational fanaticism places them outside the realm of the rational actor. Indeed, their fundamentalist eschatology informs their foreign policy and geopolitics. A nuclear Iran presents, not only a cover for the escalation of their conventional and terrorist hostilities, a disastrous destabilising alteration of the regional balance of powers and an actual existential threat to the sovereignty of Israel.[/quote]

In short, there is nothing to negotiate. Either by coercion or force, Iran is to not have a bomb for any reason. [/quote]

I never asserted that Iran should be permitted to become a nuclear weapons state. Iran already possesses a breakout capacity. Allowing Iran to maintain that, along with security assurances made contingent on Tehran ending its support of terrorist organizations and a verbal affirmation of Israel’s sovereignty, is a much more preferable outcome than a bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities. The P5+1 nuclear negotiations is currently the best means to those ends. Force and coercion are essentially the same in the realm of international politics. Compellence can take both peaceful and physical modes, so I’m unsure why you assert that force is not only the ultima ratio, but the first argument.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But have you ever served? Get to know our NCOs. [/quote]

Have you?[/quote]

Of course. Where do you think I get my opinion? Along with 90% of the guys I know. [/quote]

Officers have a significantly richer understanding and appreciation for strategy , while the enlisted ranks have a predilection for the operational and tactical levels. The wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq have have been significantly detrimental toward the morale of the American military, yet enlisted personel’s perception of American grand strategy from 2008 onwards has somehow had a greater impact? Enlisted personnel don’t get paid to strategize, they execute.

What was your branch of service, and what was your MOS? [/quote]

Seriously guy, you are what 24 and in grad school?

And your goal is to be the guy in the think tank that watches on the monitor while the big boys put foot to ass…and then go home and high five yourself.

Typical.
[/quote]

Indicate where I’ve expressed the above sentiment. By the way, those who are on duty in tactical operations centers are those who produced the intelligence that led to the identification of the objective in the first place and actively support operators conducting direct action missions. Analysts and operators have a symbiotic relationship.

Typical of what, exactly? The only thing typical in foreign policy discussions on PWI is the habit of individuals who are wholly unfamiliar with the fundamental concepts and works of the relevant disciplines throwing ad hominems at those who have the audacity to draw upon the work of prominent practitioners and academics. Heaven forbid that one sincerely address an evidenced argument that doesn’t jive with their nescient preconceptions.[/quote]

Sweet baby jeebus man, you are quoting ACADEMICS who have never been in the shit. It’s easy to lecture from the ivory tower you seem to long to be in, that’s why I said typical. Big words mean exactly shit when your carefully prepped lecture on how it should work…simply doesn’t.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]

If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]

MOAR TEXTBOOK RECITAL![/quote]

What an articulated and cogent argument. Arguments are supported by evidence. I cited an influential work in the field of political psychology, “The Psychological Assement of Politcal Leaders”, whose author, Jerrod M. Post, served 21 years with the Central Intelligence Agency where he founded and directed the Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior. Dr. Post brings a lifetime of experience to the groves of academe. [/quote]

If you need to talk about the fragile persona you put forth, desperately seeking a positive reinforcement in the form of attention and recognition of intelligence that you so desperately want others to see in you; hiding an underlying weakness and insecurity about yourself, my door is open.
It’s a little sad that you consistently have to be seen as ‘the smartest guy in the room’ in order to garner some modicum of self esteem in order to move forward in life with some degree of self worth. At least the people on T-Nation think your a genius, right? It’s not much, but it’s something.
Your life and humanity is not worthless, you shouldn’t need feel as if you have to ‘wow’ a bunch of anonymous people on a forum in order to feel good about yourself. This need to be superior by using big SAT words on a forum should not be what defines you. You’re fragility is duly noted. If you need we can tell you everyday what a superior intellect you are, but in the end that means very little. I hope you get better. [/quote]

