Leaderboard

Quote of the Day... "Imagine thinking Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, but that your own people shouldn’t be able to own a gun." Carry on.

Did anyone see the events around the King Air that crashed (ditched), 80 miles offshore? Sounds like a movie in the making as they ditched and all 11 people on board survived and were rescued by the Coast Guard and the 920th. Everyone surviving a ditching then being rescued...Well done

He is OFF THE CHART, that be no man's land:

Is there any rage bait you don't fall for?

Last week I had what I can only describe as a "pure" ending to a flight, I live for those moments. Unfortunately as a ham-fisted pilot I don't get to realize them as often as I would like. The flight started off with weather that was not forecasted. Taxiing out there was a literal wall of fog approaching the field obscuring the trees. I hustled up and got airborne just before the field went below mins. I did not see the ground for the next 300 miles. I had extra gas and was now questioning the TAF at my destination, already planning divert options when 40 miles from home the sky opened up and I could see the coast. At 35 miles I could see the field and asked for lower. Surprisingly they cleared me the visual from 35 miles out. I did some quick pilot math and pulled the throttle back to just above idle and started down. I never touch the throttle again until I touched down. Blind squirrel found a nut, divine intervention or pure luck...It just felt good.

I don't want to throw Biff under a Frontier Airbus but, holy moly, I've never had a car stolen or broken into and describing those issues as "comes with the territory" is a sad summation of civilization in a once great state.

Are what ifs open? What if you weren’t such a politically-charged hack that you could be honest instead of purposely curating/cherrypicking to make your political opponents look bad in a false way (guess you have a great future career in the MSM). What if you weren’t so retarded as to compare Trump to Mao. I mean, you have to be pretty stupid/brainwashed to make that comparison. You’re embarrassing yourself, recommend stop.

Sure thing, as long as you quit sending all your idiots to Texas, especially Austin! And I don't have to say Texas is great, everyone knows it is except for all the Californians moving here!

Selling my 1979 A185F if anyone is looking for a great performer with the IO-550 and 88” Prop. STOL kit, Wing Extensions, VGs, etc.

For the record: I was banned from the forum by Helodude for responding to personal attacks after multiple users refused to engage with sourced arguments. I'd invite anyone reading to scroll back and judge whether the tone of my posts was meaningfully different from what CH, LR, brabus, M2, and others post regularly without consequence. M2 liking DFRESH's reminder to the forum is a nice touch, given that personal attacks, or unsourced, baseless statements are a regular feature of his contributions here. M2, name one politician or member of this forum, any person that matters that ever said Iran should have nuclear weapons? Not "criticized the strategy," not "questioned the outcomes," not "doubted the rationale." Said Iran should have nukes. I'll wait. What people are actually frustrated with is an administration that can't keep its story straight. In June 2025, the program was "completely and totally obliterated." By November, the White House's own document downgraded that to "significantly degraded." In February, Witkoff said Iran was "a week away from industrial-grade bomb-making material." Days later, Trump said Iran could "soon" hit the American homeland with missiles, when the DIA's own assessment says 2035 at the earliest. Then we launched Operation Epic Fury, and Gabbard told the Senate the program had been obliterated again, while refusing to confirm it had been an imminent threat. The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center resigned over it. That's not one position. That's five, in twelve months, depending on what needed justifying that day. Pointing that out isn't advocating for a nuclear Iran. It's asking the administration to pick a story and stick to it. But sure, use an internet meme and stick to a strawman, false equivalence, and false dilemma with the 2A.

It’s at his own golf course. If you buy your own golf course, you can put up a statue of yourself as well…Fuckin calm your tits.

Ugly truth, and neither side seems terribly interested in solving it.

Agreed, TN blows, don’t move there. It’s the worse state in the union by far and everyone needs to quit moving there since it’s so terrible. I would never even consider moving there, especially if I had blue hair, was a trannie, a liberal, or otherwise wanted to ruin this great nation by fixing all the “right wingers”. Let that place stew in its own misery. PS: MS can have Memphis and thereby reduce crime by about 85%.

Would the WaPo reporting be any different with a Democrat administration? Was there outage at the Afghanistan withdrawal with 13 killed by a VBIED? The killing of an ambassador in Libya? I don't recall the published moral outage or pronouncements of national failure for those or any other Democrat admin led military action.

