Leaderboard

Did anyone see the events around the King Air that crashed (ditched), 80 miles offshore? Sounds like a movie in the making as they ditched and all 11 people on board survived and were rescued by the Coast Guard and the 920th. Everyone surviving a ditching then being rescued...Well done

For the record: I was banned from the forum by Helodude for responding to personal attacks after multiple users refused to engage with sourced arguments. I'd invite anyone reading to scroll back and judge whether the tone of my posts was meaningfully different from what CH, LR, brabus, M2, and others post regularly without consequence. M2 liking DFRESH's reminder to the forum is a nice touch, given that personal attacks, or unsourced, baseless statements are a regular feature of his contributions here. M2, name one politician or member of this forum, any person that matters that ever said Iran should have nuclear weapons? Not "criticized the strategy," not "questioned the outcomes," not "doubted the rationale." Said Iran should have nukes. I'll wait. What people are actually frustrated with is an administration that can't keep its story straight. In June 2025, the program was "completely and totally obliterated." By November, the White House's own document downgraded that to "significantly degraded." In February, Witkoff said Iran was "a week away from industrial-grade bomb-making material." Days later, Trump said Iran could "soon" hit the American homeland with missiles, when the DIA's own assessment says 2035 at the earliest. Then we launched Operation Epic Fury, and Gabbard told the Senate the program had been obliterated again, while refusing to confirm it had been an imminent threat. The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center resigned over it. That's not one position. That's five, in twelve months, depending on what needed justifying that day. Pointing that out isn't advocating for a nuclear Iran. It's asking the administration to pick a story and stick to it. But sure, use an internet meme and stick to a strawman, false equivalence, and false dilemma with the 2A.

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.”

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.

Well under the JCPOA we had a regular inspection regimen, Iranian enrichment limited to ~3%, and up until Trump tossed it in 2018, the IAEA said Iran was operating within the bounds of the agreement. Part of my frustration with this war (and broader Iran strategy in general) is we keep blowing up the status quo, getting into a much worse situation, and then going “gee it sure would be nice to get back to the status quo we just had.” But the whole reason I brought up the civilian program in Iran is because Israel says it’s a no go for them. This is a big problem for two reasons. 1) it’s pretty unsat that Israel has secret nukes, didn’t sign the NPT, and now is trying to dictate the terms of another country’s nuclear program. We wouldn’t tolerate that behavior from literally anyone else. 2) the bigger problem is the “no enrichment” Israel wants so badly is a total poison pill for Iran as far as making a deal. So yet again, we have our intransigent welfare baby country dictating the terms of the war we’re fighting on their behalf. Not great. And It’s becoming increasingly evident Trump (to his credit) wants to find a way out of this thing while Israel seems to want anything but. Bibi knows he absolutely has the ability to stir the pot whenever he wants to bait an Iranian response, and then by default we’re dragged back into hostilities. No one said they’re deserving of nukes. I just don’t think Israel has the right to lecture anyone about nukes, and by extension we don’t either because we’re BFFs with a state that has them in secret and won’t sign the non-proliferation treaty. That’s not a tortured view of morality. That’s an objective standard. The standard is: nuclear proliferation is bad no matter if it’s Israel or Iran who does it. Maybe it’s naive of me but I try to look for objective standards like this to define my political stances. Sometimes it requires zooming out and looking at our actions from an international frame of reference. And yes, sometimes that does lead to some pretty uncomfy conclusions. Like: not every conflict is as simple as good vs evil, and sometimes we might not even be the good guys. And none of that is to say I hate my country or I’m rooting for failure or I think we’re always in the wrong. I just want us to do things that aren’t insanely dumb, and if we can sometimes throw in the added benefit of it not being morally backwards or hypocritical, that would be cool too.

Selling my 1979 A185F if anyone is looking for a great performer with the IO-550 and 88” Prop. STOL kit, Wing Extensions, VGs, etc.

That's pretty much everything we need to know about your position. This is exactly the Obama/Mandami/Sanders position. Call it power-guilt or whatever, but it takes an absolutely tortured view of morality, statecraft, and human nature to find the Iranian regime (both the old Mullah-led regime and the current IRGC-led regime) somehow deserving of nukes because of the most unintelligent interpretation of US and Israeli histories. It's been fascinating to watch conspiracy-susceptible (and attention whoring) conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens fall into this rabbit hole and become indistinguishable from the progressive politicians they became famous by attacking.

