[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
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]
You’re wasting your time. This is not a knock on Bismark, but it doesn’t surprise me that he has no idea how this works.
It’s no different than Obama not understanding why a Marine shouldn’t hold his God Damn umbrella. The difference is the CIC should at least know better.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
No one is asserting that. Crippling sanctions along with the threat of military force brought Iran to the negotiating table. That’s coercive diplomacy. It’s not in the interests of any party for the negotiations to devolve into armed conflict. [/quote]
Crippling sanctions may have helped bring Iran to the negotiating table, but my sense is that the negotiations are a sham. They have an interest in lifting sanctions, but with Russia and China willing to play ball with them, I don’t sense it’s a priority. It’s buying them time to maneuver.
You don’t actually believe Iran is serious in anyway about ending their goal of weaponizing Uranium, do you? You don’t think this summit has any teeth, do you? It’s a dog and pony show.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
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]
You’re wasting your time. This is not a knock on Bismark, but it doesn’t surprise me that he has no idea how this works.
It’s no different than Obama not understanding why a Marine shouldn’t hold his God Damn umbrella. The difference is the CIC should at least know better. [/quote]
One would think he would.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
No one is asserting that. Crippling sanctions along with the threat of military force brought Iran to the negotiating table. That’s coercive diplomacy. It’s not in the interests of any party for the negotiations to devolve into armed conflict. [/quote]
Crippling sanctions may have helped bring Iran to the negotiating table, but my sense is that the negotiations are a sham. They have an interest in lifting sanctions, but with Russia and China willing to play ball with them, I don’t sense it’s a priority. It’s buying them time to maneuver.
You don’t actually believe Iran is serious in anyway about ending their goal of weaponizing Uranium, do you? You don’t think this summit has any teeth, do you? It’s a dog and pony show.[/quote]
China and Russia support the U.S. led sanction regime. Both states had veto power over the UNSC implemented sanctions, yet both sided with the France, the U.K, and the U.S. Iran already has achieved breakout capacity, which they should be allowed to maintain. That, along with security assurances made contingent on Iranian behavior, may be sufficient to allay its perpetual insecurity. The nuclear negotiations are not a “summit”. And no, me pointing that out is not minutiae. That you use a very specific diplomatic term with a very specific meaning incorrectly is indicative that you haven’t put in much intellectual groundwork in regard to diplomacy in general and the P5+1 nuclear negotiations in particular.
"Our bottom line is unambiguous, crystal clear, and, quite frankly, written in stone: Iran will not, shall not obtain a nuclear weapon.
A major step in the right direction of that pursuit was taken last January when we began implementing a negotiating framework called the Joint Plan of Action. In return for limited sanctions relief, Iran committed â?? while talks are underway â?? to freeze and even roll back key components of its nuclear activities. Specifically, Iran has halted the expansion of its overall enrichment capacity; put a cap on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride; stopped the production of uranium enriched to 20 percent; agreed not to make further advances at the Arak heavy water reactor; and opened the door to unprecedented daily access for international inspectors to the facilities at Natanz and Fordow.
At the time the Joint Plan was announced, many observers expressed profound doubt that Iran would abide by its commitments. But according to the IAEA â?? the International Atomic Energy Agency â?? Iran has done what it promised to do. The result is a nuclear program that is more constrained and transparent than it has been in many years. In turn, the P5+1 has fulfilled its commitment to provide limited sanctions relief. More extensive relief will come when â?? and only when â?? we are able to arrive at a comprehensive deal that addresses the concerns of the world community. Such a plan, if fully implemented, would give confidence that Iranâ??s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and would enable the Iranian people to look forward to a much brighter future."
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
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]
You’re wasting your time. This is not a knock on Bismark, but it doesn’t surprise me that he has no idea how this works.
It’s no different than Obama not understanding why a Marine shouldn’t hold his God Damn umbrella. The difference is the CIC should at least know better. [/quote]
Simply looking at military mental health statistics is indicative that the morale of the U.S. Military has been significantly degraded in the post 9-11 era.
