All Activity

14319c3b-1d1e-4006-8fb7-3fba68e95a3f.mov

Cambridge Dictionary: a reason or reason why you support or oppose an idea or suggestion, or the process of explaining these reasons. I proposed an analogy, you questioned if it was the right analogy, I supported my claims and idea. Perhaps we can dispense with the pedantry. A country not being a regional neighbor and thus not being a threat hasn't been a factor to national defense since the inception of steam powered ships, much less the ICBM. Our national defense is threatened by a Iran who exports terrorism and has vowed to "slay the great satan" which is apparently US. I'd wager the number of Americans that could pick out Czechoslovakia in 1938 is less than the percentage of Americans that can identify Iran today. I don't recall polling the populace on their geography skills being a consideration for national defense. Incorrect. The phrase "accepted standards" being key to the Cambridge definition of immmoral. Countries that directly support terrorism fall below this threshold. Countries that directly support genocide fall into the evil category. American isn't financing genocide. The US does not finance genocide. Not since the Indians at least... I'm not a Trump apologist and don't agree with the quotes you're referencing. However, 47 years of Iran showing it believes it's own evil ideology and is willing to directly support attempted genocide is not a solid comparison here. Iran has proven it's inflammatory rhetoric isn't rhetorical at all. I didn't say morality matters in war. I referenced it in relation to a country that finances the attempted genocide of the Jewish people and yearns for the opportunity to use nuclear weapons against civilian targets. Incorrect. Iran attaining a nuclear weapon is a direct threat to our national security. I support the prevention of Iran attaining a nuclear weapon. Putting aside the presumption that there is "no one" that thinks US or Israel is an underdog, who says it matters who is perceived as an underdog and who isn't? Who is the "we" in that statement? Also, what do you think qualifies as a "rational decision" from the point of view of Iranian leadership? History is full of examples, especially in the case of the United States, where governments have applied a westernized world view to evaluate the concept of rationality to the government of a non-western nation, usually with disastrous results. A radical Islamist cult doesn't view national survival the same as we do. We don't negotiate with terrorists? Les Grossman might agree, but I doubt the rest of the world does. It depends on the situation. I'll grant there are definitely many levels between action and inaction. If I were to rephrase I'd say the actions that we've taken in the last 47 years have been impotent at best and counter productive at worst. We have yet to attempt to excise the tumor that is the Iranian leadership, until now. When you find someone or Anyone that made this statement, let us know. This analogy is a house of cards balanced on one simple questions: How would starting a war that political advisors warned would be very unpopular (especially considering Trump's platform during the election), successfully distract from a failing economy? If the country has a cold why start battling a wasp nest to take your mind off of it (this is an analogy I like)? Even if Iranian nuclear material is seized and their program destroyed, this is going to be a very politically unpopular war. Despite being blatantly obvious, I feel obliged to mention that unlike the Soviets, US constituents don't need the country to collapse to force a change of leadership. Oh, I'm very open to the idea that our internal politics are ff'ed and were long before this war occurred. Our economy was taken out of our own hands as soon as our leaders bought into the lie that was globalization. Disproportionate and indiscriminate responses is at best a misrepresentation of facts and at worst a blatant lie. I'd wager that to "them" or more correctly the Israel government, that terrorist attacks by islamic radicals were not seen as a clash of civilizations, but rather an existential threat. A threat they'd been dealing with not since Munich but since Isaac and Ishmael. Ironically enough, the Abraham Accords disprove your assertion that they have no interest in peace or conciliation. To support their strategy they've use the instruments of power as outlined in the ADSC reading guide? Are you more or less surprised than this: I'm more concerned we're Sparta to China's Athens.

Timing and spacing was good. Two, your PLF was a little off. I saw feet, butt, head. Remember to roll on your side next time.

