All Activity

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.

Sorry I’m referring to the nuclear proliferation treaty. Not a treaty between us and Iran per se, just something both of us have signed onto. https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons/treaty-non-proliferation-nuclear-weapons It outlines limits and international goals to limit nuke proliferation, but also the rights of nations regarding their civilian programs. When the JCPOA was in effect my understanding is that it was kind of a stricter layer on top of the NPT in exchange for sanctions relief, but as soon as it was tossed out, the NPT became the prevailing law again.

Nice! Has your wing/group put out any suspenses yet? Haven't heard anything yet here so I am wondering what to expect given the board suspense is pushed back to October.

What’s this treaty with Iran that you’re referring to? Unless I’m misunderstanding you?

I'm not really arguing that they aren't justified in wanting it. It's logical for a refund that seeks the destruction of the US and Israel to want nukes. It's simply a matter of what we can or will allow. The country that proudly funds and executes attacks against the West is going to get what? Bored of attacking us once they have nukes? I'm what reality does Iran with nukes work out better for us? Ignore morality if you must. We have an obligation to our citizens to stop threats against them. Iran with a nuke is a medium threat to is and a huge threat to our allies. It's an existential threat to Israel. Again, fundamental philosophical disagreement. If we aren't the good guys, who is? And if there are no good guys, what's the point of all this. Boiling everything down to some post-modern nonsense where everyone is a player of equal worth measurable only in their power is... Pointless. Why care? Why have treaties or allies it conventions at all? If you can't reason your way to the Iranians being evil and the US being virtuous, and you can't at least reason your way to the Iranian impact on the world being generally bad and the US impact on the world being generally good, or at a bare minimum, Iran bad, US less bad, then why do you care at all? Why does it matter that we are beating up on Iran if there's no good guys? It's so completely at odds with the reality of existence that I'm puzzles as to why some people do desperately want to see all societies and cultures as equally valuable. They aren't. And yeah, the Shah was not a great dude. But it's not like the movement we defending him against was the peace corps with prayer rugs. The previous prime minister nationalized the oil which pissed off the Brits, but the US dis not share that rage. But the coalition between the communists and islamists threatening to take over was why we backed the Shah. And the islamists hated the shah for, amongst other modernizing efforts... women's rights. So it wasn't exactly as clean cut as the United States meddling in the innocuous affairs of the Iranians in order to defend our oil interests. Although that is absolutely what the Iranians want the world to believe now.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4486565/920th-rescue-wing-assists-in-rescue-of-11-survivors-off-florida-coast/

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.”

You forgot about their terrorism for the past 50 years in your statement, but really went off the rails with this doozy. In no way imaginable was the agreement working. Iran continues to break every agreement we’ve ever had with them.

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.