Leaderboard

1 - We, the officers of the USAF who choose to post on BODN, aren’t defeating anyone. Our country, the one you swore allegiance to, has collectively chosen to stand up to a strategic enemy as they fail. You should support that if your allegiance is to the USA rather than to some failed politician. 2 - the results of AFG and Iraq don’t rest on our shoulders. Bush, Obama and their secretaries aren’t posting here. You know damn well that if we had a say the policies involved in prosecuting those wars would have been different. 3 - Everything you argue for amounts to appeasement. Read a Fvcking book about the first half of the 20th century. Educate yourself.

Diversity of thought & debate is fine, but "dis gonna coz WWIII" isn't an appropriate retort to every counterpoint. A) Despite numerous foreign policy mistakes, America is the unquestioned global economic, military and cultural superpower, and we are closely allied with most of the other key players (EU/NATO/AUS/JAP/SK/etc.). If the last 50 years are a "strategy failure" please sign me up for 50 more years of similar failures so I can live out the rest of my days in relative peace and prosperity! B) Putin has agency. He personally controls Russia's nuclear arsenal. No one is forcing his hand to push the button. NATO expansion may be legitimately threatening to him, but he has choices and can choose to use nuclear weapons or not. It's not unreasonable to blame him if he chooses to do that in response to anything other than a nuclear first-strike conducted by the West, which isn't going to happen. Invading your neighbor, failing to win the conventional war, feeling "backed into a corner" because you suck at war and are losing, and escalating to a nuclear first strike are all choices, and at every step along that shitty path, Putin can and should choose otherwise. He's not a victim here or an automaton who "can't" choose to do anything else. C) I don't understand the arguments that "we aren't thinking of adverse effects" or "we are giving Ukraine a blank check." I haven't found that to be the case at all! A cost-benefit analysis & moral argument has been made that supporting Ukraine with lethal aid has been the right thing to do. Congress has allocated money in an orderly process, the President is supportive and has signed appropriations into law, and a coalition of democratically elected leaders across party lines supports our efforts so far. I happen to agree with the analysis and our actions so far, but even if you don't, it's kinda weird to just claim that no analysis was done. Like I'm pretty sure a pre-invasion cost-benefit analysis was done for invading Iraq in 2003...they sure screwed the pooch but like, there's no shortage of evidence that the administration didn't just trip & fall their way into massive coordinated military action! Same with this conflict, we're not doing this by accident, it's a strategic decision and you can feel free to disagree, but our involvement is not an unplanned accident that can be magnanimously corrected by some genius internet strategerizing by a handful of crack Air Force FGOs. No beatings needed though...righteous mockery is only reserved for those not willing to engage in good faith. I'm legitimately open to discussions of a desired end-state and what the US & Europe should accept if/when Russia decides to slap a tourniquet on the whole thing and negotiate with words rather than guns 🍺

I'll take this one. Yes. If the Earth is to descend into a multi-polar world again, in which war is inescapable, then I'll "take" WWIII. But exactly who will be fighting in this scenario you're hyperventilating over? Russia? The country that has wiped out half of their military capacity fighting a third-tier democracy? The country that is drafting the bottom of the bottom of the barrel to fight their failed conquest of a vastly out-gunned neighbor? It's going to be a pretty dull WWIII when one of the three key players can barely invade their neighbor. China? The belligerent dictatorship that has been almost entirely funded by the West? They might try to take Taiwan, but WWIII? You think the country with the worst demographics on Earth is going to risk conventional war with the West in order to defend the Russian campaign against Ukraine? Or do you just mean that Russia will launch nukes? That's not really WWIII, but if they do in response to losing a pathetic war THEY chose to fight, so be it. That genie was let free 80 years ago. Thinking we wouldn't eventually have to confront the reality of nuclear proliferation was just one of many fairy tales we've been telling ourselves for the past 30 years. Though it would be interesting to see China and India forced into eschewing Russian oil for fear of getting pulled into the inevitable shit-show that will follow a Russian nuclear attack. China already smacked Russia down when they started to rattle the nuke sabre. We spent decades appeasing the bullshit Russia and China have been pulling, all while funding their countries' growth. Now that they've reached a point where they must split with the West in order to pursue their imperial ambitions, you want to show your belly in the hopes they will be satisfied with your humiliation. They won't. We are in the way of their goals, and they have finally shown their cards. That isolationist nonsense failed spectacularly the last time the world hit an inflection point, and it will fail again. Either way we will be at war if the other near-peer countries decide the risk is worth it. It'll take one hypersonic missile hitting the US to wake up the blind patriotic fury that has accompanied every attack against this country. Personally, I think Ukraine will end up forestalling that inevitable confrontation. But not for more than a decade or so. WWIII indeed.