So 19AF can now solely focus on continuing to gut the UPT enterprise

At least he missed the sidewalk.

“the service said the major command’s operational experience will improve readiness for the training pipeline for fighter and remotely piloted aircraft units.” Obviously those IPs wearing AETC patches who’ve had 1+ operational assignments do not have operational experience like if they’d come to work tomorrow wearing ACC patches. Duh.

The Air Force decision process is much like the pendulum on a clock but without the ability to remember what the pendulums location used to be or predict the future location. So, the AF just repeats history thinking it has found something new and unique.

Not to worry, I won't.

Another fundamental disagreement. You believe that there is such a thing as a state of peace. I believe that's a fantasy of well-meaning but historically ignorant people. We may create different enemies and different problems. But there was never the possibility, much less the reality, of doing things perfectly such that we have no enemies. Go back a hundred or more years and see that there was never a desire for peace, and that the people complaining now about being displaced from their lands were the displacers not very long ago... They weren't holding hands as peaceful Pearl Farmers before the United States started meddling in the Middle East. They just slaughtered each other. Similar to the many myths told about the noble native Americans before the evil Europeans arrived. Again, and I'm not pointing this specifically at you though you do seem to fall into the category, I just find it childish to have this view where the United States is constantly framed as actually not always the good guy or objectively wrong or all the other ways in which people do gymnastics to avoid the reality that there has never been a country as powerful as we are that has shown the Goodwill or restraint that we have. And many of the countries that are today viewed as paragons of global morality and cooperation (Nordic countries especially) are just the powerless husks of once-ruthless imperialists, fed and watered by the global power of the United States post WWII. The conversation always falls apart when the idealists are forced to identify some country that's better. They can't, because the ideology requires all things to be compared to a hypothetical. Again, everything is short-term with this argument. The jcpoa only afforded 10 years of reduced enrichment. They were allowed to build and maintain all of the facilities required to enrich to weapons grade, and the second that we pulled out the agreement, they did. And it's largely irrelevant because you've already conceded that they want a nuclear bomb. So there's really not much else to talk about. They want it, they can't have it. Everything they've done has justified our refusal, up to and including October 7th. You think it would be better for the US to allow that to happen. I don't. And I think all the hand-wringing about Trump is over-complicating his position, which is basically mine: Iran can't have nukes, and we won't trade terror funding for temporary compliance. The end. Good convo.

I know sourced arguments are a rarity and have very limited effect around here, but here goes nothing. It is a fact that they were in compliance for the duration of and slightly after Trump tore up the deal. https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-06-08/iaea-report-confirms-irans-compliance-jcpoa Here’s a report from our own congress on the JCPOA: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R40094#_Toc205812494 “Until July 2019, all official reports and statements from the United Nations, European Union, the IAEA, and the non-U.S. participating governments indicated that Iran had fulfilled its JCPOA and related Resolution 2231 requirements.” And another one CIPAssessing The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Iran Dea...The JCPOA must be properly understood as working before we can attempt to understand why the Trump administration left the deal.“The record shows that Iran complied with the terms of the JCPOA.”

Yeah, just another moderate Democrat sprinting to grab the flag of moderation on a bunch of issues only after they have been settled in the court of public opinion. Where was he 2 years ago when the trans issue was burning brightly and parents were mobbing school board meetings to stamp out the ideology from their schools? Where was he when the teachers unions were keeping schools closed during covid, resulting in those math and reading scores? Where was he when Latinx wasn't the punch line of a joke but another crazy attempt to cram fake racism into every corporate budget? If he has a recent interview talking about the evils of Hamas or how the Whitehouse Ballroom project isn't fascism, maybe he's the guy. But as far as I know the only prominent Democrat in the entire country that isn't blowing in the wind of progressive ideology is Fetterman. I definitely would have lost the bet if you told me that the most rational consistent politician in Washington would be the guy recovering from a stroke. 🤣😂 I'm waiting for after Trump's presidency ends, for Democrats to suddenly realize the value of overturning Roe v Wade. Anyone notice how absent abortion is from the national discourse since that ruling?