I can’t explain that, because I don’t know. What I do know is as follows: 1) We have an artificially higher gas tax, by a significant amount. I don’t know why because our roads are terrible and they’re turning them into bike lanes. 2) My electricity rates are increased at a rate that is greater than the advertised rate of inflation (but are likely what actual inflation rates are.) 3) Trash fees, which were previously apart of property tax, just became an additional fee of $600/year. 4) $19,000 a year in state income tax at roughly $300k a year. 5) 1% property tax on a $1m home (median) is a lot. Plus community taxes. 6) We’ve created the fastest high speed rail… That doesn’t exist. 7) Probably lots of “Learing” Centers.

Someone thinks its more efficient. We did AC upgrades under the OSS because the schoolhouse was slot limited, and they got done faster.

I wouldn’t shy away from experimental - the only reason I care anymore about certified is if it’s making money (then you have to be certified). Otherwise, it can be a much better deal - just do your homework and make sure it had a reputable, experienced builder.

This is amazingly ignorant. Exactly what part of October 7th was in Iran's rational interest? Addressing the rest of your post is pointless until we can establish if you truly believe that Iran is just another rational actor like the United States or Israel.

Nothing to see here… Perfect diamond chute formation finale. Was prebriefed.

Hopefully someone kicked some rudder because lead got lucky with having enough space to eject. Since everyone made it and are OK: Rejoin to the piggyback position? Is that a new Ace and Gary maneuver?

Cracks my ass up, the silverbacks were convinced Kendall was going to gut AETC--turns out it was cruiser.

Navy currently has UJTS competition to replace the T-45. Bling is one of the three remaining competitors. It’s going so well for the AF, I wonder if the Navy will sign on too?

Another good question is going to be why do we have Growlers flying air show profiles? Did you really need an LDHD two ship to do a routine that would probably look exactly the same in slick hornets?

As a former FTU instructor, AETC has the airspace and the training lines. There’s a reason why the KC-10 did their FTUs in AMC and the -46 FTU is under AETC.

Cherokee 140 is what we went with for time builder, it’s up in VA beach though for the next year grinding. I’d stick with the certified aircraft if buying one for time building. I don’t have a hard opinion for why, but just instincts say it will end out working better.

Two has some spalining to do...parroting other holy cow lucky they all got out and didn't get tangled up. I thought it was AI at first...they were stuck together after first contact.

He is ready to build now.