We keep feeding them weapons until Russia decides their losses are unsustainable.

Maybe we should send some foreign aid to Russia to help them deal with the loss?

So what the hell are the capital police there for if they won’t defend/protect the capital from violence?

Can you give one example of a nuclear armed country getting desperate and using nukes? I can think of an example where a Russian speaking empire, armed to the gills with nukes, went through an economic collapse and didn't nuke anyone. And of course doesn't rule out of the alternative, but you just made a declarative statement about what desperate, nuclear armed nations do, based on nothing at all.

Again… as obvious that it is you still haven’t watched the provided information that explains why this phase of the war is actually about preventing WWIII, we don’t have to kill Putin to achieve that. Demonstrating to him (in indirectly China) that wars of conquest will not be accepted by a unified group of western powers is done by what we are currently doing and that we (the west) don’t dither internally to the point of giving into compliant isolationist views that benefit the belligerent party. Putin can always go home and keep his shamble empire. The difference now is he does it without the ability to project or seriously threaten any of his neighbors a large group of which are Article 5 NATO powers which in case of hostilities we would be compelled to act to protect. And likewise Xi now has to look at what happened economically and physically and recalculate if he really thinks his first military foray should be to execute an apposed amphibious operation against an Island armed with all our modern weapons. Sitting around on our asses, sending thoughts and prayers instead of arms and supplies, and watching him take Ukraine will do nothing but embolden a military which has lost the majority of its conventional arms capability. When they come out for the next war (because this isn’t their first) they won’t hesitate to take the nuclear weapons out the second they miscalculate western resolve, engage in an offense into Poland/Latvia/Lithuania/etc, and suddenly find themselves facing a United NATO conventional force they have no ability to stop. That becomes a far more dangerous scenario than the current one where despite our aid to Ukraine, western leaders up to and including the US president can literally land in the middle western capital of a war zone and disrupt/delay the Russian targeting cycle for fear of widening the conflict. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK, given other recent "protests" where the government didn't react when they should, I have a tough time considering 6 Jan to be "definitely violent and definitely a riot" or anything close to being an "insurrection." Anyone with a lick of common sense knows it wasn't, and compared to Portland and Seattle is was somewhat tame in comparison; but for some reason those "events" didn't garner a House Select Committee despite doing far more damage. No, 6 Jan was political theater from both sides. Trump is and will remain an asshole for stirring people up to run off like an angry mob of idiotic peasants, but there was a precedence for it being allowed. The Democrats are trying to garner sympathy and support by claiming it was an attempt to overthrow the government, but have no excuse why they didn't respond to Antifa riots. Neither are right, and we all know it! The question is, is there anything to gain through continuing with this nonsense, or like most government initiatives, it is another colossal waste of time and money?!?

And this, gentlemen, is why BaseOps will always be a valuable resource for the up and coming (STS)....

Individual/small group actors. There are riot police, and they look quite different. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect a handful of cops to take on a mob. I'm on the "this was a riot, not an insurrection" side of the debate. Usually I like Tucker's view on domestic issues, but on this one I think his rage at the hypocrisy and double standard of the left is giving him a huge confirmation bias. I've said it before, but the appearance of fairness/unfairness has always and will always overcome any rules, laws, or customs in a society. Our system was unique and successful specifically because of the intense focus on fairness. Sure, there were always violations of that principal, but it was always treated as an aberration. Now we have an entire political philosophy being based on the explicit abandonment of fairness, and the Democrats are embracing it because their entire strategy for electoral success is the coalition-of-minority-groups plan, based solely on their grievances against the majority. This will end badly. Either for the aforementioned minority groups who have been promised things that cannot be allowed to happen, or for everyone.