Circa 2006-
"Focusing on the active component: about 23 percent are now overseas. During most of the 1990s (after Desert Storm), the proportion overseas was approximately 17-17.5 percent. What is more telling, however, is that the average proportion of active-component troops involved in actual operations today is five times larger than in the mid- to late-1990s. And much of this stress is focused on the Army, which now routinely has one-third of its active component personnel (and more than one-half of its active combat brigades) stationed or deployed overseas.
Together with other commitments, the war has required Marine units to deploy at rates more than 25 percent higher than what the service considers acceptable for long periods. Active Army units have been exceeding their deployment standards by 60 percent. These rates would have been even higher but that DOD leaned heavily on National Guard and Reserve units, deploying as many as 100,000 reserve personnel overseas at one time for tours averaging 342 days. The reserve components have not been leaned on so heavily for such an extended period since the Korean war.
High rates of deployment tempo (deptempo) maintained over long periods are known to adversely affect training, morale, and discipline – causing a degradation in capability and, eventually, problems in personnel retention and recruitment."
Carl A. Castro and Amy B. Adler, “OPTEMPO: Effects on Soldier and Unit Readiness,” Parameters (Autumn 1999), pp. 86-95; Michael C. Ryan, Military Readiness, Operations Tempo, and Personnel Tempo: Are US Forces Doing Too Much? (Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, 14 January 1998); and, John C. F. Tillson, Reducing the Impact of Tempo (Alexandria VA: Institute for Defense Analysis, October 1999).
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
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]
You’re wasting your time. This is not a knock on Bismark, but it doesn’t surprise me that he has no idea how this works.
It’s no different than Obama not understanding why a Marine shouldn’t hold his God Damn umbrella. The difference is the CIC should at least know better. [/quote]
Simply looking at military mental health statistics is indicative that the morale of the U.S. Military has been significantly degraded in the post 9-11 era.
[/quote]
Like I said, no offense, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Mental health statistics as a measure of morale… No.
[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]
Nice! I was in the 3rd. Only for just over a year though…
[quote]pat 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]
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]
Agree with this 100%. This is a place to share opinions. Not to seek validation.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
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]
You’re wasting your time. This is not a knock on Bismark, but it doesn’t surprise me that he has no idea how this works.
It’s no different than Obama not understanding why a Marine shouldn’t hold his God Damn umbrella. The difference is the CIC should at least know better. [/quote]
Simply looking at military mental health statistics is indicative that the morale of the U.S. Military has been significantly degraded in the post 9-11 era.
[/quote]
Like I said, no offense, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Mental health statistics as a measure of morale… No.[/quote]
Did they have these metrics and scrutinize them in previous wars? I don’t recall the PTSD stats in WWI. Maybe you can assist. So what do we compare these numbers to?
Bismark, those stats and conditions have always existed postwar. It’s just now we measure them with folks in White Coats.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
China and Russia support the U.S. led sanction regime. Both states had veto power over the UNSC implemented sanctions, yet both sided with the France, the U.K, and the U.S. Iran already has achieved breakout capacity,
[/quote]
They had no choice given the IAEA(an independent body) had officially reported Iran’s military nuclear program and their persistent efforts to obstruct and deceive inspectors and bypass nuclear technology sanctions with an array of front companies.
However, Russia and China’s efforts at the UN are characterised by a persistent effort to obstruct any efforts of the Security Council and the United States to curtail the Iranian regime.
If it’s within the capacity of the United States and Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear program it should do so? Surely? Why “should” Iran be allowed to maintain its nuclear program? Isn’t it in the interests of the United States and her allies that Iran doesn’t “maintain” its nuclear program? It’s the official line of The State Dept. - that you quoted - that Iran will not be allowed a nuclear weapon. You oppose this? On practical grounds or on principle? Is a nuclear Iran offsetting some power in the region I’m not aware of? Isn’t Iran a rogue regime and international pariah state menacing its neighbours; posing an existential threat to one America’s closest allies?