Cute. More internet psychoanalysis from someone who lacks the credentials to do so in a clinical setting, and yet another attempt to avoid actually addressing my post. I post in this forum as a form of catharsis and to practice argumentation. It does not follow that I seek intellectual validation because I do not constrain myself to the vernacular. Writing in such a manner wouldn’t serve my purposes, and my writing style is hardly inaccessible. If my posts read like Kant, you might actually have a point. I also fail to see how using basic terminology from fields pertinent to the subject on hand constitutes an attempt to “wow” the posters who view and participate in PWI. It’s simply an attempt to bring a modicum of rigor to the discussion. Personally, I have learned a great deal from other posters who do so on a regular basis. Thanks for the concern, Dr. Pat, but I’m perfectly sercure in the modest intellect that I do possess.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But have you ever served? Get to know our NCOs. [/quote]

Have you?[/quote]

Of course. Where do you think I get my opinion? Along with 90% of the guys I know. [/quote]

Officers have a significantly richer understanding and appreciation for strategy , while the enlisted ranks have a predilection for the operational and tactical levels. The wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq have have been significantly detrimental toward the morale of the American military, yet enlisted personel’s perception of American grand strategy from 2008 onwards has somehow had a greater impact? Enlisted personnel don’t get paid to strategize, they execute.

What was your branch of service, and what was your MOS? [/quote]

Seriously guy, you are what 24 and in grad school?

And your goal is to be the guy in the think tank that watches on the monitor while the big boys put foot to ass…and then go home and high five yourself.

Typical.
[/quote]

Indicate where I’ve expressed the above sentiment. By the way, those who are on duty in tactical operations centers are those who produced the intelligence that led to the identification of the objective in the first place and actively support operators conducting direct action missions. Analysts and operators have a symbiotic relationship.

Typical of what, exactly? The only thing typical in foreign policy discussions on PWI is the habit of individuals who are wholly unfamiliar with the fundamental concepts and works of the relevant disciplines throwing ad hominems at those who have the audacity to draw upon the work of prominent practitioners and academics. Heaven forbid that one sincerely address an evidenced argument that doesn’t jive with their nescient preconceptions.[/quote]

Sweet baby jeebus man, you are quoting ACADEMICS who have never been in the shit. It’s easy to lecture from the ivory tower you seem to long to be in, that’s why I said typical. Big words mean exactly shit when your carefully prepped lecture on how it should work…simply doesn’t.[/quote]

Please indicate where I’ve quoted the work of anyone in this tread. I drew upon the work of Dr. Jerrod M. Post to argue that the psychological analysis of political leaders is an incredibly challenging endeavor for a group of highly qualified experts working in close collaboration and with the institutional resources of one of the world’ foremost intelligence agencies. Post is hardly an out of touch theorist locked away in an ivory tower. He served 21 years with the Central Intelligence Agency where he founded and directed the Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior. I’m inclined to hold his professional opinion in higher regard than that of anyone attempting to psychologically profile the POTUS who lacks both a doctorate in the field and who has zero experience in applied political psychology.

The caricature of academics as out of touch and aloof thinkers whose work is not grounded in experience is trite, to say the least. The majority of the work I quote and draw upon in this forum is authored by individuals who have lifetimes of experience in the intelligence, defense, and diplomatic communities.

Force is not the “first argument”. For 35+ years Iran has been an international pariah state, the world’s largest exporter of terrorism and a sword of Damocles hanging over the Middle East; an unpredictable and irrational regime with hostile designs on all its neighbours, the US and her allies.

The Iranian regime came to power via an act of war against the United States, kidnapped United States civilians and government personnel from the grounds of the United States embassy: protected territory for diplomatic missions and United States civilians. After this act of perfidy, the likes of which had not been seen in International Relations since the Imperial Japanese in The Second World War, the Iranians set up a terrorist organ in Lebanon that truck bombed US Marine Barracks killing 500 Marines, forced the withdrawal of UN Peace keepers, the French, Americans fuelled a sectarian war, took over the South of the country, menaced and attacked Israel and drew them into the conflict.

