Russia and China vow to protect Syria from becoming another Libya

reply to post by Laokin


Tatics are generic anyway it is battlefield experience that6 really tells and battlefeild experience is not what the modern day Axis have.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by Laokin

 

Have you heard of those who have been in war, have been broken by it, and yet all they want when they return is to go back to it.

I believe it is akin to the Stockholm Syndrome, that is those who have been take hostage / prisoner that relate to, and bond with their captures even to the point of protecting them. Seeing as we are all prisoners to the actions of war, when they erupt, the same could possibly be said here.

it's is just another of the ironies and contractions of war. for in such an act that is so unnatural and inhuman, there seems to be something that comes naturally to the human condition.

strange really.

I've heard of Stockholm Syndrome and I don't buy it. Not an ounce. Anybody who has been to war and shot a man comes home never wanting to pick up another fire arm again. Those that wish to go back, want to go back to die because they can't reconcile what they've done. Do you think the soldier following orders really understands the meta of WHY he has to shoot that person?

The reality of it is, they don't. They are sent to a place and told these are your targets, watch out -- they'll shoot back.

If you also look into Stockholm Syndrome, you will also find that the psychiatrist is biased. They assume that the "criminal" since he is a criminal is a bad person, but maybe the person involved understands the truth about the "criminal" a little more clearly.

I've personally been in situations where I've seen people do things that others would decry, but understand the chain of events that led that person there, and if in their shoes, would likely do the same thing. So could I sympathize with that person... Absolutely. Could I then turn around and wish to help that person... Absolutely.

The Idea of a broken mentality (Stockholm Syndrome) that flies in the face of rationale and logic is one of falsehood. One that is born from a negative experience bias and lack of critical details.

It's the same thing with "battered wife" syndrome. It's not an illogical decision, it's a conscious one. Either they are consciously afraid but heavily invested so they tread wisely, or they GTFO.

Most psychology is absolutely bunk. I've spoken to these psychologists and they all think they know what is going on when they don't and get paid handsomely to make stuff up that gullible people will believe. I've been told by one psych that I was violent, by another one in the same hour that I was calm cool and collected.

The only difference between the two meetings was the information that was given to the psych prior to meeting me. In one, the dossier created a bias. In the other there was no dossier, just a real conversation about the same events that took place.

How does a psychologist determine if HIS/HER own psychological problems are creating a subconscious bias in his/her own head when evaluating a patient?

The answer is simple, it cannot be done.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Laokin

 

Tatics are generic anyway it is battlefield experience that6 really tells and battlefeild experience is not what the modern day Axis have.

Battlefield Experience does not apply to an army. It applies to individuals. There are new recruits sent on missions everyday, it's not their "experience" that gets the job done, it's their tactics and training.

Or do you suppose that we only use a veteran military force and that there are no new bloods?

I mean seriously, how does battlefield experience apply to an entire campaign? There will be some people with experience others with none. Tactics rue the day -- you obviously have no experience or you couldn't have said that.

I mean seriously, most soldiers have under 5 tours under their belt, I'd hardly call that "experience." Especially when a combat tour can be anywhere between 3 months and 2 years.

That means the peak performance of any soldier is about 5 years combat experience before they are pulled off the lines. That means it's a constant stream of new inexperienced fighters over and over and over again.

reply to post by Laokin


Battlefeild experience is passed on through training to new recruits. If your instructor has never been to war, do you think he could train you better than an instructor that has been to war?

Oh and I did 7 years in the Military thanks.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Laokin

 

Battlefeild experience is passed on through training to new recruits. If your instructor has never been to war, do you think he could train you better than an instructor that has been to war?

Oh and I did 7 years in the Military thanks.

edit on 27-6-2012 by michael1983l because: (no reason given)

Well the military didn't grant you brains because failed to use them. You can't teach experience. You just can't. You can be taught by someone who has experience, but your training is going to be virtually the same as somebody who didn't have experience. It's a regiment.

The same thing can be said for any school of thought. You can be taught by a martial arts instructor with no tournament experience and be a champion, you can be taught by a champion and be a loser. Their experience by no way extends to you outside of a couple basic knowledge tips and tricks of the trade. Which in war, is macro, not micro.

Which is called Tactics, which you said is garbage in comparison to battlefield experience.

Battlefeild experience is passed on through training to new recruits

That is called TACTICS. F.Y.I. You must've been a jarhead.

Tatics are generic anyway

tac·tics (tktks)
n.
1.
a. (used with a sing. verb) The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy: Tactics is a required course at all military academies.
b. (used with a pl. verb) Maneuvers used against an enemy: Guerrilla tactics were employed during most of the war.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.

ex·pe·ri·ence (k-spîr-ns)
n.
1. The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind: a child's first experience of snow.
2.
a. Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill: a lesson taught by experience; a carpenter with experience in roof repair.
b. The knowledge or skill so derived.
3.
a. An event or a series of events participated in or lived through.
b. The totality of such events in the past of an individual or group.