*AFRC may be different, but this is from the perspective of a career ANG DSG who lived in base for both gigs. My old boss is the current 4-star Chief of the NGB, a member of the joint chiefs of staff, and he did ACSC and AWC by correspondence (SOS in-res). A squadron mate just put on a Star to work at the state level (via indispensability...woof) and I don't think he did in-residence for anything. We've had multiple pilots on various staff gigs in Hawaii, Europe and NGB and none of them did ACSC or AWC in residence. In the 20+ years I was in my ANG wing, I can't think of anyone who has been leadership in my wing, who did ACSC or AWC in-residence. The sky is the limit and in-residence likely won't change that. About the only thing I can think that in-res is good for, is that I believe it doesn't count toward your 5-years of USERRA time. So many questions that need answered to provide anything meaningful. Do you live in base for your airline gig, your mil gig or both? How far away from your 20? How old are you? How much pain are you willing to suffer just to get that 20 year pension (I say suffer because I did not enjoy full time work in the military...too much desk time)? Will your airline allow you to sneak past the 5 year point, will you be in a job that can be given a USERRA waiver? Also, best case scenario, if you can even sneak past the 5 year USERRA to get your AGR retirement, what age would you draw that vs a DSG retirement (I'm getting my DSG retirement at 57, I know others getting it at 55)? Is the lost pay at the airline worth that to you? Does momma want to be drug along to more moves while you chase these assignments? Kids? It sounds like momma wants to get settled into a forever home. For me, that would be priority #1 because if she ain't happy, it's likely you won't be either. From that viewpoint is where I'd make all future decisions. I'm a big proponent of just going DSG and flying full time at the airline. Maybe take the occasional set staff orders to Hawaii/Europe on times of your own choosing if Momma is onboard. Then again, I was always much happier as a DSG and insanely happier now that I'm out and have more free time than I know what to do with...good problem to have.

Same thing I said to Pooter. Argue the content and don't degrade the person.

Funny how progressives always go to states like MA to show how great Dems are, but conveniently leave out NM lol. Kind of like how they love to look at states like LA, but never mention UT or ID. Boston is a pretty nice layover btw, one of my favorites. The best indicator of likelihood of high vs low crime: Demographics

Agreed.

You can throw all the stats you want but the biggest indicator of the desirability of remaining in California is those voting with their feet and U-Haul vans. Price for a 20 foot truck from Dallas to LA, $1602. You want to flee what California is and what you fear it will become, that same truck from LA to Dallas will cost you $4656. Dollars and feet don't lie.

Hey google how many ships are stranded in the strait right now? “As of May 10th 2026, an estimated 1,600 to 2,000 ships are trapped or stranded in the Persian Gulf and around the Strait of Hormuz” … the IRGC and the previous ayatollahs son are in charge. And they have all the exact same goals. Are you seriously saying that since we killed some dudes we can check this one off the list despite their replacements pursuing the exact same things? Trump said at the beginning of the war:“U.S. would destroy Iran’s missiles and raze the country’s missile infrastructure “to the ground.” I’ll cut you some slack on this because the admin themselves have shifted the goalposts on this one changing from words like “obliterate” and “totally destroy” at the beginning of the conflict, to “degrade” more recently. Regardless, initial goal not met. Iran still holds our assets and allies in the region at risk with significant missile stockpiles Yes it was. The protest crackdowns were a primary justification, the president tweeted that the people should rise up, and it went hand in hand with the goal of achieving a regime change. None of which happened. .. our own government is saying the nuke material is still at large In summary, that was a pretty wild public display of mental gymnastics and cope. I really hope this isn’t how you grade mission objectives in your debriefs.. explaining everything away with semantics or BS technicalities while none of the intent is actually met.

@Pooter See my reply to Negatory. Strait is not closed We were never after no “regime” in power, we were after people change. And that has occurred, multiple times actually. TBMs - Never was the goal to take 100% of the capability (unattainable goal). We’ve met our desired goal. Iranian people - Liberating gen pop was never a pri objective. Sure we’d like to see them get out of their situation, and we’ll help them indirectly when it’s convenient, but is not a pri objective. Nukes - Sure, believe whatever you want… Turns out your list was mostly poorly informed opinion and not “basic facts.”

