All Activity

Finally got a deadline from my group! 7 Sept. Seemed like they were caught off guard when my commander asked them for deadline guidance On a separate note, does anyone else have a feeling that the application is relatively small? DAF215, Attachment 1, ADSC statement, Physical, and maybe PPL (if you've got it). I'm rereading the PSDM several times over my understanding is it doesn't require OPBs or DAF475s. Anyone else concur?

I want these two missiles named Big and Little Enos https://www.twz.com/air/aim-424-malice-very-long-range-air-to-air-missile-emerges-from-the-shadows https://www.twz.com/air/tiny-air-to-air-missile-in-development-for-stealthy-u-s-navy-combat-aircraft

New boarding announcement

It wasn't postpartum depression, it was postpartum psychosis. And there is a well-documented history for this woman of battling it. Obviously everything about it is a tragedy, but this is a textbook insanity defense. That doesn't mean she should walk free, but she should not be put into a prison with rational actors that made criminal choices.

In our hyper-individualist society where it’s all about “me”… We need to have more common values. I concur on personal responsibility. Lots of people want to pass the buck and won’t take ownership. Not cool. Realizing you need help and getting help is cool.

Hopefully this tamps down the social contagion that "feelings" trump basic responsibilities and consequences for poor choices. (sigh)...hope in one hand,

Glass half full—hopefully this builds SA so sick mothers get the help they need before they do something irreversible.

Sadly the best thing coming out of this situation is further exposing progressives for being ok with murdering children, whether in or out of the womb.

Agreed, 100%. Just like BFM said, two things are true. It’s tragic what happened to those kids. Hopefully something good comes out of the situation.

Two things can be true at once: Postpartum mental health is real, and deserves familial and societal support toward healthy outcomes. That woman betrayed the most fundamental contract of the species, and placed her ills ahead of her vulnerable children; she is herself not deserving of sympathy, instead of the full weight of punishment.

She is not a victim in the slightest. Plenty of people have severe mental health issues and the vast majority never harm a soul. As for progressive women supporting her, shocker (but not really)…

Postpartum depression is real. Childbirth wrecks mothers’ bodies and then there’s a whole new cocktail of hormones. Makes sense these other women would sympathize. She’s guilty; maybe the extreme situation sheds light on a problem and the silver lining is more parents get better help.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/women-rally-in-support-of-lindsay-clancy-at-her-trial Woman feels sad, kills her 3 kids...other women support her?

Yeah, I think they all do some variation of that about basically everything as our society has regressed; intellectually, culturally and politically. Getting a good majority 330+ million people to support policies that require personal sacrifice, delayed gratification and none to tangential material benefits to them is apparently too much for our politicians to attempt hence the lying, obfuscation, gas lighting, denial and wild overselling of all manner of policies. As to Iran though, if it were President Clark Griswold (God help us) I would explain in an Oval Office address: The history of aggression, terrorism and disruptive activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran against the United States and broader civilized world; probably releasing declassified information in that address to explain why we should fight them. What will be required of America, why this will succeed, how we will win, what victory means for the US and how the people of Iran can be helped. Why this is not imperialism, why it is right and why America half way around the world is responsible for this fight. Break Break As to strategy with Iran, had a stray thought on it… mentioned before in this thread I think but why not offer their provinces / non Persian areas that openly resist the IGRC weapons, support, reprieve from air strikes, etc… it would not be the only strategic LOE but one of them… Disrupt areas of the country not fully loyal to the revolutionary regime, deny oil export income, maximum economic sanctions but continuous delivery of humanitarian aid, block / control most air and maritime traffic, aggressively attack proxies abroad, lean on allies very hard to renounce diplomatic ties, continually execute long range strikes, split internal factions (Army vs IGRC) to offer leadership support and recognition in a post bellum Iran… basically everything short of a ground invasion while you prepare for a ground invasion…

Well in this case I think it goes a bit further than just a miscalculated gamble on the timeline/public support. The admin literally ran on not doing any more of these things because they knew exactly where public sentiment was for more middle eastern interventions. And then after winning they bait&switched the whole country. Only once it turned into an unpopular shitshow did we start hearing the line: “aCtUaLLy, we’ve been at war with Iran for 47 years.” Oh really? Sweet thanks, then why the fuck weren’t you saying that on the campaign trail?

Yup, that’s the problem / fact of life with American foreign policy problems. They are longer lasting than our election cycles, this causes politicians to gamble and occasionally get us knee deep without gathering the necessary public, political and institutional support to sustain and prosecute successfully said foreign policy challenge.