Those with Battlefield Experience teach new recruits TACTICS.

My guess is you were a bad soldier.

reply to post by Laokin


So from that, I can assume that you don't consider PTSD to be a valid condition then? Just a conscious decision to act like your a completely different person!

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Laokin

 

Battlefeild experience is passed on through training to new recruits. If your instructor has never been to war, do you think he could train you better than an instructor that has been to war?

Oh and I did 7 years in the Military thanks.

edit on 27-6-2012 by michael1983l because: (no reason given)

Well the military didn't grant you brains because failed to use them. You can't teach experience. You just can't. You can be taught by someone who has experience, but your training is going to be virtually the same as somebody who didn't have experience. It's a regiment.

The same thing can be said for any school of thought. You can be taught by a martial arts instructor with no tournament experience and be a champion, you can be taught by a champion and be a loser. Their experience by no way extends to you outside of a couple basic knowledge tips and tricks of the trade. Which in war, is macro, not micro.

Which is called Tactics, which you said is garbage in comparison to battlefield experience.

Battlefeild experience is passed on through training to new recruits

That is called TACTICS. F.Y.I. You must've been a jarhead.

Ironically Intelligence actually and I will just have to be a dumb jarhead as in Military circles it is openly accepted that the more recent the battle experience of your forces the better trained your troops tend to be. There's nothing like refining your NBC drills than doing it on a battlefeild where a suspect nerve agent has just been deployed. But as you developed this debate into name calling, I shall leave this here.

reply to post by Laokin


Now THAT was a deliberate effort to misunderstand his point. Even the simplest of minds can understand the intention of that statement. You're just being picky, and not really making a valid point there at all.

reply to post by Laokin


Thou really do protest too much.

If you had read what i wrote, you would get the jest of my meaning. And do not get me wrong, i am not pro war, but i love the fight...again its all I seem to know anymore as a standard of being. There are things that people are good at, some are good chefs, some are good at teaching, some are good at making fart noises with their hands, Im good at destruction chief.

That doesnt make things any more right or wrong. The fight is what im used to as a normality and it is entertaining in a sense as I laugh at the ironic futility of mankinds attempt to rise above their own indignity.

And understand I have nothing vested in humanity outside of my own...nothing. No ego to please, no pride to feed. It is what it is. I do not hold human life as something with much of any kind of value as you would see it in the traditional sense. Mainly because unless you have a cause that your willing to die for, your spinning your tires in the mud. You have to learn to read between the lines chuck.

And while I may not contribute anything you find worthy, it could be worthy to someone else. One thing is for certain, I claim nothing but the opinions I have fostered through experience. Some like it, some don't.

Yes i jest often, its ironic how irony can be sometimes isnt it? I find most everything funny in life and I take almost nothing seriously. We are trapped in a life that we did not ask for and you expect what outside of sarcasm? For me to be as concerned about life as you are?

And petty motivations like being cool are for highschool kids and insecure adults who can't find a date on saturday night because they're stuck in moms basement soaking their corns watching bad japanese cartoons.

And The Duke doesn't fight because he enjoys it, he does it because someone has to, and he's the right guy for the job. He just makes sure that while he's fighting, he looks good doing it.

If your not having fun, what fun are ya?

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by Laokin

 

So from that, I can assume that you don't consider PTSD to be a valid condition then? Just a conscious decision to act like your a completely different person!

No I very seriously do consider it to be a valid condition. It's when a soldier cannot reconcile the tragedy that he has seen. It's quite hard to watch people get blown up or shot in front of you, and just as hard to pull the trigger and end a life.

That will always change a man who doesn't know why he's dodging bullets or blowing people like himself up without a reason.

I would hardly call it a disorder, I would call it a person who has been made to do things that he would have never have done on his own freewill. I would call that witnessing reality but fighting to come to terms with the things they have done. The problem is hindsight... once you're in you're in, you can't quit the military or you go to prison for contempt.

It's not a disease, it's not a disorder. It's reality, it's guilt, it's everyday normal emotion. Seeing people like you and me get blown up without knowing why, without knowing if it's an absolute must, just because some one told you to is murder. These people sign up for the military thinking it's a cool prestigious job without really contemplating the result of their actions. Those that can't come to terms with the fact that they are murderers or that they have witnessed many murders are the ones they classify as PTSD.... or Shell Shock.