California is a masters class in how not to govern at every level. But, when you have a lot of very stupid people living on the coast, you’re going to get very stupid, elected officials.

That's awesome! Not a single tube of shame!

This photo is irrefutable evidence that aliens exist…….

Someone writing something you don’t like doesn’t make it propaganda. Someone writing something anti administration doesn’t make it propaganda. Nor does it make it morally wrong. As Teddy Roosevelt said, Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. You probably are also initially upset that the NYT has correctly ID’d Chinese perceptions that the US are making poor strategic choices. Like expending half of our cruise missile inventory. archive.isChina Sees a ‘Giant With a Limp’ as U.S. Drains Weapons o...I’d reassess. It is a fact that the American people - who live in a democratic republic - deserve to know what their country is doing and have a right to impact that course. As a reminder, the Iran war is at a -20 point net favorability in this country. It is not the duty of the media to propagandize every state action and return favorability. That’s what happens in North Korea and Iran. I’d also reflect and realize that you have no counters at all to the factuality of the articles. You just attack that they exist - precisely because you can’t point out how they are wrong. It is the mark of someone who does not have a valid counter argument to devolve to calling something they don’t like propaganda. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, eh?

KEND 26-10AU T-38 x7 T-6C Vietnam T-6 FAIP EA-37 DM KC-46 Altus x5 KC-46 McConnell AFRC KC-135 Altus C-130H Bradley ANGB C-17 Travis AFRC C-21 Scott C-130H Peoria ANGB 26-10AM (Last T-1 drop ever) C-5 Travis AFRC KC-135 Andrews KC-135 UT Guard KC-135 Selfridge ANGB KC-135 Grissom KC-46 Pease Guard C-130H Cheyenne WY Guard C-17 Altus 26-10AF T-38 FAIP F-16 Bulgaria F-16 OK Guard F-16 Holloman F-35 WI Guard F-15E SJ F-22 Langley

I could only play 6-9 seconds of that retard talking. It's like Tucker Carlson and RuPaul had a love child.

Didn't realize we were arguing analogies... I'll restate it another way to not cause confusion. Europe didn't take heed of Germany's actions and allowed a violent, immoral, cult centered regime to gain substantial military strength which resulted in millions of lives lost, because they were afraid of starting another war. The war that resulted cost millions of lives, which could have been prevented with earlier action. Iranian leadership is immoral, cult centered (at the very least they adhere to a radical view of Islam), and has gained substantial military strength, just not a nuclear weapon as of yet. Oh yeah, and both regimes actively worked toward the slaughter of the Jewish people. Cambridge Dictionary: Not following accepted standards of morally right behavior or thought. Hopefully you agree that a regime that is directly responsible for terrorist attacks including Oct 7 is immoral, unless you're a Khamenei follower. You'll have to ask the Iranian leadership, oh wait the majority of the ones in power have all been smoked. Are they less likely to continue building a nuke so they can destroy Israel per their stated claim? I guess that depends if we kill enough of their leadership that actually thinks its their destiny to do so. Destroying all their toys will help too. No. None. The premise of the question itself is invalid. The odds for Israel invading Iran would be better than 1 million to 1 if Iranian leaders hadn't funded terrorists to rape and torture Jews for the last 47 years and in general work towards the mass genocide of their population. It also doesn't help when their leaders say things like this ad nauseum: Major General Hossein Salami declared that the destruction of Israel was no longer just a dream, but an "achievable goal". He added that the regime had obtained "the capacity to destroy the impostor Zionist regime." More healthy. Reference the above points regarding the continued neutering of their radical leaders. Additionally, the alternative here to the current action, would be inaction. Which is what we've been doing for the last 47 years. Unless your assessment is the cultist, immoral, and evil leaders of the regime will wake up one day with a nuclear capability and suddenly decide they don't really believe it's their destiny to destroy Israel or launch a nuke at the US. Iran with a handful of nukes. The US Congress and the President still work at the pleasure of their constituents. If you disagree with the rule of law, then by all means exercise your rights. When my parents were younger they didn't fear that the Legislative Branch was ceding too much power to the Executive Branch. They feared a nuclear war from a country that, compared to the Iranian regime, was ran by some very level headed individuals. More dangerous. You mean do I fear politicians that act like politicians? No. Unless they allow Iran to acquire nukes. Then I'll just do my best to fire them, i.e. VOTE. Also, your "Final Question" was 2 questions...

