All Activity

Good. I enjoy when people think all of CA is just SF and LA. What great state do you live in?

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.

“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.

That is embarrassing.

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.

A direct outflow of the Iran conflict and Operation Spider Web. 5 US bases selected for anti-drone pilot program

Not to worry, I won't.

It was only US satellites not Russia or China who is giving Iran intelligence.

“Iran can’t have a nuke.” My issue with this stance is that it’s nothing more than a tagline. It’s not a plan, it’s an item on a wishlist. If the totally clear and not changing goal from the beginning has always been to deny Iran a nuke now and forever.. I have a few questions. First, since I guess we already established diplomacy isn’t going to work.. JCPOA sucked, was going to expire, Iran just does what they want anyway.. and since the regime always will try for a nuke and will try to reconstitute the nuke capacity they do have.. HOW do we prevent them from getting a nuke? From where I sit it would take two things: Send in a massive ground force for weeks to excavate and take the nuke material they do have Full, actual regime change or dismantlement. Not a fake regime change like the one we’re claiming we did where all the relatives and buddies of the dead guys take over and just keep doing the same thing. The next obvious question is: do we have the capability to do that? Probably yes but at a huge cost and we’d need to commit far more to the war than what is currently, including deploying a large portion of the army. The next obvious question is: do we have the political will to do it? Which I think the answer is indubitably: no. My last question is if this was always the clear goal, why wasn’t the operation pitched to the American people that way originally? Why did we go through the midnight hammer “totally obliterated” charade knowing full well bulldozers exist and reconstitution efforts would start immediately? Why was epic fury pitched as an absolutely no boots on the ground op when we knew full well eventually we’d need to go in and take the “dust?” Why is Hegseth claiming “our military objectives are complete” when the main thing this war is apparently about is still unfinished? Why are we now on the doorstep of a boots on the ground regime change war despite every neocon in existence calling skeptics “panakins” and assuring us for the last year that it wouldn’t happen? Like I warned months or maybe even a year ago in this very thread: escalations happen insidiously. No one sets out to have a years long boots on the ground regime change boondoggle and it isn’t always readily apparent when you’re walking down the path toward being in one. But here we are with no end in sight, making grand claims about what we can and cannot allow a very well armed country of 90 million people to do. If you guys think I’m missing a door #3 option I’d love to hear it.

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

They’ve absolutely pushed terrorism in Europe. They may hate us the most, but they definitely hate the entire west. You’re buying into Islamic propaganda if you think “there wouldn’t be problems if we’d just leave the Middle East.”

While I agree why hide the damage and block satellite images.

With that logic an apartment in a nice part of Dallas would $3k a month and CA would be $950. Oh wait, that’s wrong.

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.

What’s the purpose of this? Air & Space Forces MagazineAir Combat Command to Take Over Fighter and Drone Pilot T...The Air Force is placing Air Combat Command in charge of teaching combat tactics to fighter and remotely piloted aircraft units.

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

Trump sues the IRS for $10B with a B because (see link). His lawyer says he'll settle for $1.7B. Can Trump, via his AG, order the DOJ to settle, thus giving his entities $1.7B, that's with a B remind you, of taxpayer money? Mail OnlineTaxpayers to foot Trump's $1.7 BILLION billTrump would also have the power to remove commission members without cause, and the panel would face no obligation to disclose how it awards the funds.

Don't worry, more ackward is their dollar-ride.

So the Air Force now gives a fini flight to someone who was never an aircrew member…

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!

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.

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.

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.

The US and the allies didn't think risking WWII was worth it when Hitler created the Luftwaffe and started conscription again in 1935, both of which violated the Treaty of Versailles. Neville Chamberlain and the French rolled over and let Germany take the Sudetenland in 1938 to avoid WWII, much good that did. The world still turns when immorale/evil governments attain great power and weaponry... until I doesn't. 6 million dead Jews alone can attest to that. I want us to have a viable strategy against Iran with acheivable objectives just like everyone else. If objective #1 is Iran can't have a nuke, and we have to send in a ground force/start a major regional war to confiscate their uranium, so be it. Better now then after they've built a nuke and are making demands the US and Israel won't meet.

With Iran and terrorism in general I always find it’s a chicken/egg scenario of circular logic. -Why do the they hate us? -Because of our bases and meddling in the region -Why do we have bases and meddle in the region? -Because there’s people there who hate us This is part of the reason I reject the good vs bad over-simplification. There are countries and groups in that region that have very legitimate and understandable beef with us and Israel. Not saying I like them or want them to win but if I put myself in their shoes I’d probably feel the same way they do. If they “hated us for our freedom” and secular liberal western values, like the tired old saying goes, they’d be attacking Denmark and Sweden just as much as they try to attack us. But they don’t do that, because Denmark and Sweden aren’t the world empire constantly dicking around in their back yard. My ultimate motivation is what’s good for the United States and our people which is why I’m fundamentally against most of these offensive war-of-choice interventions. When we go into the Middle East without a coherent plan, without goals aligned with our allies, without international support, and without an exit strategy we end up harming ourselves more than helping ourselves. We make more enemies than we kill, we create more new problems than we solve, and we harden populations and cultures against us for the long run. And this is all before even accounting for the loss of our own service members, civilian death tolls, and the monetary cost measured in trillions across the various decades terror wars. The only way any of this ever gets any support from the public is by invoking some grand existential threat.. “Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.” Well that’s cool, because they weren’t making one and not too long ago when real adults were doing the diplomacy we actually had an agreement with nuke enrichment limits that Iran was adhering to. That’s what ‘good guys’ do: intelligently apply leverage from previous sanctions to get the deal you want without firing a shot.