It's nothing like Stock Holm Syndrome. If you want to see what Stock Holm Syndrome is, it's when a person takes another person hostage as a threat, but has no intention of actually harming the person they took hostage. In fact, they feel guilty that they had to take a hostage so they spend most of their interaction with the hostage saying things like "I'm sorry" "I'm not gonna hurt you" "Be cool" "Stay Calm" and then proceeding to tell the "victim" why they need to take a hostage for appearance only. This man may even shoot someone who shot at him, but his intention is still to never hurt his hostage. The hostage at that point might feel sympathetic for the man and actually want to help him and become a pawn in his great scheme because ultimately they know they won't get hurt.

A prime example of a case of "Stock Holm Syndrome" can be found in the holly wood comedy called "Chase" with charlie sheen. He kidnapped her with a candy bar, never had any intention of hurting her, and she came to the realization that she wasn't in any real danger and wanted to help the guy who initially kidnapped her with a candy bar.

That's not a psychological syndrome.... that is a chain of events.... Often ignored by the shrink because the shrink has a bias that the man was a lunatic crazy who obviously meant to hurt her.... Then they impose the syndrome on the hostage by saying she must be mentally messed up if she wants to help the person that put her in danger.

In this case, it's factually a bias being imposed upon the victim. You can study every known case of StockHolm Syndrome and they are all the same. The hostage says everyone has it wrong, and the people who have it wrong say the hostage has a mental disorder.

So when the nukes drop and the shtf, and everyone is dead. Where do you suppose all these elite NWO are going to live? Wont everyone be gone? Nothing left of the world...??

Originally posted by damingus
So when the nukes drop and the shtf, and everyone is dead. Where do you suppose all these elite NWO are going to live? Wont everyone be gone? Nothing left of the world...??

I was thinking the same thing :-)

reply to post by Laokin


you really need to watch this. You won't have seen it, it only went live on the internet last night.

The two worlds of Charlie F.

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by Ben81

Russia has apx 360,000 active personnel
and china have millions of troops
combine with Syria and Iran .. that a very impresive army

Don't mix up impressive with large. As far as I am aware all of those countries run conscript schemes and countries with conscript armies tend to have more weaknesses than most developed voluntary armies. How much battle experience has Russia/China/Iran/Syria had over the last 2 decades, well next to none when compared with NATO warmongers like the US and the UK.

They might be large but they certainly ain't better than us. I wouldn't like an all out war but I can bet you NATO would win unless the nukes come out then we all lose.

Not for nothing but that only makes them more dangerous. It's like competition sports, or martial arts... When you can observe those that you will have to battle in the future before you battle them, then you gain tactical advantage by learning what moves are in their set and how to best take advantage of the confidence that move set has given them.

You don't think Russia and China have satellites or spies? You don't think they've been watching NATO's every move since it's inception?

This whole time they lay dormant we don't know what their capabilities are, we can assume they haven't evolved, but it would be a terrible fallacy to make that assumption. We can assume we still have the technological advantage, but you don't know what Russia or China has in their Top Secret section. They have a pretty good idea what we have, since we've been using our technology everywhere for everyone to see.

This puts us at a disadvantage. Sun Tzu would agree.... it's best not to underestimate the enemy especially when you haven't seen any serious activity.

Your forgetting the fog factor...which is often apparent in real time theater......that is no matter how good a plan of attack is, no matter how good the intel, it doesnt always go as planned. And when things go tango uniform on the battle field you better have the moxy to pull off plan B. Because the undiciplined will likely flee and a broken line can cause a type of hell rarely recovered from.

Originally posted by Kastogere
reply to post by Laokin

 

Thou really do protest too much.

If you had read what i wrote, you would get the jest of my meaning. And do not get me wrong, i am not pro war, but i love the fight...again its all I seem to know anymore as a standard of being. There are things that people are good at, some are good chefs, some are good at teaching, some are good at making fart noises with their hands, Im good at destruction chief.

That doesnt make things any more right or wrong. The fight is what im used to as a normality and it is entertaining in a sense as I laugh at the ironic futility of mankinds attempt to rise above their own indignity.

And understand I have nothing vested in humanity outside of my own...nothing. No ego to please, no pride to feed. It is what it is. I do not hold human life as something with much of any kind of value as you would see it in the traditional sense. Mainly because unless you have a cause that your willing to die for, your spinning your tires in the mud. You have to learn to read between the lines chuck.

And while I may not contribute anything you find worthy, it could be worthy to someone else. One thing is for certain, I claim nothing but the opinions I have fostered through experience. Some like it, some don't.

Yes i jest often, its ironic how irony can be sometimes isnt it? I find most everything funny in life and I take almost nothing seriously. We are trapped in a life that we did not ask for and you expect what outside of sarcasm? For me to be as concerned about life as you are?