It’s rage bait all over the news, and here’s why: Trump can’t take a dime of the awarded money The headlines/articles act like this is a potential new “line item” that will be added on the budget. Reality is this money already exists and is earmarked precisely for paying out lawsuits won against the fed gov. It was always going to be used to pay claims The DOJ, IRS, FBI, etc. was substantially weaponized by Obama and Biden - zero issues with people receiving compensation for getting unfairly/illegally fucked by the fed gov. Any rational American should support that - it shouldn’t be a partisan issue

#0 just made some good Buffalo Trace come out of my nose!

Yeah, door #3 is we just sit back and let the blockade do it's job / work. In short order, Iran's oil infrastructure will crumble and the crushing reality of actual economic austerity will begin to set in and will take a toll on the people and the regime of Iran. Long term, this will destabilize and delegitimize them. That will increase the likelihood of regime change, and in all honestly, the best kind of regime change since it will happen organically. What we (Trump) likely doesn't have is the balls to wait it out or sell it to the American people in a clean way. I think he tried the other day, but the message fell flat. What I think probably happens is we split the difference. We'll commit enough men and material to opening the straight and denying Iran their ability to project power, whilst simultaneously disallowing Iranian shipments through. I was right about us starting the blockade - because it was obvious. I'm not as certain about this course of action. If I was in charge, that'd be my strategy though.

I saw this exact thing in San Diego a while back. On a corner, where a building had two planters by the front door, lady walked behind, dropped trou, and started shitting. Building owners should be allowed to fire hose em.

I think #2 is the only long term solution. We can take all their nuke stuff, but Russia could give them some (and the support to go along with it). Additionally, they will reconstitute, so while that could take a “long time,” it still means we have to go take care of it every X years. Bottom line, the world needs Iranian leadership that sees and believes the benefits of not being murderous pieces of shit, hell bent on killing the west and all of their neighbors. Instead, hypothetical leadership needs to see the advantages to their country by getting along on the global stage, and enabling their population to flourish rather than maybe if they’re lucky survive/exist until death comes. But that all said, it is not a viable option to just throw up our hands and do nothing because #2 above is “too hard.” That’s how we get continuation of bad things happening around the world. So reality is we need to work towards #2, but simultaneously we have to keep them knocked down enough to the point #2 becomes a viable option in Iran’s eyes. The other part not addressed is how incredibly fractured they are right now - civilians have no control over the ISIS-like IRGC. That’s a huge problem, and the main reason this ceasefire was a terrible idea - we shouldn’t have stopped killing the IRGC for even one day.

Because allowing the enemy access open source BDA gives them more information about what capabilities we now lack or what could still be brought to bear against them

Yes. Please don’t come to California. Keep watching Fox and drinking the kool aid. CA sucks. Tell your friends. My in laws have solar and PGE and don’t pay a dime. Sounds like he’s on leased, not owned solar. Rookie move. Don’t forget to tell your friends and family not to come to CA. It’s the worst. Would like to know what states you think are great. Please don’t say Texas.

Apples and oranges... While North Korea has been a threat since 1953, tell me how many Americans have been killed as a result of that regime since? Now, how many Americans have been killed as the direct result of Iranian-sponsored terrorism since 1979? If you think Iran is less likely to use nukes (if they get them) than North Korea, please elaborate why. Yeah, North Korea is somewhat unpredictable; but I feel they are far likely to go full on stupid unless they feel the regime is threatened versus Iran who would use them (especially against Israel) for far less justifiable reasons. Iran’s leadership blends religious ideology with state strategy, which could make its decision-making less purely deterrence-based than a typical state. North Korea’s primary goal is widely viewed as regime survival above all else. Iran has a long track record of using proxies (Hezbollah, militias, etc.) that creates a scenario where escalation could occur indirectly or ambiguously. Iran operates in a densely contested region (Middle East) with multiple adversaries, frequent conflict and short missile flight times which increases the chance of miscalculation, rapid escalation and pressure to act quickly in crisis. This recent conflict with the US, and the fact that several Middle East countries are siding with the US on it, has clarified who are their allies and who are their adversaries. Overall, Iran's ideology, proxy conflict and regional instability far more increase the risk!

