tac airlifter

Stoker, I don't intend this in a mean way, but you sound like somebody talking about the idea of the border problem who hasn't been there since Biden took office. What is happening now is different than the border problem that has existed for several decades. When you go to the border right now, you will see 10,000 angry 20 year-old dudes. You will see them fighting, and you will see them interacting with each other, and eventually you'll realize that Venezuela and Haiti and Sierra Leone and Nicaragua have emptied their jails and sent them to us. I know there are still families and a draw for unskilled workers and all that stuff that has been going on for a long time. Congress is dysfunctional, got it. But there is a different thing happening right now on a scale we have not seen before and it is a serious threat to this nation. Millions of poor people in a three-year period looking for work would be bad enough, but mingled within that population group of illegal immigrants are hundreds of thousands of vicious gangsters. Are we so innocent and naïve that we cannot see what is obviously happening?

I frequently hear the migrant bussing effort is a “political stunt;” the implication being said effort can be dismissed as unserious. The Texas program is highly organized with a cleaner ends-ways-means briefing than anything I saw in the military. It is staying on budget, has broad public support in Texas, and is visibly meeting original objectives: evidenced by the developing public rift between D federal authorities facilitating the immigration crisis and D big city mayors feeling pressure by residents to restrict the flow of incoming illegals. Previous to this effort there was no disagreement internal to the D party, thus allowing them to ignore red border state concerns. Why do you malign this strategy as a “political stunt?”

You'll feel better once you realize they aren't flying for free... you're paying for it.

Not sure I agree with the first statement, although I probably do with the second. I'll have to give the situation with McCarthy some thought; in general I am a fan of accountability and holding people to their promises, although in that situation it did create a lot of turmoil. Was it worth it? I don't know. I know I do like the new speaker though. FWIW I recently had a one on one conversation with Gaetz during a ceremony. I'll take his brand of spear throwing aggressive showman over the weak sister cry baby frauds like Kinzinger. Neither are what I want as representatives, but we are in a place of voting for the least worst option and at least he tells Austin to fuck off regularly. It is a sad state of affairs in American politics, and one I don't know how to fix. My dad was one of the most honorable men I have ever met in my life. He twice ran for office and I worked his campaign; he lost both times in the primary. He was completely destroyed (>10%) by total scumbags with big outside funding sources. He ran a great campaign (considering our resources), handily won debates, was personable, worked the entire district, etc. But if somebody can afford $1 million for Robo calls, signs at every intersection, TV spots till you hate them & people to fake cheer in crowds (a real thing), they typically win a primary. Anyway, I wasn't trying to have a deep dive into Gaetz or the unpleasant realities of our current political process, I was really just dropping a dirty dozen reference.

He’s good at making comfortable bureaucrats uncomfortable, which is both useful and entertaining. We don’t have to like people to acknowledge they may have utility in certain environments; haven’t you seen the Dirty Dozen?

I live here & voted for him, let's fight! kidding of course. But I love moments like this, it's his speciality. Wouldn't support him for any other office but I do enjoy the rabble rousing and spear throws.

I agree with you in theory. The best inspection would be auditing a normal deployment or even a blowout to validate squadrons have legitimate processes ensuring trained airman are equipped and mobilized with alacrity towards a specified task. Bonus points if inspectors highlighted support agencies causing mission friction and could provide wing and Hq commanders suggestions on changing the present paradigm where deploying squadrons jump through hoops to accommodate arcane requirements by non-deploying support agencies. however, this will never happen. It is unfortunately not in our culture; our culture is preserving stateside bureaucracy who view overseas missions as a distraction to home station status quo. This has remained true regardless of who the commander is because it's entrenched culture within the organization. It's sad looking at YouTube videos like the one above postulating our forces are not ready for the big one. Of course they aren't, when have they ever been? Every war has required a waiver to some current process in order to allow operators to meet the task. Think about that for a minute. How many new ideas have you seen that made sense and could've helped the mission but could not happen without some multi agency multi year waiver, and the gatekeeper at every increment is some non-deploying homo who needs to be convinced the requirement is real. How totally fucked up is that? It is an indictment of every level above the line unit, which is one more clue in the puzzle of how we can kick so much ass yet never seem to win. Given this reality, I am not a fan of no notice inspections because I do not trust the system to do them intelligently. They will be done in the dumbest way at the worst time focusing on all the wrong things. And fantastic squadron commanders who are prioritizing lethality will get fired because they've been pioneering new TTPs instead of plodding through MICT. it's not all depressing, I do have a proposed solution, but it's better over 🥃 . You should swing by sometime!