Throughout the late 80’s and the 90’s the Iranians secured their stranglehold on the South of Lebanon, exported terrorism to the West(bombing synagogue in Argentina, truck bombing the Saudis, arming Palestinian terrorists, directing Hezbollah attacks on Israel and securing their hold on Lebanon).

Iran dispersed its enrichment facilities across multiple locations in bunkers and in the side of a mountain. They cynically used the negotiations to give them enough time to go critical. They have demonstrated medium range ballistic missile technology and within a few years they will present a credible first strike threat; a Gulf state consortium is already working on a nuclear capacity with help from Pakistan.

An irrational, fundamentalist apocalyptic theocratic regime like Iran doesn’t need defensive missile technology. Its offensive strike capacity serves a defensive purpose. Iran will be safe to escalate its proxy war on Israel through Hezbollah. It will extend its stranglehold on Lebanon. The alliance arrayed against the West; Russian-backed Iran and Syria and their stranglehold of the Shia crescent that runs through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon; their domination of Southern Lebanon, their arming of militias and menacing of Israel. The West needs to roll back Iranian power from the crescent and drive a wedge between Russia and the Syrians/Iranians and undermine both regimes.

The roll back of Hezbollah, the Iranians and Bashar al-Assad serves to contain Russia in the region; we can force them to redirect their efforts into Central Asia to expand their energy concerns there. The removal of state sponsorship of Shia militias will reduce tensions in Iraq and loosen Hezbollah’s stranglehold on Lebanon. If we can roll back Russian power in the region we can seek Gulf state help in redirecting vanguard Sunni Islamists to separatist struggles in the Caucasus and Central Asia; to Russia’s back yard. An arms build up in Eastern Europe and a Turkish pipeline into Western Europe to undercut Gazprom should be the goal. An Israeli-Cyprus line to Western Europe could also undercut Russian energy geostrategic dominance in Europe.

Edited

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]

If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]

FYI, Psychiatry is not the same as psychology.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]

If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]

FYI, Psychiatry is not the same as psychology. [/quote]

Yea, a mea culpa is owed on my part. I should have refered to the field of psychology more generally. I conflated the two.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]

If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]

MOAR TEXTBOOK RECITAL![/quote]

What an articulated and cogent argument. Arguments are supported by evidence. I cited an influential work in the field of political psychology, “The Psychological Assement of Politcal Leaders”, whose author, Jerrod M. Post, served 21 years with the Central Intelligence Agency where he founded and directed the Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior. Dr. Post brings a lifetime of experience to the groves of academe. [/quote]

If you need to talk about the fragile persona you put forth, desperately seeking a positive reinforcement in the form of attention and recognition of intelligence that you so desperately want others to see in you; hiding an underlying weakness and insecurity about yourself, my door is open.
It’s a little sad that you consistently have to be seen as ‘the smartest guy in the room’ in order to garner some modicum of self esteem in order to move forward in life with some degree of self worth. At least the people on T-Nation think your a genius, right? It’s not much, but it’s something.
Your life and humanity is not worthless, you shouldn’t need feel as if you have to ‘wow’ a bunch of anonymous people on a forum in order to feel good about yourself. This need to be superior by using big SAT words on a forum should not be what defines you. You’re fragility is duly noted. If you need we can tell you everyday what a superior intellect you are, but in the end that means very little. I hope you get better. [/quote]

Cute. More internet psychoanalysis from someone who lacks the credentials to do so in a clinical setting, and yet another attempt to avoid actually addressing my post. I post in this forum as a form of catharsis and to practice argumentation. It does not follow that I seek intellectual validation because I do not constrain myself to the vernacular. Writing in such a manner wouldn’t serve my purposes, and my writing style is hardly inaccessible. If my posts read like Kant, you might actually have a point. I also fail to see how using basic terminology from fields pertinent to the subject on hand constitutes an attempt to “wow” the posters who view and participate in PWI. It’s simply an attempt to bring a modicum of rigor to the discussion. Personally, I have learned a great deal from other posters who do so on a regular basis. Thanks for the concern, Dr. Pat, but I’m perfectly sercure in the modest intellect that I do possess. [/quote]