Saudi Arabia and UAE have been in talks and limited work with Pakistan on a nuclear program. Faisal bin Turki said SA has to and will go nuclear if Iran does. An arms race. And the two most extreme religious regimes; Wahhabis and Khomeinis, pointing nuclear missiles at each in the midst of a sectarian proxy civil war they’re both involved with. What could go wrong?
We’ve already seen Iran threatening the Suez during the recent instability in Egypt. A nuclear Iran with sanctions lifted would facilitate a massive conventional buildup by the Iranian regime, the escalation of terrorism on a global scale.
Negotiations with Iran have been in the spirit of the Munich Conference. No negotiations with or assurances from Iran should be taken seriously, given their proven track record of perfidy and deception.
Iran’s foreign minister demands the West bow to their “inalienable nuclear rights”:
“As the deadline looms, and as Republicans are set to control Congress, I urge my colleagues to not allow President Obama to trade away the only leverage we have over the mullahs in Tehran in exchange for minor and easily reversible modifications by Iran on its nuclear weapons program,” Ros-Lehtinen said.
With less than two weeks before talks are scheduled to end, new evidence indicates that Iran’s nuclear program is more advanced than previously known - and that Tehran is making a concerted effort to keep this fact a secret.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
No one is asserting that. Crippling sanctions along with the threat of military force brought Iran to the negotiating table. That’s coercive diplomacy. It’s not in the interests of any party for the negotiations to devolve into armed conflict. [/quote]
Crippling sanctions may have helped bring Iran to the negotiating table, but my sense is that the negotiations are a sham. They have an interest in lifting sanctions, but with Russia and China willing to play ball with them, I don’t sense it’s a priority. It’s buying them time to maneuver.
You don’t actually believe Iran is serious in anyway about ending their goal of weaponizing Uranium, do you? You don’t think this summit has any teeth, do you? It’s a dog and pony show.[/quote]
China and Russia support the U.S. led sanction regime. Both states had veto power over the UNSC implemented sanctions, yet both sided with the France, the U.K, and the U.S. Iran already has achieved breakout capacity, which they should be allowed to maintain. That, along with security assurances made contingent on Iranian behavior, may be sufficient to allay its perpetual insecurity. The nuclear negotiations are not a “summit”. And no, me pointing that out is not `. That you use a very specific diplomatic term with a very specific meaning incorrectly is indicative that you haven’t put in much intellectual groundwork in regard to diplomacy in general and the P5+1 nuclear negotiations in particular.
"Our bottom line is unambiguous, crystal clear, and, quite frankly, written in stone: Iran will not, shall not obtain a nuclear weapon.
A major step in the right direction of that pursuit was taken last January when we began implementing a negotiating framework called the Joint Plan of Action. In return for limited sanctions relief, Iran committed â?? while talks are underway â?? to freeze and even roll back key components of its nuclear activities. Specifically, Iran has halted the expansion of its overall enrichment capacity; put a cap on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride; stopped the production of uranium enriched to 20 percent; agreed not to make further advances at the Arak heavy water reactor; and opened the door to unprecedented daily access for international inspectors to the facilities at Natanz and Fordow.
At the time the Joint Plan was announced, many observers expressed profound doubt that Iran would abide by its commitments. But according to the IAEA â?? the International Atomic Energy Agency â?? Iran has done what it promised to do. The result is a nuclear program that is more constrained and transparent than it has been in many years. In turn, the P5+1 has fulfilled its commitment to provide limited sanctions relief. More extensive relief will come when â?? and only when â?? we are able to arrive at a comprehensive deal that addresses the concerns of the world community. Such a plan, if fully implemented, would give confidence that Iranâ??s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and would enable the Iranian people to look forward to a much brighter future."
http://m.state.gov/md233306.htm
[/quote]
Of course Russia and China support the sanctions against Iran by the western powers, it’s strengthens their ties and influence with Tehran. China and Russia are gleefully undermining the sanctions by strengthening their ties with Tehran. They have everything to gain from western sanctions.
