All Activity

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!

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.

Its all over the fucking news, bud. Trump even talks about it. Try not to tard too hard. ABC NewsTrump administration to create $1.776B 'Truth and Justice...The DOJ is finalizing a deal to launch a so-called "Truth and Justice Commission" to pay claims made by alleged victims of government "weaponization," sources say.

At least he missed the sidewalk.

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.