17D_guy

Be interesting to see how firing the CoS of the army came about. In the middle of operations no less.

Always with photoshops of this fat 80 yr old yoked out like Stallone.

I remember that as bipartisan second guessing which got us to the Patriot Act. But maybe my memory is bad

Anyone watch the speech?

It's an internet forum dude. While I have had some/many antagonistic posts on here, this wasn't one and I really tried to frame it that way. I know we don't all agree, even among you guys that are for the Iran engagement. But I ain't trying to live in a echo chamber, so that's why I phrased the question that way and put in my 2 cents. I'm thought it was pretty clear I was asking for everyone's opinion, I guess not. Easy way out of your answer for Iraq and Afghanistan - we had a AUMF and allies that fought along side us. But, I thought about it all the time in the end it was a big contributor to me retiring when I did. I legit prayed a lot about it. Finally, I'm an American so I can and will question everything. I'm sure some of you gents/ladies think I lap up everything the DNC drops outta its ass, but I don't. I thought questioning the government was the whole point of this country? Thanks for the responses, enjoyed the reading.

Appreciate this input. Legit question for all following: This has been framed as a limited engagement, therefore not requiring Congressional approval. Trump's made some comments on why that phrasing has been used, but I do wonder from the members of this board: When, in your opinion, does the timing under "limited operation" exceed executive authority and need to require Congressional approval? Would it be a time period (ex. >2 months), funding amount, assets utilized (ex. # of troops, or x number of MEFs/squadrons/carrier groups)? And/or is there a operation type (ground invasion, targeting power generation, etc.) which also leads this to requiring Congressional approval? Would a Kharg island invasion be a crossed line? For my part, this already exceeds a limited operation (I would consider Venezuela that), funding is well beyond what I consider within the bounds of law (not a lawyer). I could see a week as a limited operation as well, but would want more Congressional involvement even at that level.

Seems like the Republicans in the Legislature also aren't happy with how it's going and/or the "objectives" we've been told. (https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/25/politics/iran-war-gop-lawmakers-trump-administration-briefing) Seems like an overall lack of planning for second and third order effects. Most here spent at least 20 years of GWOT, we know people die, things get broken, and the enemy gets a say. The lack of strategic preparation is...concerning. The President declaring victory already...concerning. The Sec Def crashing out at journalists because they're asking hard questions and not writing propaganda...concerning. But you wanna rah rah around the flag pole? You're in the minority (unless your MAGA) on this "limited operation" going into its second month.

This is why all the AI identification and Palantir shit (ICE, DHS, cops, whatever) is so concerning. These mouth breathers think since a phone/app identified someone then it's right 100% of the time.

Always find stats interesting and this just dropped from one of the better folks out today (I think). Haven't read it yet, no opinion on my part, just wanted to share - Iran War support: Latest Polls | Silver Bulletin

Doing this during the trail is hilarious - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4AiuqQpB1U

https://v.redd.it/d30sxsl18hpg1 Trump, "They weren't supposed to go after all these countries in the middle east. Those missiles were set to go after them. So they hit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. Nobody expected that. We were shocked."

Also, this was amusing - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/15/us/politics/farm-labor-trump-migrant-workers-h2a.html

Can I be outraged at the hat, or is there someone else I should blame?

Not to take away from the fact that he's a old man, but the shoes like that are pretty in style right now with suits.

Excuse me, that's Kim Jong-Clinton to you!

Oh, you care what a politician says now? Noted.

Such a great game!

Dumb question from a non-flyer - "super major" is a large airline? I'm assuming and we know how that goes. I think it could also be a oil company?

Watched the press brief...doesn't look like it.

So we're running Venezuela now?

So, International Command and America's Command coming? non-paywall link - https://dailycaller.com/2025/12/16/hegseth-plans-huge-shakeup-top-military-commands/ Original is a WaPo article.

How could "personality" not ever be part of the political question?

Lots is happening on the gov't side as related to cybersecurity and IMO none of it is good. I can't speak to DoD anymore, so I won't focus on that. On the civ side the overall focus from the administration seems to be that cyber not a national strategy concern. They've de-funded or cancelled many of the coordination groups (ISAC's) between gov't, business and local leaders. ISACs now require a fee to participate, if they're continued at all. The FCC just rolled back the cybersecurity standards that were proposed in the wake of the Salt Typhoon hack that popped a ton of US telco's (and those around the world). The rule required - Create and implement cybersecurity risk-management plans Submit annual FCC certifications proving they were doing so Treat general network cybersecurity as a legal obligation Since retiring I have done Incident Response for everything from a local school board, city governments, state agencies, and businesses from non-profits to multi-billion dollar, world wide critical manufacturing organizations. I wish I could completely articulate the complete shit show that most of these organizations are when it comes to cybersecurity, especially the bigger ones. They only care about 2 things - what is the minimum amount of security to show legally (customer lawsuit) we did due diligence and what does the gov't require us to do? The fines are not high enough and counted as "the cost of doing business" (re: Facebook fines) and they lobby actively to have a "self evaluation" standard for regulations. We all know how that goes. The fact that these companies successfully said making a risk management plan is "too hard" really tells me all I need to know. Step one of incident response (and I'd assume anything critical) is "have a plan." The telco's said, "no." Big business basically says no, unless they're a bank. Don't even ask me about the health care sector, you'd think $10K HIPPA fines per instance would be a forcing function. It's not.

Kinda random, but has anyone started a gun club in their local area? I'm looking to get one going where I'm at and would love some pointers/warnings.

Republican senator replaced by republican senator? It's a red state, but that wasn't the crux of my statement, so fair comment and I'll clarify. In 2024 Trump got ~1% more vote than 2020 in Utah (data here - https://vote.utah.gov/historical-election-results/). All 3 races he's competed in - 2016 - 45.5% 2020 - 58.13% 2024 - 59.39% (+1.25) Look at his gains in other states, All of these states are close culturally with Utah. All data below is from the wiki articles about the elections for these individual states. AZ for example - 2016 - 48.67% 2020 - 49.06% 2024 - 52.25% (+3.19%) Lets look at NV - 2016 - 45.5% 2020 - 47.67% 2024 - 50.59% (+2.92%) Idaho (crazy cousins up north) - 2016 - 59.25% 2020 - 63.84% 2024 - 66.87 (+3.03) NM (he lost every year) - 2016 - 40.04% 2020 - 43.50% 2024 - 45.85% (+2.35%) So, a more correct statement would be (and I'm now remembering it from the "fun" poli-sci presentations I've sat through) we didn't slide right nearly as much, and are an outlier in the Southwest Basin states. When you get into the county and precinct data it's actually very interesting from 2020 forwards. There's a reason the state Leg further gerrymandered State districts after 2020 to solidify the super-majority, just as R's are trying to do now in other red states for Congressional districts. I will also add a confounding variable is the number of D's who register R here to "have a say in the primary process/elections" because we are so gerrymandered and have such a super-majority. After the success of our municipal elections we've seen the following change in a month: registered D's increased by 2,000 people, R's decreased by 400. A drop in the bucket to be sure, not statistically significant and likely not to change the outcome of state-wide an up races...but an interesting change. Do no extrapolate this to changes in other states, heck the past couple elections (municipal included) could be outliers. Registrations could reverse in the new year when people are gearing up for 2026 elections. However, Utah has the youngest, most educated population with a large chunk of women who are politically active (both sides). Who knows, maybe in a few years I'll be the second Congress critter you all hate. LOL.