You speak like Russia actually cares whether Iran gets a nuclear weapon or not. Russia has long spoken out of both sides of their mouth regarding this, there is no reason to believe they have changed their tune. Russia has been helping Iran with their nuclear program and put them on the path to where they are today.
“We know of at least one former nuclear weapons expert in Russia who helped Iran develop a triggering mechanism to set off high explosives in a nuclear weapon,” he said.
http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/resources.cfm?id=266
Neither Russia or China give a fly shit whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons, nor whether the west sanctions them. They have their own interests they are pursuing. If we had such faith in these negotiations, why then, did obama write his secret, well known, letter?
It’s a dog and pony show. The showdown about Iran’s nuclear weapons program will continue long after the dog and pony show concludes. This is a sham, a distraction. Only a fool would believe it’s going to work.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Iran’s foreign minister demands the West bow to their “inalienable nuclear rights”:
“As the deadline looms, and as Republicans are set to control Congress, I urge my colleagues to not allow President Obama to trade away the only leverage we have over the mullahs in Tehran in exchange for minor and easily reversible modifications by Iran on its nuclear weapons program,” Ros-Lehtinen said.
With less than two weeks before talks are scheduled to end, new evidence indicates that Iran’s nuclear program is more advanced than previously known - and that Tehran is making a concerted effort to keep this fact a secret.
Yup.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
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]
You’re wasting your time. This is not a knock on Bismark, but it doesn’t surprise me that he has no idea how this works.
It’s no different than Obama not understanding why a Marine shouldn’t hold his God Damn umbrella. The difference is the CIC should at least know better. [/quote]
Simply looking at military mental health statistics is indicative that the morale of the U.S. Military has been significantly degraded in the post 9-11 era.
[/quote]
Like I said, no offense, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Mental health statistics as a measure of morale… No.[/quote]
Did they have these metrics and scrutinize them in previous wars? I don’t recall the PTSD stats in WWI. Maybe you can assist. So what do we compare these numbers to?
Bismark, those stats and conditions have always existed postwar. It’s just now we measure them with folks in White Coats.
[/quote]
I don’t think PTSD was even coined until after the first Gulf War (weren’t they just calling it Gulf War syndrome for a while?). I could be wrong.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
No one is asserting that. Crippling sanctions along with the threat of military force brought Iran to the negotiating table. That’s coercive diplomacy. It’s not in the interests of any party for the negotiations to devolve into armed conflict. [/quote]
Crippling sanctions may have helped bring Iran to the negotiating table, but my sense is that the negotiations are a sham. They have an interest in lifting sanctions, but with Russia and China willing to play ball with them, I don’t sense it’s a priority. It’s buying them time to maneuver.
You don’t actually believe Iran is serious in anyway about ending their goal of weaponizing Uranium, do you? You don’t think this summit has any teeth, do you? It’s a dog and pony show.[/quote]
China and Russia support the U.S. led sanction regime. Both states had veto power over the UNSC implemented sanctions, yet both sided with the France, the U.K, and the U.S. Iran already has achieved breakout capacity, which they should be allowed to maintain. That, along with security assurances made contingent on Iranian behavior, may be sufficient to allay its perpetual insecurity. The nuclear negotiations are not a “summit”. And no, me pointing that out is not `. That you use a very specific diplomatic term with a very specific meaning incorrectly is indicative that you haven’t put in much intellectual groundwork in regard to diplomacy in general and the P5+1 nuclear negotiations in particular.
"Our bottom line is unambiguous, crystal clear, and, quite frankly, written in stone: Iran will not, shall not obtain a nuclear weapon.
A major step in the right direction of that pursuit was taken last January when we began implementing a negotiating framework called the Joint Plan of Action. In return for limited sanctions relief, Iran committed �¢?? while talks are underway �¢?? to freeze and even roll back key components of its nuclear activities. Specifically, Iran has halted the expansion of its overall enrichment capacity; put a cap on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride; stopped the production of uranium enriched to 20 percent; agreed not to make further advances at the Arak heavy water reactor; and opened the door to unprecedented daily access for international inspectors to the facilities at Natanz and Fordow.
