Options limited in Iran stand-off

[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 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.

[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]

For those who have not read the history of Khan here are the links. They are really long articles.

How A. Q. Khan made Pakistan a nuclear power—and showed that the spread of atomic weapons can't be stopped
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/aq-khan


First Pakistan's A.Q. Khan showed that any country could have made a nuclear bomb. Then he showed—not once but three times—why the nuclear trade will never be shut down
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/aq-khan

Other souces on Khan's role in nuclear proliferation are readily avaliable on the web from a number of sources. I prefer The Atlantic because of thier history of award winning in depth reporting that has been recognized as having a balanced view of the issues reported.

[TheMercenary]

A good summary of the current situation concerning the spread of nuclear technology

http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/re...liferation.pdf

Nothing better illustrates how,
so-called, peaceful nuclear technology can be used for military purposes than the activities of
the Khan network. Abdul Qaadeer Khan was able to build a global nuclear information
network and business which had access to supposedly secret uranium enrichment technology.
Using a mixture of legal and illegal transactions involving businesses all over the world,
ultracentrifuge enrichment technology was exported to Libya, North Korea and Iran. (5) Iran,
for example, despite being a signatory to the NPT, established a uranium enrichment
programme without informing the IAEA. So existing controls, legal arrangements and
guidelines failed to stop the export of sensitive nuclear technology.

To be fair the article does state:
Not every country with a nuclear weapons programme is a Party to the NPT. Israel, Pakistan
and India are all known to possess nuclear weapons, but none is Party to the Treaty. All three
have demonstrated the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Yet, astonishingly,
US President George Bush has recently agreed to help India with its nuclear energy
programme, undermining the very principle upon which the treaty is supposed to be based –
that assistance with the development of nuclear energy is available only to those who say they
will eschew nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that condoning avoidance of the NPT
encourages the spread of nuclear weaponry. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa,
Argentina and many other technologically advanced nations have chosen to abide by the NPT
to gain access to foreign nuclear technology. If India can get help anyway, why bother
agreeing to do without nuclear weapons? Former US President, Jimmy Carter, called the deal
“just one more step in opening a Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation”. (9

[Cyclefrance]

Iranians release British sailors
---------------------------
Iranian media said the British crew 'shouted for joy' at the news
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.

He repeated Iran's view that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a "gift" to Britain.

He said they would be taken to Tehran airport and flown home within hours.

Downing Street welcomed news of the release, while Iranian state media said the British crew members "shouted for joy" on hearing the news.

Television pictures showed the Iranian president smiling and chatting with the crew.

He joked to one: "How are you? So you came on a mandatory vacation?"

The Britons were wearing suits, rather than the military uniform and tracksuits they wore in previous pictures. The one female crew member, Faye Turney, wore a blue headscarf with dark pink shirt.

An unidentified crew member said: "I'd like to say that myself and my whole team are very grateful for your forgiveness. I'd like to thank yourself and the Iranian people... Thank you very much, sir."

Mr Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi: "You are welcome."

Mr Ahmadinejad announced the decision to release the Britons at a news conference marking Persian New Year.

He spoke at length, attacking the West over its policy in the Middle East, and it was more than an hour before he even mentioned the captives issue.

He repeated allegations that the Britons were captured in Iranian waters, and awarded medals to the Iranian commanders responsible for detaining them.

It was all part of the build up to his extraordinary theatrical gesture, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins.

"We have every right to put these people on trial," Mr Ahmadinejad asserted.

"But I want to give them as a present to the British people to say they are all free."

"I'm asking Mr Blair to not put these 15 personnel on trial because they admitted they came to Iranian territorial water," he added, referring to taped "confessions" made by the British sailors and marines.

Britain says the 15 were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate when they were captured nearly two weeks ago. It says the confessions were extracted under duress.

"I ask Mr Blair: Instead of occupying the other countries, I ask Mr Blair to think about the justice, to think about the truth and work for the British people not for himself," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

"Unfortunately the British government was not even brave enough to tell their people the truth, that it made a mistake."

The Iranian leader said no concessions had been made by the British government to secure the releases, but that Britain had pledged "that the incident would not be repeated".

The solution to the crisis - freeing the Britons while rewarding the Iranian commanders of the operation - appears to be a face-saving compromise, says the BBC's Francis Harrison in Tehran.

She says speculation is likely to continue over whether it had anything to do with developments in Iraq, where an Iranian envoy has reportedly been given access to five Iranians captured by US forces, and where a kidnapped diplomat was released on Tuesday.

Earlier on Wednesday Syria revealed that it had been mediating between Iran and the UK over the sailors and marines.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "We welcome what the president has said about the release of our 15 personnel. We are now establishing exactly what this means in terms of the method and timing of their release."

The family of one of the captives, Royal Marine Adam Sperry, hailed the announcement as "the best present imaginable".

"Whoever has been in the right or wrong, the whole thing has been a political mess, so let's just get them home," said his uncle, Ray Cooper.

[Sundae]

Thank goodness for that.
Just sabre rattling in the end.

[TheMercenary]

Another article from the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...=1766&ito=1490

[Sundae]

Nice Government-bashing comments added by typical Hate Mail readers I see...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Nice Government-bashing comments added by typical Hate Mail readers I see...

I noticed that. So we are not alone.

[Sundae]

Not alone in having conservative tabloid press?
Oh no, although the Mail is the worst of them.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Not alone in having conservative tabloid press?
Oh no, although the Mail is the worst of them.

Tabloid press that passes itself off as mainstream. We have that in the US among many major players.

[Sundae]

Nah, the Mail doesn't present as mainstream if you actually get to see the real paper & ink, trust me. It really is known as the Hate Mail.

I admit it's better disguised on the internet because it does carry quirky stories and mostly unbiased headline articles.

One thing this site has made me appreciate is the Guardian (aka the Grauniad - thank you Private Eye). I didn't realise having a national liberal broadsheet was a luxury.

[piercehawkeye45]

Glad this is over.

The British were mainly at fault but the Iranians made a bigger deal out of it then it should have been.