Oh please. Let’s cut the bullshit shall we? You’re not adding any sort of ‘rigor’ to anything. You derail threads and focus on minutia in a post as much as anybody else here. What you do is put on an act, a transparent one that everybody sees through, which is why you get so much crap for it.
It’s nothing more than a big “Hey look at me!” sign, in as much as if you were standing on the beach butt naked spinning a sigh that says just that.
You demand evidence from people making assertions when you make assertions and don’t back them up yourself. Like when you asserted that the blood and treasure spent in Iraq and Afghanistan was demoralizing to the military but failed to provide any evidence for it.
Basically, you’re not fooling anybody but yourself.
And like I said, you don’t know what credentials I hold, I don’t talk about my resume. I don’t need the attention. One can read my posts, or not read them it’s all good to me. If I get bored, I don’t post. If I want to, I do. And you can believe me, or not, I don’t really care.
Like everybody else, I will share an opinion on a topic, which holds as much value as anybody else’s. The only thing that creeps me out is when people get a hard-on for me and deliberately target me beyond what I say in a post. Those are the things I find weird.
But yes, you are just putting on a show here, I don’t need a psychology degree to figure that out. I don’t understand the motivation as there are better forums with more academic rigor than this one on a body building web site.
What we do have, is interesting characters and that’s why I like it here.

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Pride is an interesting trait. It almost always masks another. [/quote]

Pride is almost always a veneer.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]

If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]

It doesn’t take an advanced degree to tell when someone is an asshole, asshole

:)[/quote]

I bow to your chi, Sir Chicken. Thanks :)[/quote]

Anytime! LOL

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The Iranian regime is fundamentally a revolutionary regime and their irrational fanaticism places them outside the realm of the rational actor. Indeed, their fundamentalist eschatology informs their foreign policy and geopolitics. A nuclear Iran presents, not only a cover for the escalation of their conventional and terrorist hostilities, a disastrous destabilising alteration of the regional balance of powers and an actual existential threat to the sovereignty of Israel.[/quote]

In short, there is nothing to negotiate. Either by coercion or force, Iran is to not have a bomb for any reason. [/quote]

I never asserted that Iran should be permitted to become a nuclear weapons state. Iran already possesses a breakout capacity. Allowing Iran to maintain that, along with security assurances made contingent on Tehran ending its support of terrorist organizations and a verbal affirmation of Israel’s sovereignty, is a much more preferable outcome than a bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities. The P5+1 nuclear negotiations is currently the best means to those ends. Force and coercion are essentially the same in the realm of international politics. Compellence can take both peaceful and physical modes, so I’m unsure why you assert that force is not only the ultima ratio, but the first argument. [/quote]

One would have to be a fool to believe that Iran would adhere to the agreement. Historically, they go through such motions as a distraction, or to give an impression of compliance. It buys them time to maneuver and distracts their enemies from what they are really trying to accomplish.
The P5+1 sounds good, but we all know it’s bullshit. And any hope of the negotiations actually working has already been derailed by Obama’s personal letter to the Ayatollah . In other words, if this negotiation really was making any head way and producing fruit, why would Obama have to send a ‘secret’ letter to the regime? He wouldn’t. It’s a farce.
Iran want’s a bomb, they are working towards a bomb, and they will do anything to distract and deceive the international community to buy themselves time to accomplish their goal.

Do I believe the ‘evil Jews’ about Iran? Yes, 100%. Their national security is the most threatened by the prospect. They have the most skin in the game, their assessment is the one I trust the most.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Force is not the “first argument”. For 35+ years Iran has been an international pariah state, the world’s largest exporter of terrorism and a sword of Damocles hanging over the Middle East; an unpredictable and irrational regime with hostile designs on all its neighbours, the US and her allies.

