sherpa

Your situation is exactly why I purchased long term insurance for my wife and I, and explained to our kids that if we ever need it, we would use it rather than burden them. The insurance is not cheap, but while you are relatively young and not in any need, it is affordable. It also provides some measure of protection against other assets you want to pass along. In short, I have taken this burden off of our children while we are both healthy and active.

A few comments, and provided from the most humble perspective. One thing I find interesting in this thread is that people who have served are multiples more aware of Iranian acts of war against the US. That bit of information is not well known in the US, but they have been responsible for killing our guys for decades, across many state boundaries. Just an observation. The military problem is, largely, a Navy problem, and it is correct to conclude that we could destroy their navy in very little time. See what happened to the Iranian navy ship Sahand when it fires a missile at a US Navy A6. I'll save you the time. An F-18 stuck a laser guided bomb down its stack, and would have sunk it, but was called off. (My old squadron---Go Shrikes). The problem is that the distances are so compressed that it makes it difficult to sort of who's who, and mistakes get made, because of that time compression. See the USS Stark and the USS Vincennes shooting of an Iranian airliner. When you try to protect shipping through that choke point, it is an extremely difficult task when everybody has live weapons. The Iranians mined the area in the late 80's and we had tremendous difficulty solving that. I've flown in that area, dragging their border trying to bait someone to come out, just outside their 12 mile limit and got the first intercept of an Iranian airplane after they took our embassy-a P3. Had a sidewinder missile, ( a heater), cooled, locked on him and ready. Joined on him, warned him through radio calls and hand signals that I was going to kill him if he threatened our task force, and trailed him for a half hour before he broke off. Things happen really quick there, and there would be a huge amount of civilian, commercial traffic involved. All the calculus points to very nasty headlines. Iran is a timing problem. Their radical Islamic component has little support, and let's hope it fails before they have a nuc to threaten Israel, because once Mossad thinks they do, the stuff is going to hit the fan.

No problem with anyone disagreeing, but I'm not sure you understand the problem. SAM's are not the issue. Those are surface to air defensive weapons. Surface to surface anti ship missiles are the issue, and they have the range to disrupt the Strait in a major way. Ships of commerce have to transit an extremely small waterway and that has always been a big problem in that region. I don't give Iran too much credit, but when you have an unfix-able choke point that borders their territory, and does that amount business, you have a major problem. Best way is to let it work its way out without military action.

First, somebody has to comment on your contention of not owning the land being a successful strategy by using Germany's near defeat of Great Britain in WWII. How did that turn out? The fact that they didn't own the land allowed Allied forces to use it to stage nearly the entire invasion of Europe which ended at Berlin, so it not only failed, it was responsible for their entire destruction. Might that be a "bad example," or better, using an example as a near success when it was the ultimate failure? Anyway, I get that you are an Army vet, but "artillery strikes" is not germane to this issue. Iran has significant surface to surface missile capability which has the range to hit defenseless tankers or any other ships in the Strait or parts of the Persian Gulf. That is a very small channel. This has been played out in the late 80's and resulted in really bad things, and they would probably not have to do this without significant support, at least for a brief time. You can guess the country. The best way to deal with Iran is to let its citizens continue to lose support for their radical Islamic leadership, and the factions of their military that think similarly. If they develop a nuke that threatens Israel, that is an entirely different situation.

Maybe you didn't read what was written. I said that if they impeded shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, military action would be justified. By the way, your suggestion that by sinking their Navy they cannot contest shipping through the Strait is just wrong. Been there, planned that.

Just an incredibly stupid suggestion, and would never be productive. You can't solve anything by simply taking out their military. The Persian culture would rally around a regime that it currently doesn't like. And "the thing with war is" you really do have to invade. The only justifiable reason for significant military operations against Iran would be any closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or any threatened, credible nuclear action against anybody, including Israel. Let the internal trend continue, and don't be foolish to embolden the regime by responding to stupid threats by their holders on.

Is it possible to acknowledge that we might be dealing with two irritating people here? McCain's history is about as irritating as it gets, and Trump's is re-writing the record books. We don't need to choose one or the other.

I'm quite familiar. And in that context, the thought of the time was that if it had a graven image on it, it belonged to the individual whose graven image was on it. Thus, since it had a graven image of Caesar, it was Caesar's.

Great. The point is that it is used to defend paying taxes, and that isn't what it is about.

It isn't as straightforward as it seems, because it is so often taken out of context. The Pharisees were trying to get rid of Jesus, who was threatening their supremacy and livelihood, so they tried to trick him and they asked him the question if he thought the Jews should pay Roman taxes. If he answered that the Jews should not pay taxes, he would incur the wrath of the Roman occupiers. and if he suggested that they should, he would alienate his rapidly growing Jewish followers. So he asked them to show him a coin they were talking about. They pulled out a denarious, the Roman coin at the time. He asked them whose image was on it, and they replied "Caesar's." As Pharisees, they knew full well that using such a coin with an image on it was sinful, per their religion, yet here they were, the supposed elite, violating their own law. It's one of the many times during that week he exposes the religious and temple elite as complete hypocrites.