At the time the Joint Plan was announced, many observers expressed profound doubt that Iran would abide by its commitments. But according to the IAEA �¢?? the International Atomic Energy Agency �¢?? Iran has done what it promised to do. The result is a nuclear program that is more constrained and transparent than it has been in many years. In turn, the P5+1 has fulfilled its commitment to provide limited sanctions relief. More extensive relief will come when �¢?? and only when �¢?? we are able to arrive at a comprehensive deal that addresses the concerns of the world community. Such a plan, if fully implemented, would give confidence that Iran�¢??s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and would enable the Iranian people to look forward to a much brighter future."
http://m.state.gov/md233306.htm
[/quote]
Of course Russia and China support the sanctions against Iran by the western powers, it’s strengthens their ties and influence with Tehran. China and Russia are gleefully undermining the sanctions by strengthening their ties with Tehran. They have everything to gain from western sanctions.
You speak like Russia actually cares whether Iran gets a nuclear weapon or not. Russia has long spoken out of both sides of their mouth regarding this, there is no reason to believe they have changed their tune. Russia has been helping Iran with their nuclear program and put them on the path to where they are today.
“We know of at least one former nuclear weapons expert in Russia who helped Iran develop a triggering mechanism to set off high explosives in a nuclear weapon,” he said.
http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/resources.cfm?id=266
Neither Russia or China give a fly shit whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons, nor whether the west sanctions them. They have their own interests they are pursuing. If we had such faith in these negotiations, why then, did obama write his secret, well known, letter?
It’s a dog and pony show. The showdown about Iran’s nuclear weapons program will continue long after the dog and pony show concludes. This is a sham, a distraction. Only a fool would believe it’s going to work. [/quote]
You make that assessment despite having zero grounding in diplomatic studies, as evidenced by your grossly erroneous use of the term summit. It’s not clear that a comprehensive deal will come of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations. However, such a deal is in the best interests of all parties involved. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
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]
You’re wasting your time. This is not a knock on Bismark, but it doesn’t surprise me that he has no idea how this works.
It’s no different than Obama not understanding why a Marine shouldn’t hold his God Damn umbrella. The difference is the CIC should at least know better. [/quote]
Simply looking at military mental health statistics is indicative that the morale of the U.S. Military has been significantly degraded in the post 9-11 era.
[/quote]
Like I said, no offense, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Mental health statistics as a measure of morale… No.[/quote]
Did they have these metrics and scrutinize them in previous wars? I don’t recall the PTSD stats in WWI. Maybe you can assist. So what do we compare these numbers to?
Bismark, those stats and conditions have always existed postwar. It’s just now we measure them with folks in White Coats.
[/quote]
I don’t think PTSD was even coined until after the first Gulf War (weren’t they just calling it Gulf War syndrome for a while?). I could be wrong. [/quote]
I believe Gulf War syndrome refers to the various medical maladies suffered by personel returning from the Gulf theater as a result of pyridostigmine bromide pills (given to protect troops from the effects of nerve agents), depleted uranium munitions, and anthrax and botulinum vaccines.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Iran’s foreign minister demands the West bow to their “inalienable nuclear rights”:
“As the deadline looms, and as Republicans are set to control Congress, I urge my colleagues to not allow President Obama to trade away the only leverage we have over the mullahs in Tehran in exchange for minor and easily reversible modifications by Iran on its nuclear weapons program,” Ros-Lehtinen said.
With less than two weeks before talks are scheduled to end, new evidence indicates that Iran’s nuclear program is more advanced than previously known - and that Tehran is making a concerted effort to keep this fact a secret.