My lunch ladies didn’t look like this. https://www.foxnews.com/us/married-connecticut-lunch-lady-allegedly-sexually-assaulted-student-sent-nude-images-months-cops

This characterization of Tucker Carlson‘s reporting is not how I interpreted his story. I’m curious how you reached this conclusion, and would like to hear your viewpoint. I have not followed the January 6 story very closely and have only seen wave top talking points from both sides. But I understood his report to be focused on using video evidence to undermine conclusions the January 6 congressional investigation reached, and show that for partisan reasons they misconstrued actual facts and misinformed the public. I did not see minimizing, or excuse making. Can you cite specifics? Jan 6 was definitely a riot and there was violence. Many of us watched these events live & there is no denying those things happened. And I didn’t see Tucker deny it in the report; if I missed it, please show me. However, he did point out that many things we thought were true were not true: the Capitol police literally escorted that crazy dude dressed like a buffalo through the building, he didn’t break in. There was definitely no armed insurrection, and the police officer was not beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. I heard January 6 committee members say that multiple police officers were killed, totally false. We’ve been told things that weren’t true. Personally, I’m just tired of being lied to. I did not feel lied to after listening to his reporting. Full disclosure: I thought the cops were insanely soft on those rioters. Had I been a cop on a barricade protecting the capital while legislators did their work, and a group of people had stormed my barricade, I would’ve been shooting fools 100%. Why on earth did the cops open the doors? Why on earth did the FBI have informants inciting the crowd? The highly partisan Jan 6 committee did not deliver objective reporting to our country. I’m not saying Tucker Carlson did, but your outright dismissal of his reporting is more shallow than I’m accustomed to from your posts.

We've sent $75 billion of aid total, and that includes near-expired or obsolete equipment and ammunition donated at book value. The war is almost certainly a net positive for the US economy - Europe is buying gas from us instead of the Russians, the developing world is getting their grain from Iowa instead of Ukraine, and the entire world is buying American military hardware instead of post Soviet crap or indigenously developed "better than nothing" gear.

Definitely violent and definitely a riot. Some of the particularly low IQ people in attendance probably thought they were taking control of the government as well. But that doesn't make the whole thing an insurrection or mean the country was on the verge of collapse, or that it's worse than 9/11 or pearl harbor. That's left wing alarmist nonsense. And tuckers argument that there's nothing to see here is right wing minimizing, excuse making, equivocating garbage. So in conclusion, as per the usual arrangement, both sides of the legacy media are an abject dumpster fire.

After seeing just a few clips of the January 6th footage that came out today, Adam Kinzinger needs to rot in hell. You know he had all this info from the Jan 6th Committee. He stood by and watched fellow veterans being persecuted by their government. Absolute piece of shit. I would refuse to share a cockpit with him.

Today, the first and oldest flying squadron in North America turns 110. Happy birthday to the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron. Hail Dragons. Note: 3 years later, the 1st become the first squadron to employ aircraft in a military operation. https://firstaerosquadron.com/articles/the-1st-aero-squadron-a-history/?amp=1

I won't be surprised to find out that 'pro-ukraine group' had some very 'not ukrainian' help. Lets face it, we're not going to hear the truth on this for about 50 years, and we certainly won't hear ANY truth on it from the current or even the next US administration, even though I have full faith we know exactly how it happened.

A whole lot of us in Eucom at the time we’re waiting while one of our poorest foreign policy leaders dithered and conducted poll’ing. The media narrative of “little green men” paralyzed us resolve combined with an IO campaign that it was a populist revolt by locals, because we couldn’t prove to the average person what the smart people in the room knew, that those were Russian troops from VDV and Spetz units. By the time our administration got off its ass to “do something” the Russians had all the key terrain and the Ukrainian military of them was not the military of today (a decade of FID/training saw to that). Also geographically Crimea is a much smaller operation than trying to take a region the size of Massachusetts (vs a country of 40+ million people that is the size of Texas). If we had responded militarily to it we would have been executing a joint forcible entry scenario to restore Crimea. And we’d have largely been doing it alone considering how Merkle ran her seat at the NATO table. We thought repositioning rotational troops and throwing some sanctions on the Russians would be enough to deter further aggression, but the whole time we prepared the Uke’s in case it failed. And yes failing to act then was one of our dumber mistakes and another big show of why Obama was a pretty awful leader in the form of foreign policy, and we all owe Mitt a public apology. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guys, y'all arguing with @BashiChuni on this is as pointless as Putin throwing away too many young Russian men against the hard rocks and advanced weapons in Ukraine. Probably time to quit.

You’re mad that senior officers were pussies during Iraq and Afghanistan, so now when they’re recommending our gov back Ukraine you’re pissed they’re not bending over to the will of Russia. You want them to double down on being pussies? 🤔

They are just low rent cops evidently…maybe to just collect a paycheck? 🤷‍♂️

Or, you know, Russia going back to their country. That would be pretty clear, and much better for Russia than either escalation or nuclear war.