Additions notwithstanding, that's one of the most misinterpreted passages in the Bible.

Actually, now that I think about it, his dad was Commander in Chief, US Naval Forces Europe when little John was shot down. And correcting myself, his dad's position was CINCPAC, Commander in Chief of all US forces in the Pacific, not just the Navy, and appointed to this position after McCain was shot down.

They knew right away. US TV reported it. Not too risky. This was an entirely Washington based war, so it's not like his dad had any strategic authority. Operational yes, but that wouldn't matter.

You are not smart enough to get this. Atlas has airplanes that can be used for cargo or passenger. They are a charter company, and sell to whomever pays them. The 767's that hit the WTC were not cargo airplanes. They were regularly scheduled passenger airplanes with real people who got killed.

You are cutting his dad way short. He was CINCPACFLT, which means Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, the largest US fleet Way beyond being a "sub commander." He was CINCPACFLT during his son's POW time.

Been through all of this, My mother in law is an extremely independent woman who was widowed in her late 40's, and worked successfully into her mid 60's. Had mobility problems in her 70's that necessitated us moving her in with us for a few years, as we have the room. She had a mini stroke, and my wife decided we could no longer watch out for her, so the family moved her into a facility that provides various levels of care. She is currently in an assisted living facility, but has a two bedroom facility with all meals etc. She require no constant care. It's basically an apartment with meals and emergency response provided. She's happy. We're happy, but it isn't cheap. Net, having watched this, I purchased a long term care policy to guarantee that neither myself or my wife will ever have to depend on our kids, and our finances will be protected from long term care. There's a lot to consider, and a lot of financial considerations. I've done the work and am familiar.

Recruiters had nothing to do with it. Bruckheimer et al., stated what they wanted. The Navy obliged, if it was safe and didn't compromise anything. They came to the Navy, not vice versa. That stuff happens often in those types of movies. For example, in the move "The Final Coundown," the filmmakers wanted to barricade a carrier airplane. The barricade is only used if there is some problem that prevents an airplane from landing normally, ie., using its tailhook and the ship's arresting gear. It's extremely rare. The problem is that it destroys the airplane and is quite dangerous for the pilot, so the Navy said no.

I think he acquitted himself quite well as a POW. But the "real mark of the man" is measured by his entire Naval career, and he was not well thought of at all, and by what he did afterward, which is a matter of public record. I hope his final days are spent in relative comfort and peace,

John McCain is a founding father of ISIS? OK.

You can't "kind of." He either did or he didn't, and there are formal, procedural ways to do that. He didn't.

John McCain is not a traitor. He never conspired to kill Americans. These are stupid, unsubstantiated accusations, and just ugly. He never advocated for a war with Iran. He is a man who I have never liked and is near death, but that doesn't mean folks who don't like him get to re-write history, inaccurately.

I don't think the cold war had anything to do with its popularity. The best part of the movie are the flight scenes, and they are very well filmed. Still, they are ridiculously unrealistic, and the plot is bizarre on so many levels. I went there as one of the aggressors. One of the guys trained to be the "bad guys." The guys who actually run these training sorties. I've sat in that room and run debriefs where the Kelly McGillis character first meets Cruz countless times. Having a civilian female offer any kind of critique is wacky. So is taking anybody of a carrier cruise and sending them there. When on cruise, there is nobody to spare. TopGun is a shore duty thing, after the cruise has ended and squadrons can spare guys. Another bit of nonsense is the call sign thing, especially during airwing operations on a carrier. You are one of many. No different than anyone else. One thing that is real about the movie involves the scenes at the Miramar, (San Diego), Officers club. Remember when Cruz breaks into a Righteous Brothers song? It was absolutely the way it was depicted. Every Wed night it was like that, and more. A lot more. Alas, all that has been destroyed The other thing they got completely right is the opening scene where they show airplanes taxiing around and getting into the cat launch apparatus, then launching. What they got right is the sound and the intensity. Whenever I view that scene, and hear that sound I still have a physiological response. It is exactly like that, and it is extremely intense. .

For those of us who have done this, given what has happened over the past decades, the most appropriate plot would be a standoff between the protagonists involving who made the best Power Point presentation describing the benefits of the contributions of the LGBGT community, and an admission that "Ice's" call sign had been changed to "Iceberg," given his weight issues in the interim.

Senator Warren is correct. We need to "focus on real problems." Know what? Her and her ilk are the real problem. We elect them to solve problems. This incredibly asinine and suicidal "border issue" is a real problem that should have been solved decades ago. Illegal immigration is an international business, and politicians from across the globe will not deal with it.

Just so silly. The two airplanes that hit the WTC buildings were not cargo airplanes. They had windows. Cargo airplanes don't.