He certainly shined a light on extremism...

Great question. I don’t know anything about this specific scenario, but a common phenomenon is weak commanders fearing interpersonal conflict allowing a leadership void to develop which is exploited by uppity civilians.

Damn Charlie, good on you for going through two UPT's; that is a serious gut check. Well done bro and good write up.

Sounds like Dag Anderson is SOCOM favored. Surprising.

You are hard to talk to and full of assumptions, so I will end our dialogue by answering your above sentence, which seems to be the core disagreement. False. Maybe they went back-and-forth with policies I don't know, but just for fun I opened my old folder from group deputy and found the Red Cross authored policy for DOD as of Jan 23-- zero restrictions on blood donation of any type after Covid vaccination. In fact, it was encouraged for some reason. I'm not going to scan the memo, but this popped up in a 1 second search essentially saying the same thing: https://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/press-release/2023/blood-community-reiterates-the-safety-of-america-s-blood-supply.html I was unfortunately heavily involved in discipline issues during that time, meaning after graduating SQ/CC I was an admin bitch for WG & GP leadership picking through the complicated nuances of Covid discipline. Guidance was changing constantly, faster than the organization could communicate. Frequently guidance would be in conflict with other guidance. I don't know what the policy was in 2021 since I was busy killing enemies, but I know what it was in 2023, and I know that it has changed in 2024. Cheers.

1. Your first comment is wrong. You cannot give blood immediately after receiving a vaccine if it is in the category of manufacture requiring a two week wait. That is new. That's what this post is about. This new policy applies to some manufacturers and not others, for brevity I left that out of my original statement. 2. The point of my post is given this new restriction, what information is that based on and what other implications might that information have? That is the whole point. It's not a smoking gun, and was not meant to be. 3. you're confused why I brought up illegal immigrants, so let me spell it out for you: you said 99% of Americans received a vaccine not impacted by the new two week restriction. But there is a new large group of people giving lots of blood coming from locations where this is relevant. Is this why there's a new policy? A speculative question on my part, but this is a discussion board, and the point is to discuss. Clearly I'm not as articulate as I thought I was if you don't understand the point under discussion. 4. And that is ultimately my response to you: you are looking at this as a completely irrelevant minor detail being blown into a large issue. If it's so irrelevant, why did the Red Cross come out with a new policy? Given how cagey information surrounding Covid has been, this was new and noteworthy and worth mentioning. I did not blow this into a major issue, other people did, by assuming more into the post than is actually there. Cheers.

It's absolutely not a nothing burger, but neither is it some giant gotcha moment (which I didn't claim). In 2023 you could donate blood immediately after receiving a vaccine, now you can't. What changed? What other implications might that change have? You talk about the manufacturers from 99% of Americans, but consider over 7 million illegal immigrants recently added to the country and many of them are donating blood to make money. Have you donated blood recently? I was blown away how many non English speaking obvious new immigrants are using this as a cash source. if you were expecting a smoking gun to collapse the liberal C19 scam, this isn't it nor did I say it was. But think for a moment about the second and third order effects of the subtle policy shift, and the fact we are now acknowledging unknown risks were forced upon us; it should be clear this is not fake news to be ignored.

Is something I posted incorrect?