The Iranian regime came to power via an act of war against the United States, kidnapped United States civilians and government personnel from the grounds of the United States embassy: protected territory for diplomatic missions and United States civilians. After this act of perfidy, the likes of which had not been seen in International Relations since the Imperial Japanese in The Second World War, the Iranians set up a terrorist organ in Lebanon that truck bombed US Marine Barracks killing 500 Marines, forced the withdrawal of UN Peace keepers, the French, Americans fuelled a sectarian war, took over the South of the country, menaced and attacked Israel and drew them into the conflict.

Throughout the late 80’s and the 90’s the Iranians secured their stranglehold on the South of Lebanon, exported terrorism to the West(bombing synagogue in Argentina, truck bombing the Saudis, arming Palestinian terrorists, directing Hezbollah attacks on Israel and securing their hold on Lebanon).

Iran dispersed its enrichment facilities across multiple locations in bunkers and in the side of a mountain. They cynically used the negotiations to give them enough time to go critical. They have demonstrated medium range ballistic missile technology and within a few years they will present a credible first strike threat; a Gulf state consortium is already working on a nuclear capacity with help from Pakistan.

An irrational, fundamentalist apocalyptic theocratic regime like Iran doesn’t need defensive missile technology. Its offensive strike capacity serves a defensive purpose. Iran will be safe to escalate its proxy war on Israel through Hezbollah. It will extend its stranglehold on Lebanon. The alliance arrayed against the West; Russian-backed Iran and Syria and their stranglehold of the Shia crescent that runs through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon; their domination of Southern Lebanon, their arming of militias and menacing of Israel. The West needs to roll back Iranian power from the crescent and drive a wedge between Russia and the Syrians/Iranians and undermine both regimes.

The roll back of Hezbollah, the Iranians and Bashar al-Assad serves to contain Russia in the region; we can force them to redirect their efforts into Central Asia to expand their energy concerns there. The removal of state sponsorship of Shia militias will reduce tensions in Iraq and loosen Hezbollah’s stranglehold on Lebanon. If we can roll back Russian power in the region we can seek Gulf state help in redirecting vanguard Sunni Islamists to separatist struggles in the Caucasus and Central Asia; to Russia’s back yard. An arms build up in Eastern Europe and a Turkish pipeline into Western Europe to undercut Gazprom should be the goal. An Israeli-Cyprus line to Western Europe could also undercut Russian energy geostrategic dominance in Europe.

Edited[/quote]

But, but Obama sent a secret letter! Certainly, that should curtail their nuclear ambitions, right?

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But have you ever served? Get to know our NCOs. [/quote]

Have you?[/quote]

Of course. Where do you think I get my opinion? Along with 90% of the guys I know. [/quote]

Officers have a significantly richer understanding and appreciation for strategy , while the enlisted ranks have a predilection for the operational and tactical levels. The wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq have have been significantly detrimental toward the morale of the American military, yet enlisted personel’s perception of American grand strategy from 2008 onwards has somehow had a greater impact? Enlisted personnel don’t get paid to strategize, they execute.

What was your branch of service, and what was your MOS? [/quote]

Army

Cav Scout

Enlisted[/quote]

Same here. 7th Cav

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
That’s a good take on him Pat. I especially like the 2/3s perspective. [/quote]

If memory serves me, Pat doesn’t hold a doctorate in psychology, and I’m unsure if he has a bachelor’s degree in the field for that matter. The psychological analysis of statesmen is no easy task. Even if he had advanced training in psychiatry, which he doesn’t, that alone would still be insufficient for the complex and daunting requirements of the task. As evidenced by the CIA’s political psychology program launced in 1965, such a Herculean intellectual endeavor requires many highly qualified individuals working in close collaboration.[/quote]

Memory wouldn’t serve you as I have never talked about it. I have said very little in terms of my personal accomplishments. I don’t feel the need to ‘toot my own horn’ and it’s nobody’s business what I studied, or what degrees I have.