Yup.[/quote]
That rag of the article should have made explicit the following when referring to Iranian nuclear “rights”;
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the INALIENABLE RIGHT of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
This isn’t a defense of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. We agree that Iran shouldn’t become a nuclear weapons states, albeit for different reasons. We also disagree on the means to achieve such an ends. I argue for coercive diplomacy. Offer Iran both carrots and sticks, to put it simply. You and Pat are advocating a preventative air campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities, which I believe would merely delay Iranian acquisition of the bomb and strengthen the position of hardliners within the Iranian government. It would also make the security incentives of going nuclear that much more pertinent.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
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]
You’re wasting your time. This is not a knock on Bismark, but it doesn’t surprise me that he has no idea how this works.
It’s no different than Obama not understanding why a Marine shouldn’t hold his God Damn umbrella. The difference is the CIC should at least know better. [/quote]
Simply looking at military mental health statistics is indicative that the morale of the U.S. Military has been significantly degraded in the post 9-11 era.
[/quote]
Like I said, no offense, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Mental health statistics as a measure of morale… No.[/quote]
Did they have these metrics and scrutinize them in previous wars? I don’t recall the PTSD stats in WWI. Maybe you can assist. So what do we compare these numbers to?
Bismark, those stats and conditions have always existed postwar. It’s just now we measure them with folks in White Coats.
[/quote]
I don’t think PTSD was even coined until after the first Gulf War (weren’t they just calling it Gulf War syndrome for a while?). I could be wrong. [/quote]
I believe Gulf War syndrome refers to the various medical maladies suffered by personel returning from the Gulf theater as a result of pyridostigmine bromide pills (given to protect troops from the effects of nerve agents), depleted uranium munitions, and anthrax and botulinum vaccines. [/quote]
It’s possible, I’ve no idea.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
This isn’t a defense of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. We agree that Iran shouldn’t become a nuclear weapons states, albeit for different reasons. We also disagree on the means to achieve such an ends. I argue for coercive diplomacy.
[/quote]
I disagree that that’s what you’re advocating. Even a passing acquaintance with currents events would convince a serious person that diplomacy has (predictably) utterly failed. As I said, the Iranian regime is an international pariah state; the most intractable and staunch state enemy of the United States; has been in a 35-year state of war with the United States, and most importantly a track record of deception and perfidy in negotiations with the international community over its nuclear weapons program. In short, sanctions have been ineffective and were systematically bypassed by a spidersweb of front companies and diplomatic efforts have been a complete failure; Iran has used them to cynically spin out the time and gain concessions.
And from the Obama administration’s perspective the negotiations with Iran are a charade. Obama being, fundamentally hostile to the state of Israel and [/b]determined to avoid aiding or participating in any military action against Iran[/b].
To what ends? Iran has reached breakout potential. It cannot be stopped now without destroying their enrichment facilities and striking their stockpile of highly enriched uranium. At best diplomacy can slow their progress a little bit.
Actually striking their facilities would only slow them down? Then to what end are we negotiating with them? Why are we talking to them and offering carrots?
[quote]
It would also make the security incentives of going nuclear that much more pertinent.[/quote]
You’re not taking a realist perspective. Your views are clouded by ideology. There is no other explanation for allowing the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism and most intractable US foe to go nuclear; upsetting the precarious balance of power in the Middle East; undermining the security interests of our only real ally in the region.
In terms of a military strike failing; are you familiar with the details? The locations of the most important sites are a matter of public record. Israel has bunker busters but not the largest size. Only the US has the largest bunker busters that experts say are necessary to destroy the site in the side of a mountain and others in reinforced, underground bunkers.
Israel would need to refuel mid air; it’s an extremely difficult operation. Iranian air defences would have to be neutralised; hidden, mobile SAMs would be a major threat. Any extractions would have to be by air over a long distance. Iraq and Turkey would not allow US operating bases or fly over. Saudi Arabia most likely wouldn’t either. The whole thing would have to be done out of Israel and from carriers in the Gulf. Obama wants no part in such an operation.
The consequences of allowing Iran to go nuclear will become apparent over the next few years. Iran will fill any power vacuums that emerge in the chaos of the civil war. They will take over the Shia crescent with militias and if Bashar al Assad remains in power the land corridor to the Beqaa Valkey stays open and Iran and Syria increase their stranglehold on Lebanon.
Edited