I can see that. Two reasons: The media at large wants to paint anything Trump does as a failure. So, every American is bombarded with bullshit, half truths, and the legit info is typically suppressed significantly - it takes real effort to find it. For example, here’s a good example of clearly defined objectives (at unclass level): https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/trumps-4-objectives-in-iran-explained-1.500461406 Bottom line, the objectives have been pretty clear and not nebulous, but they also have been severely suppressed and therefore it makes sense that they seem non-existent/nebulous to a large portion of the population. Trump says all kinds of wild comments coming from left field that may or may not be true/fully accurate. He does this on purpose a lot - debatable how much it helps vs hurts his goals. So he is certainly a PCF to making it all seem nebulous at times when, in fact, it’s not nebulous at all. Bottom line, the admin could do better at clearer messaging, but it’s also hard to get clear messaging out when the “middle man” is doing everything possible to suppress or misconstrue that messaging.

Pretty sure we're all big boys and girls here

Glad they got out. Air & Space Forces MagazineT-38 Crashes in Alabama, Two Pilots Eject SafelyA U.S. Air Force T-38 training jet crashed in Alabama on May 12, after its two pilots ejected safely following a mishap.

If you were banned, you wouldn’t be able to post…you’re being moderated for your recent past behavior on the forum. Feel free to PM me, CH, and M2 about it if you want to discuss further.

Call me crazy but idk what domestic gun rights of US citizens has to do with military development going on in a country on the other side of the world. (Also for the umpteenth time, our intel community assessed they weren’t making a nuke) A better quote of the day might be: Imagine being the only country who has ever used nukes, allied with a country who has secret nukes, and thinking you’re in a position to lecture anyone else about nukes

Quote of the Day... "Imagine thinking Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, but that your own people shouldn’t be able to own a gun." Carry on.

It’s at his own golf course. If you buy your own golf course, you can put up a statue of yourself as well…Fuckin calm your tits.

This seems very very pedantic but sure I’ll use your terms in the spirit of friendly debate. I have googled it and traffic through the strait has been reduced by 95% plus. In any other context a 95% degradation of something would be considered kaput. Your car’s gas tank is 95% empty.. that’s empty. Your home air conditioning is pumping out 5% of the cold air it normally does.. your AC is broke. Your son only mows 5% of the yard.. hey buddy you didn’t mow the yard like I told you to. To the rest of your comment I noticed you used the word “nebulous” a lot. And I actually think it’s a perfect description of what’s going on. Maybe the reason we can’t agree on basic facts isn’t a problem of either of us but it’s because the war goals have been so nebulous no one is even sure what the desired end state is supposed to be. We have Trump proclaiming the war is over a few days back and then Bibi goes on the news and says the work isn’t done and we still have to get the nuclear material, more missile sites etc… And since our support for Israel is clearly limitless I’ll defer to the guy who I think is actually calling the shots (Bibi) and will assume this thing is far from over

Same thing I said to Pooter. Argue the content and don't degrade the person.

It took just under a month for mine. My buddy who needed a waiver had to wait around 6 weeks, ironically though his start dates are before mine.

Funny how progressives always go to states like MA to show how great Dems are, but conveniently leave out NM lol. Kind of like how they love to look at states like LA, but never mention UT or ID. Boston is a pretty nice layover btw, one of my favorites. The best indicator of likelihood of high vs low crime: Demographics

Agreed, TN blows, don’t move there. It’s the worse state in the union by far and everyone needs to quit moving there since it’s so terrible. I would never even consider moving there, especially if I had blue hair, was a trannie, a liberal, or otherwise wanted to ruin this great nation by fixing all the “right wingers”. Let that place stew in its own misery. PS: MS can have Memphis and thereby reduce crime by about 85%.

There are shit holes all over the United States, not just in California. Some of the worst places I ever visited were in the American South. Montgomery has parts of town that rival Compton. Edit: There is plenty to hate about California but there's also a lot to like. I stay here because it's not that bad. The governor sucks, a lot of the people suck as well but that's also been my experience in most of the places I lived outside of California while on active duty.

Probably.. but also other than bickering about partisanship why does it matter? Facts are facts. Those assets were struck by Iran and now we don't have them anymore. Trying to tease out the argument here.. is it: "wapo was soft on hillary/benghazi/biden, therefore current factual reporting is invalid?" Or is it: "other things were clown shows too so that makes this one fine?" Anyways.. just doing my occasional check in to see how our victory lap is going strait: still closed regime: still in power iranian people: still oppressed tbm capability: still intact nuclear material: still at large deal with iran: still nonexistent despite claims they're desperate for one ceasefire: continual rolex on the deadline, also not even really a ceasefire gas prices: worse than last time I was here Just so tired of all the winning guys, but please by all means tell me how my TDS invalidates all these basic facts