We're not arguing at all. Argument is a claim, reasoning, and evidence. You're making claims and partially sharing your reasoning. So far, I'm not even doing that. Ok, maybe I am doing so implicitly. So let me be more explicit. You're justifying a war of choice with analogical reasoning. But we're not 1930s Europe. Iran isn't our regional neighbor. Iran isn't industrially mobilizing. There is no relative balance of economic and martial power between us and Iran. Our national defense is not threatened by Iran. Only 28% of Americans can identify Iran on a map, even when given a zoomed map of the region. You try to make Iran different with the "violent, immoral, cult centered" label. Every powerful nation on Earth qualifies as violent and immoral by any working definition. Statecraft requires violence. Nations lie, cheat, and steal. We're all whores and there is no honor among whores. Cults of personality occasionally gain access to power. But if this is how your analogy works, it's the USA at the top of the global target sort. If you're going to justify American action with statements by foreign radicals, they're going to do the same by quoting US radicals. Our president threatened genocide. The instant he did that, we did a hard turn to 180 from any chance of valid objection to flammable rhetoric. If you think morality matters in war, then you're a supporter of the legal concepts of necessity, proportionality, and the protection of non-combatants. You also believe international aggression is only justified by self defense. We have defiled these principles. If you believe/feel (not think) we're behaving morally, you're not a supporter of any of these things. Not on this sample. You're a supporter of whatever the current US regime wants to do. Might makes right. There's nothing spinal going on here. It's morally amoebic, changing shape as required. No one believes the US or Israel are the underdogs. We're not doing this because we believe Iran seeks nuclear genocide, which would be national suicide. We believe Iran's regime makes rational decisions in their own interest. Otherwise we would not be negotiating with them. You don't negotiate with terrorists. We haven't been inactive on Iran for 47 years. This is a comment that almost unilaterally proves a lack of curiosity, which leads to a shortage of facts and an overage of certainty. We sold arms to Iran in the 1970s. We sold WMD to Iraq in the 1980s to strengthen them vs Iran. Then we gave more arms to Iran to manufacture a stalemate and lied about it. Then we shot down one of their airliners on accident and lied about that too, before paying the victims' families. Then we got the world bank to release their loans if they would vote in favor of UNSCR 678 so we could legally conduct Desert Storm. After 9/11, we put them in the Axis of Evil despite a CIA assessment of zero material involvement in those attacks. They they supported Shia militias in blowing us up in Iraq, and we made this a rational choice by occupying every country bordering them while threatening to wipe them off the map or help Israel do so. Then they elected a moderate president, and so did we, and a treaty was signed. Then we withdrew from that treaty and started assassinating their leaders. Then we bombed their nuke program and obliterated it, and told the world we had done so. Then we started a war with them to re-obliterate it with urgency so urgent that the Constitution and WPR were too slow. The re-obliteration went very well on all sides. And yet here we are, because Hegseth says we have to bomb their ambitions too. I'm not sure how one bombs ambitions, but hopefully it can be done with dumb bombs since we're Winchester on PGMs. Anyone who says we've had 47 years of constant antagonism vs Iran because of terrorism and/or nuclear ambitions is talking straight out of their ass. Which makes sense, since talking shit is the only way to support a shit operation based on shit justification being sold by shit salesmen who are even more shit at doing their jobs and even more shit than that at keeping their oaths. Since you like analogies, I'll offer one for consideration. In the 1970s/80s, the USSR sought to distract its general public from the economic failures of communism by engaging in wars of expansion on its Eurasian frontier. The US recognized an opportunity. Be a stalking horse. Support proxies. Bog the Soviets down and bleed them. So we did, and it worked. Eventually they were humiliated in Afghanistan and stalemated elsewhere. The distractions were played out. Their economy was collapsing and they had to choose between a bloody revolution and a peaceful breakup. The root cause of Soviet collapse was internal political dysfunction creating mass economic unrest. The Cold War was our way to accelerate it. You don't seem open to the idea that our internal politics and economy are pathologically ed at this moment. If you blank that, you can't build a clear picture. Wars are commitments. Once we're committed, adversaries have a way into those pathologies. They can accelerate them. Since 1972, Israel has pursued a strategy of using terrorist attacks as justification for disproportionate and indiscriminate responses that demoralize Islamic populations. After Munich, it became a clash of civilizations to them, and they have no interest in peace or conciliation. These things require trust, and they trust Muslim leaders like Kirk trusts Klingons. To support this strategy, they've courted US politicians, bought shitloads of US debt, and developed a peerless intelligence service that hoards kompromat and uses the resulting leverage to get our regimes to do things that are not in the US national interest. Americans don't understand why we're so dumb, so there is blowback. That blowback is accumulating. Whether we are the USSR 1989, Germany 1939, or hapless European states 1940 in this scenario is for you to ponder. Good talk.

People keep paying high prices to live here. I think it's because the weather is always nice (at least in LA, OC and SD). Also there are rich people, from all over the world, who continue to purchase property here at crazy high prices. Homes in my neighborhood sale for 1.2-2 million when they should be 500k. It's pure insanity.

Man, that could have been really bad and crazy lucky that they all made it out without issue. That was really weird how both jets were in sync after hitting each other. And also...WTF? How did they manage to do that?

All 4 seats getting out with chutes is crazy in that situation

Don’t know if this is legit footage or not but crazy they all got out if real.

Holy shit! Hoping everyone is ok.

2 x F-18s 4 chutes seen

I’d agree with that—but why is it so relatively high? I get how certain areas of CA (LA, Bay Area) are expensive, just like areas around Austin, Nashville, Phoenix, etc are expensive for their states…but why is California overall higher?

Watching Trump “threaten” Iran again and again….