All Activity

There’s been a lot of false info and dubious claims regarding last night’s incident. That being said, this morning it’s looking like the IAF suffered at least 2-3 losses; all the crashed aircraft appear (for now) to be on the Indian side of the border. The above claim is pretty interesting if true. I didn’t know that China had exported the PL-15. Would give the Pak’s a significant BVR capability; would also explain why all the crash sites are on the Indian side. Tough for the IAF if they were using stand-off weapons inside their airspace and were still getting picked off.

No real dog in this fight, but with all of Pakistan's hypocrisy and Intel support to terrorist organizations...them taking a few Ls would not sadden me.

Seems like they are not having a good cruise.

If the 1st amendment can have limits (and all the others), so can birthright citizenship.

Or landed mistakenly on the taxiway at Balad on NVGs. I remember that tower call when we were about to land #2. Nice job guys, just taxi straight ahead to park. Doh!

I know how it sounds as a headline. I'd win over most with details. If your commanders commanders commander has a specific combat requirement and you as a non-deploying less experienced EP take a stand against the culture change, prepare to get fired. Send it to a different thread if you want more.

From a different OSINT site, someone captured the Truman Skippers reaction to this incident. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0-JA1ffd5Ms&t=10s&pp=2AEKkAIB

Did we transition to the what's wrong with the Air Force thread? This level of management definitely fits.

Glad the crew got out.

2 IAF losses so far reported, one by PAF and one by Pak GBAD.

Disagree Bif; If the goal is occupying Kashmir, Pakistan for the win.

Sts

My bet is on India. Let's go boys!

It's entirely possible you are one of the first ones coming through IFC I with ICLs.

Lol, you've taken your analogy way beyond relevantly to this conversation. I'm def not an MC130 guy, commanders work for commanders, and evaluators will do what their boss says or lose the Q code 🤷‍♂️

See above. The Senate may not interpret the Constitution, but they damn well do write it. Including the 14th amendment.

I know you know the law well enough to know that when the Supreme Court is answering a constitutional question, they go back to the framers, including any of their writings or recorded conversations. The Senate was responsible for framing the 14th amendment, and their conversations are meticulously chronicled. And they are 100% clear about their intent. Not even native Americans born in the United States were considered citizens by birth, and a separate law in the twenties had to be passed in order to make them so. This will be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court that got rid of Roe and Chevron. Did you think I meant the current Senate? My bad if I was unclear.

While everyone is watching Yemen and potentially Iran...

https://notthebee.com/article/the-supreme-court-allows-trumps-trans-ban-to-take-effect-immediately This may well be really hard on the Navy.

All valid responses. Again, my answer was “Yes, due process does apply”. What exactly does the “right amount” of due process look like? That’s the million dollar question, and I don’t have a perfect answer - which is why I’m not running for public office. I would think that the “right amount” of due process is somewhere between “Do you have your papers on you RIGHT NOW? No? Deportation to El Salvador immediately” and the Supreme Court hearing every single case. In my non-lawyer brain that read it somewhere, “due process” means you get to plead your side of the argument - to what level, that depends. Pulled over for a speeding ticket? Yeah I guess you can go to the judge and argue. Murder charge? You get a full jury trial with a chance to defend yourself. So maybe something like ICE agents can ask you for some sort of papers (but they have to have probably cause, and it already has to be agreed upon what “valid papers” are - passport? Real ID? Green card?) and if you can’t produce them (they’re at home because nobody carries their passport around, etc) then they follow you home and allow you to get the papers? I get that we don’t want to ask for ID, a person can’t produce one, so they are released with a court summons in the future…because that hasn’t been working. Maybe something like that? But whatever it is, I think it needs to be voted on by Congress, because to me it seems extremely close to a law (if not a legal procedure subject to governance just like a cop pulling you over, etc), versus done via Executive Order. Plus, if it is written into law, then we can all sleep easy at night knowing it met judicial review and has a majority of the representatives of the people (where the real power of government should be coming from) behind it. AND we are meeting the intent and text of the constitution by following the law (vice an EO) therefore nobody is being deprived of their due process. And maybe that is already what is happening, I don’t follow ICE’s current procedures - I just know that every person in this country is afforded due process and protection under the law. What that is needs to be decided BEFORE the agents start rolling out and kicking in doors. Good discussion, I appreciate the lack of snark.

No one cares what the Senate thinks of the 14th Amendment since they aren't the official interpreters of the Constitution and applicable amendments. Sorta like how booms didn't give a shit what pilots thought of how to make contact or pilot's not giving a shit about what a boom thought of an approach and landing.

Can Supreme Court Justices not be fired via impeachment? Stan Eval is a commander's program, however, as a commander when you R&C an evaluator, you are giving trust and confidence in that evaluator to follow applicable associate directives and technical manuals. Aren't you a MC-130 guy? Let's see what the MC-130V2 says: Huh, weird it doesn't state "what the commander's directives are."

Not a perfect comparison but I’ll play: No I do not to your first question; the second one has more than two options and it’s where your analogy falters. Stan/eval is a commanders program, and I fired an EP (once) for not evaluating in accordance to my directives. The gentlemen fired was safety focused to a fault, and I wanted to accept more risk for gains in combat. He wouldn’t change his outlook to account for the aggressive culture I was hired to facilitate, so I overrode his judgement, reclaimed the authority, and hired new EPs who got with the program. Good reply! I’ll start by saying I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement quoted. My understanding of POTUS perspective is a challenge on what constitutes “due process” as he’s searching for a streamlined system fit for circumstances. Getting 20 million people in front of a judge surpasses existing resources, and it was illegal for the previous administration to let them in. If the legal answer is impossible, what’s the real world solution? The people elected an executive who said “I’m deporting them” because they were tired of Laken Riley’s being murdered by illegal criminals. Democrat lawyers say “not so fast, rule of law!” (Ironic since they ignored rule of law to get the nation into this situation) and have frozen our executives ability to do what the people want. You’re right the best answer is congress to legislate, but absent that are we forced to accept millions of Venezuelan gangsters soaking up social resources and killing citizens? This issue was ignored for years when numbers were small & the people were mainly coming in to work. Under Biden some countries dumped their prison population on us, the amount of young Chinese men who entered is worrying from a national security POV. So thank you again for the thoughtful reply. What do you think POTUS should do since the courts cannot process the volume of people we’re dealing with?

Well the question wasn’t about the senate, it was about the constitution. And last I checked the senate doesn’t interpret the constitution, the Supreme Court does. So I’ll stick with my current assessment until the text or the court’s interpretation of the law changes.