From the link: “If you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, you’ll need to provide the manufacturer name when you come to donate….There is no deferral time for eligible blood donors who are vaccinated with an inactivated or RNA based COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by AstraZeneca, Janssen/J&J, Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer” Sounds like manufacturers are a variable based on the techniques of manufacture (some have live attenuated and some don’t), but you’re right perhaps my reading comprehension is poor. However, I didn’t claim it was a smoking gun and since you need help understanding my point I’ll clarify for you: This is a new (ish) restriction from the Red Cross. The fact they have new information resulting in new safety guidelines means new things are being understood about a vaccine we were forced to take and undermines the 100% certainty of “safe and effective” used to justify vaccine coercion. Which leads smarter people to wonder “what else might we not know about these vaccines? And what risks exactly were discovered resulting in new guidelines? And if giving blood after certain types of vaccines is deemed unsafe, is breastfeeding safe?” Etc. Ergo I care less about the technical specifics and more about the indication that risks exist where no risks were claimed. Pro-vaccine tyrants want downplay every new piece of information as insufficient to a mature case overturning their assertion that C19 vaccination was required. But we’re learning, slowly, new risks ASW these vaccines and by compiling a list of those unspoken risks (of which this is an additional example) I’m making a case to the reader that more thorough study of these vaccines is warranted. Edited to add: I’d love to know what you think my “vaccine conspiracy theory” is. I made it pretty clear what I think- these were forced on us without enough testing. We should study this further, and learn from the emotional overreaction. That’s it. The fact you cannot have a rational conversation about the subject without claiming I’m a conspiracy theorist and insulting my intelligence doesn’t make you more convincing.

Thank you for your post & link. I'm not spun up, but you're right that the commentary from the link I posted was needlessly dramatic; I should have just posted the Red Cross link. A deferral for blood donation depending on vaccine manufacturer is yet another strange clue that vaccine mandates were premature and ill conceived. My intent was adding to the growing collection of those clues listed here, not distract from how weird it is that C19 vaccines (from some manufacturers) now require deferral before blood donation. However, what you call hysteria I would phrase as righteous indignation at the crime of coercing the population to accept immature and dangerous vaccines which did more harm than good. You may argue that characterization is untrue, but many clues are slowly piling up (including this post) providing data for my point. The "hysteria" from this incident originated solely from the pro-vaccine crowd. Although the commentary on my linked tweet might be provocative, it isn't incorrect.

Please let this warm ray of sunshine fall upon us

What do you think is their most likely means of delivery mechanisms?

Lawman it seems you cannot grasp other people have different opinions than you.

this is an informative addition to the thread. The fat guy challenges Tucker a bit on aspects of the interview discussed here, and agree or disagree with his answers, at least you have them from Tucker rather than internet speculation on his motivations.

I don’t think it was just luck, something seems to have shifted behind-the-scenes as previously fawning media turns on Biden in formation. Perhaps polling has them shook and they’re trying to force a new candidate. But I don’t think Michelle Obama will be it, she doesn’t seem interested. Regarding that bizarre event last night, this guy said it better than me:

I thought Tucker hammered the WSJ reporter issue pretty well and held Putin to an answer. After initial prevarications Putin essentially answered “we will release the dude eventually, but I am bingo good faith gestures to the west so we’re not doing it now.” I don’t like that answer, but hearing it directly from Putin was illuminating for many reasons. I also reject your unspecified moral concerns at engaging in dialogue with someone who has done something bad. Of course Putin portrays himself as the good guy and is evasive; knowing he’s bullshitting isn’t a reason not to listen. I’m surprised how many military officers are disgusted by Tucker‘s interview. I would gladly hear from adversaries no matter how much I despise them. I want to hear from North Korea, from Iran, the Houthi’s, would love to hear a podcast from al Shabab, AQ, etc. I watched the Vice documentary on ISIS with interest. I would kill all of them with no hesitation, but talking is the way wars end and listening is potentially advantageous. This is a recent development in our country and not a good one: we used to listen to everybody and journalists were applauded by interviewing adversaries. Now there is a large group of people who cover their ears and shout when introduced to a different opinion, claiming it is propaganda disinformation malinformation. Yes it is, so what? The enemy believes things we think are wrong, that is why they are the enemy. Answers can’t always be taken at face value, we’re engaged against them so their speech is a lot of subterfuge and attempted manipulation and they fight with words. Listening to those things doesn’t infect me, it helps me understand how to resolve conflicts to my advantage. Where might we agree? What are things they care about that we don’t where concessions might be made? What are sensitive areas where we might ascertain vulnerabilities previously unseen? How can we exploit their words against them? Who are the charismatic, intelligent leaders who have a chance of defeating us that we should target and kill? Who are the dumb ones we should prop up to weaken their organization? There are also tactical advantages: UBL, ISIS & NVA were targeted successfully based on analysis of items in the background of videos they allowed reporters to take; fucking dummies. I encourage that (Napoleon said never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake). So let’s all be mature and realize there is goodness here if we are smart enough to filter appropriately. And if hearing a different perspective challenges your own conclusions, that is healthy as well.