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
But have you ever served? Get to know our NCOs. [/quote]

Have you?[/quote]

Of course. Where do you think I get my opinion? Along with 90% of the guys I know. [/quote]

Officers have a significantly richer understanding and appreciation for strategy , while the enlisted ranks have a predilection for the operational and tactical levels. The wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq have have been significantly detrimental toward the morale of the American military, yet enlisted personel’s perception of American grand strategy from 2008 onwards has somehow had a greater impact? Enlisted personnel don’t get paid to strategize, they execute.

What was your branch of service, and what was your MOS? [/quote]

Army

Cav Scout

Enlisted[/quote]

Same here. 7th Cav

[/quote]

I salute you both! Happy belated Veteran’s Day, you and all military personnel past and present have my gratitude and appreciation.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Force is not the “first argument”. For 35+ years Iran has been an international pariah state, the world’s largest exporter of terrorism and a sword of Damocles hanging over the Middle East; an unpredictable and irrational regime with hostile designs on all its neighbours, the US and her allies.

The Iranian regime came to power via an act of war against the United States, kidnapped United States civilians and government personnel from the grounds of the United States embassy: protected territory for diplomatic missions and United States civilians. After this act of perfidy, the likes of which had not been seen in International Relations since the Imperial Japanese in The Second World War, the Iranians set up a terrorist organ in Lebanon that truck bombed US Marine Barracks killing 500 Marines, forced the withdrawal of UN Peace keepers, the French, Americans fuelled a sectarian war, took over the South of the country, menaced and attacked Israel and drew them into the conflict.

Throughout the late 80’s and the 90’s the Iranians secured their stranglehold on the South of Lebanon, exported terrorism to the West(bombing synagogue in Argentina, truck bombing the Saudis, arming Palestinian terrorists, directing Hezbollah attacks on Israel and securing their hold on Lebanon).

Iran dispersed its enrichment facilities across multiple locations in bunkers and in the side of a mountain. They cynically used the negotiations to give them enough time to go critical. They have demonstrated medium range ballistic missile technology and within a few years they will present a credible first strike threat; a Gulf state consortium is already working on a nuclear capacity with help from Pakistan.

An irrational, fundamentalist apocalyptic theocratic regime like Iran doesn’t need defensive missile technology. Its offensive strike capacity serves a defensive purpose. Iran will be safe to escalate its proxy war on Israel through Hezbollah. It will extend its stranglehold on Lebanon. The alliance arrayed against the West; Russian-backed Iran and Syria and their stranglehold of the Shia crescent that runs through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon; their domination of Southern Lebanon, their arming of militias and menacing of Israel. The West needs to roll back Iranian power from the crescent and drive a wedge between Russia and the Syrians/Iranians and undermine both regimes.

The roll back of Hezbollah, the Iranians and Bashar al-Assad serves to contain Russia in the region; we can force them to redirect their efforts into Central Asia to expand their energy concerns there. The removal of state sponsorship of Shia militias will reduce tensions in Iraq and loosen Hezbollah’s stranglehold on Lebanon. If we can roll back Russian power in the region we can seek Gulf state help in redirecting vanguard Sunni Islamists to separatist struggles in the Caucasus and Central Asia; to Russia’s back yard. An arms build up in Eastern Europe and a Turkish pipeline into Western Europe to undercut Gazprom should be the goal. An Israeli-Cyprus line to Western Europe could also undercut Russian energy geostrategic dominance in Europe.

Edited[/quote]

But, but Obama sent a secret letter! Certainly, that should curtail their nuclear ambitions, right?[/quote]

No one is asserting that. Crippling sanctions along with the threat of military force brought Iran to the negotionating table. That’s coercive diplomacy. It’s not in the interests of any party for the negotiations to devolve into armed conflict.