And petty motivations like being cool are for highschool kids and insecure adults who can't find a date on saturday night because they're stuck in moms basement soaking their corns watching bad japanese cartoons.

And The Duke doesn't fight because he enjoys it, he does it because someone has to, and he's the right guy for the job. He just makes sure that while he's fighting, he looks good doing it.

If your not having fun, what fun are ya?

Hah? Nothing in that entire paragraph made a lick of sense. I take it you are single, you must be, because if you weren't, you would have a vested interest in life, unless you plainly say that you don't care about your significant other.

How does having a cause to die for have anything to do with valuing human life?

I don't have a cause to die for. I value human life. Those two things have nothing to do with each other. I do have a cause to LIVE for, to help educate others who then will in turn help educate others who then will in turn help educate others and so on. If somebody threatened my ability to do that, my cause to live becomes a reason to die... I am a fighter, I've fought plenty of battles in plenty of circuits... However I dislike fighting. I only fight when it's necessary... but when it's necessary I will fight until it's over or I'm dead. Killing is not an option... Fighting is defensive. Offensive is criminal.

You sound like a person caught in depression... living alone without many friends or family, your outlook on life is extremely bleak. I don't care if you give a damn or not, I just like when I'm in a forum, a place for discussions about topics, that the people taking part in these discussions make sense, can be understood, aren't walking contradictions, and don't talk out of their hat.

I know 99.999% of what you said is just patently false... it's some kind of pseudo creation for exactly what you said it's not for. To be cool, to fit in, for self gratification. You also described yourself, depressed, lonely and alone... and people who don't watch anime, don't use the word anime, they call them cartoons. You also said you are an American Woman...

Now I know there are things American Women fight for, but they are civil liberties, you aren't holding pistols and shooting people in the face. America doesn't have woman in combat arms positions, so all this fighting you speak about... I just, I just... don't get it....

Oh and Duke totally fights because Dr. Proton called him out. He wears shades to look cool doing it, but this America vibe isn't cool. At. All.

Originally posted by MrStyx
reply to post by Shminkee Pinkee

 

I agree Russia and China are no saviors, people seem to forget Russia's role on the world stage hence the first Afghan occupiers. They didn't suddenly have a change of heart, they lost economic and military power and just recoiled to lick their wounds.

Now they seem to be willing to expand once more we'll see how you saviors perform.

Most historians would disagree with you. The Soviets did not want to invade Afghanistan.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by Laokin

 

Now THAT was a deliberate effort to misunderstand his point. Even the simplest of minds can understand the intention of that statement. You're just being picky, and not really making a valid point there at all.

Now now, he may not like my premise for existing, but Laokin has a point and he's right, you cannot teach experience. This in itself is a flawed teaching concept. Experience comes from doing, not watching.

Originally posted by Kastogere

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by Laokin

 

Now THAT was a deliberate effort to misunderstand his point. Even the simplest of minds can understand the intention of that statement. You're just being picky, and not really making a valid point there at all.

Now now, he may not like my premise for existing, but Laokin has a point and he's right, you cannot teach experience. This in itself is a flawed teaching concept. Experience comes from doing, not watching.

To be clear.... I don't have any issue with your existence. It's just that what you say borderlines on not making sense IMO. I was hoping for clarity and I got more encryption.

None the less, thanks.

I don't think it's a matter of being nit picky.

Experience and Tactics are two totally different things... The only way they are related is the Tactic can be created by experience. The tactic can be taught, the experience cannot. It must be experienced, hence the word.... experience.

Also, tactics can be developed without real battlefield experience, in fact -- most tactics are logistics. Meaning no real battlefield experience is required to create them. Simulations can be used to develop new tactics, and most of the US tactics are created during simulation and then deployed into real battle. Any soldier knows this.

reply to post by Laokin


Seriously slow down, your gonna make a vein pop out of your forehead....and you are totally not reading the post. It is people like you as being the reason I have nothing vested in anyone other than my own (If you read it correctly the first time instead of trying so hard to be right all the time you would have caught that)

And when i say vested I mean, if your on the side of the road getting mauled by a bear, I would stop to watch, but would not offer any assistance as I don't know you and could honestly care less. If I didn't like you, I would stop to throw syrup all over you. I do not hold the same value of human life as you do, live a life of violence as I have and you'll feel the same indifference.

You obviously have no common frame of reference. Nor can you read a post to understand what is being said let alone find hidden meaning in the words of others. You are obtuse and I find you amusing.

See ya on the side of the road chuck

here we go again with another one of THESE threads........Attention 5th graders " The end of the world is not near, and China and Russia will do nothing , same as always "