Who says WWII is the right analogy? What is the objective definition of "immoral/evil"? Is Iran more/less/same as likely to pursue a nuclear weapon now than before this operation commenced? Is there any merit in the idea of Iran having the credible capability to deter an Israeli invasion in the future? Is the global security picture more healthy or less healthy if Iran, lacking a deterrent, feels sufficiently threatened by an Israeli power imbalance that it continues to support and sponsor irregular warfare and terrorism in attempts to unsettle the internal politics of Israel and its partners/allies/gimps? Final question: which is the bigger security threat to the US -- Iran with a handful of nukes or US presidents who no longer have a requirement to make the case for war with the Congress and general public? Is Iran's terrorist sponsorship more or less dangerous than the risk to our own political solvency if our government is permitted to lie under oath, make stuff up, mislead, have no plan, piss away trillions, and then blame the Avon Lady? There are lots of answers. The questions are more important, in my opinion. I ask them to illustrate the chasm of space available for reasonable people to disagree (or in some cases, unreasonable people to expose their disdain for the rule of law). The fact we can disagree about whether and how this should be done double red underlines why we have a process of securing consent and funding as soon as possible after hostilities begin, or before initiating them where possible. None of which applies when we're Israel's bitch and they own our defense policy.

Disagree. The treaty we signed says they have a right to produce their own. Us offering to sell it to them cheap is still a form of leverage we hold where it could be cut off at any moment. It is completely understandable a country wouldn’t agree to that. Except they have agreed to compromises before. Like the one we had and then tore up. Or the negotiations we were in with them right before we used those negotiations as a cover for a surprise attack (twice) Maybe my writing wasn’t clear, I didn’t think you were. That’s a standard I believe should be a thing. On the debate about Israeli nukes and good guys vs. bad guys we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think it’s naive to view ourselves as the perennial good guys. WRT Iran we’ve even tampered with their government in the past motivated mainly to stop nationalization of oil. We’ve armed, then betrayed, then armed again opposing nations and militant groups all over the Middle East to *theoretically* advance our interests for decades, all with virtually zero regard for moral or even strategic consistency. I’m not even impugning intentions.. mostly it’s the results I have an issue with. We start things because we think we can pull it off and then when it inevitably blows up in our face, we go “whoops, that sucks” and GTFO

If the United States commits to supplying cheap uranium fuel for any civilian nuclear power program, Iran has no leg to stand on. Funnily enough, we've done exactly that and Iran refused. I am baffled by people who twist themselves into pretzels pretending like Iran is interested in anything but nuclear weaponry. That's what they want, and that is why they refuse any compromise. I have not advocated for that standard at all. You will not find a sentence anywhere on the internet where I claim that no countries should have nukes. I have continued to advocate that some countries can absolutely not have nukes. Iran being top of list. I believe Israel is one of the most obvious countries to have nuclear weaponry. They are disproportionately small for their region, and they are disproportionately targeted for extermination. If Israel did not have nukes today I would advocate for giving them nukes tomorrow. The fact that they have had them for decades and have never used them is all the evidence you need that they are not a threat. Yes, I actually do think that's naive. At the end of the day you cannot act on this type of scale without a moral framework, and that is almost definitionally subjective. That is why some of the disagreements are so intractable, because they are fundamentally disagreements about moral ideologies on a global scale. I believe that the United States and Israel governments are, on the balance, moral actors. I believe that the Iranian government is evil. (I also do not believe in God or any sort of supernatural truth, before anybody goes down that rabbit hole.) We are, in fact, always the good guys. You don't become the bad guys just because you do a bad thing if the overall character of your actions is good. That's important, because another non-objective reality of global conflict is that it's different when the good guys do something bad versus when the bad guys do something bad. Intent matters. And the response to the bad action is in fact dependent on the intent. That is fundamental in our justice system. That puts us in exactly the position to tell other countries they can or can't have nukes. I do not think for one second that you hate your country.

Of course an AI would say Cyber is primary, tip of the spear.