All good points. And I agree with your napkin math. Would need an absolutely massive amount of Schlitz to effect the desired regime change outcome at this point. And on the Putin/Trump comparison , I totally agree except that Putin probably has more public support for the massive mobilizations because the threat of nato on the doorstep of Russia is at least a bit more of a real threat to everyday Russians than Iran nuking NYC or whatever the war hawks want you to believe was imminent about this for us. Still my biggest frustration with this war is that you and I can sit here and do napkin math that was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain, but this war was pitched as a “quick in and out, 20 minute adventure.” Which means those pitching it are either: A) literally so stupid they never deserve to be listened to again on matters of military and foreign policy or (more likely) B) desired/foresaw the “managed instability” outcome and deliberately lied about how feasible this was to rope us into a war that would inevitably trend in that direction.

Got it back today!! God is good! Still no submission deadline announced but a huge weight off my shoulder with this completed. Will be finalizing packet and sending it over to the Squadron.

Yup, there is no tomorrow for the revolutionary government of the Iran if they lose hence why they spent 40 years getting ready for this. I did my own bar napkin math and I came up with a 1 million man fighting force to take, occupy and pacify Iran. Probably supported by another 1 million+ military members, 100+ CAPs, 3 carrier battle groups, etc… basically a doubling of the DOW budget, conscription required, the kitchen sink, etc… we can’t or won’t do that. We would end America as we know it, I’m not even opposed to military action against Iran to forestall nuclear weapons development but I know that if we decided that regime change is the only way to guarantee that the revolutionary Islamic government of Iran never acquires nuclear weapons, we would destroy our country in the process unless we as a country through a popular process decided this was worth it. One party making it their explicit policy, winning an election cycle and then executing it. I doubt that will happen so a lesser approach is likely required. My policy and strategy recommendations would be to consistently degrade conventional capabilities, factor and prioritize minimal collateral damage, deny economic resources to the regime; begin the diplomatic effects to isolate the regime; establish a new Iranian government in absentia that is a visible alternative to the revolutionary Islamic one and settle in for a multi year effort to collapse the regime. Did Israel trick us into attacking Iran? No. Did they encourage us to? Yes. The Venn diagram of Israel’s interests and America’s interests do overlap in Iran not having a nuclear weapons capability but Israel’s interest in this is much larger than ours, hence why they pulled every lever to get us to go kinetic. Others encouraged the administration to attack too, Israel was only part of the coalition. Totally neutral in that statement, I like the Israelis but don’t see them as infallible or without parochial interests either, they are a good ally mostly but not angels either, proceed accordingly. The Irony is the analogous behavior of President Trump and President Putin, both had successful military ops before that IMO encouraged them to try the big one. Putin had the successful operation taking Crimea and Trump had Midnight Hammer and Venezuela, they both misinterpreted the successes of those very different focused missions and thought they were indicators of likely success in a major conventional campaign. Nope, not unless you gear up and commit your country to a major military campaign, you’ll not lose what you start but you won’t win either. Putin has obviously gotten close to that total mobilization required if you want to win but even he thinks that is likely more than his nation will support. President Trump hasn’t even hinted at what would likely be required and/or doing that.

That's fair. You need something to clean the guns with.

Great article. I think the most insightful part is where he talks about the conditions that lead to a “managed instability” situation: I think another condition that can lead to this state of “managed instability” is an arrogant superpower who thinks it will be a quick intervention but the country they attack perceives it as an existential threat to their existence. At that point you have the more powerful country in the conflict half assing it and the less powerful country whole assing it, which creates semi-parity and leads to battlefield/strategic stagnation. The obvious follow up question to that is who led these superpowers to believe these would be quick and easy interventions, and what their motives might be. As for the CNN ‘Iran losing control of the strait argument.’ I find it utterly unconvincing. So we’ve had some ships transit an Omani route under full emcon get through. Sweet. That’s hardly a return to normal and honestly it’s a tacit admission that Iran still absolutely has the ability to threaten normal ops through the waterway. Which was the whole point all along. No one ever said Iran controlled the strait. All they have to do is hold traffic in there at risk enough to cause disruptions that they can use for leverage. It’s not gonna be long before they figure out a kill chain for ships that aren’t squawking and are a few miles further away.. if they haven’t already.. and then we’re back to square one. All the while we’re now committed to an enduring naval presence in the strait to hopefully claw our way back to something that (maybe) resembles the original status quo.

I'm onboard with all that and have stockpiled accordingly but I would like to add Irish whiskey to the list.

And we took off uphill...both ways!

https://youtu.be/_sxhKsFtflc?si=gNMzFqrz1wexLAg3 Decent drop vid from the CSO's