I’d have to see the pictures before I could make a rational decision

If you doubled not just the Chinese, but entire Asian consumption of Russian petroleum exports tomorrow it wouldn’t equal half the loss of their European markets. On top of that they don’t have the capacity to move that same scale of oil into China and wouldn’t even if every proposed pipeline was open (only 1 currently runs out of the Siberian fields). They have to make up all the difference of intake largely in sea transport of oil. Goes back to the whole insurance and financial capital problem. No simply “turning to the Chinese” isn’t an economically viable solution, neither are the Chinese capable of supporting them with the same level of technical expertise at the scale they need to keep their industry afloat. China makes tech at volume with largely stolen Intellectual property, not at quality. There is a reason the Siberian oil explorations dropped off a cliff after the 2014 invasion of Crimea, and there wasn’t some state run Chinese energy company just waiting in the wings to swing in and gobble up the excess. And that doesn’t even touch that whole worlds largest importer of food problem, which is an issue if you’re using excess capital to prop up a neighboring power at the same time your industrial labor costs skyrocket and your internal demographics collapse. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adam Kinzinger, an Air Force Officer, who swore the same oath to our Constitution, ignored clear evidence that exonerated fellow veterans and citizens. His committee edited video for political reasons. Why did he do this?

Good post. To steel man the other side for a second, I think the big concerns are that we'll get sucked in to another prolonged conflict without a clear goal or end state.. it's kinda what we do. And we're dumping money and weapons in when we have lots of problems that need fixing at home. Seems like we repeat the same interventionist cycle over and over. Steel man over. Bottom line here is we are tanking Russias hegemony, Putin's admin, and decimating their military without risking a single US military member's life. To me that is an objectively good trade off, and the fact that it deters China is a great bonus. And if you think the weapons bill is steep now.. try giving Ukraine to Putin, appeasing him for the next few years and see what the bill is like when he tries his luck on a FSU nato country next. What is it they say about an ounce of prevention..

WW3? We haven't even taken it to combat in Ukraine. Is your assertion that we should never oppose dictators like Putin because we don't want to start WW3?

worse than 9/11 and pearl harbor

Wait…so was Jan 6th a violent insurrection or not? Because the left has told us that it was.

I'm a mere long retired nav, but

When they opened his skull, they saw Skittles in place of a brain.

Agreed. I think it's disingenuous to call it an "armed insurrection", but I think it's equally disingenuous to dismiss it as "peaceful tourists". It was clearly a riot, not dissimilar from the ones the right was screaming about through the summer of 2020. Not an insurrection, but clearly criminal behavior.

You think "The Congressman" has the balls to show his face on this forum again? After everything I've seen, only one word comes to mind to describe that guy: Coward @congressman

It does when you deliberately ignore or flat out dismiss people with way more knowledge and access to the circles discussing the nuance of what is really going on there (causes/current situation/selective end-states). Again, unclass forum. That dudes about as succinct as you’re gonna get while still staying in the green. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't is not correct, won't is accurate for me at least. You haven't engaged in the topic like someone open to debate or nuance, but more like someone whose mind is made up regardless of the evidence. You think this will cause WWIII and we should not intervene and let Russia I guess just takeover Ukraine and so sorry, too bad, you're not NATO, enjoy your stay Vlad! I've made my views clear, and I guess so have you. Nothing more to discuss!

I would love to hear the Biden supporters on here defend this nonsense… “Novak Djokovic will not participate in the BNP Paribas Open this month after the Biden administration denied his entry to the United States, due to him being unvaccinated against COVID-19.“ https://www.foxnews.com/sports/novak-djokovic-withdraws-bnp-paribas-open-denied-entry-us-covid-vaccine-status

A nice bottle with a message and if you have a local flare where you are from, beer, alcohol, food, whatever, bring it and present to the masses. This is a moment you can never get back. And if you bring a six pack of Miller light, that’s all they will need to know about you. They might not even drink. But if you don’t value your future with that unit and don’t do something special and put effort into it, it’s an easy pass for them. They want someone they would like to hang out for 10+ years and has a good attitude and if you have a family, that they get along with you. You could have the best resume ever but if you’re awkward or don’t make an effort to make a splash in some of the only chances you get, then it’s an easy pass. There isn’t a shortage of people trying to get into a unit. There is a shortage of good people with their heart and mind in the right place that people want to go to war with. A bottle or special gift or a way to set yourself apart is just a small subset of who you are. Don’t just get a bottle and leave it. Make a splash. Do something to make them laugh show them why they want you and can’t be without you. The pilot shortage isn’t so bad that people will hire someone they don’t want to be around in military aviation. Generally speaking.

That's fair enough. I will point out that past failures are neither acceptable nor an excuse for future incompetence. We need competence in the FAA and in transportation right now. An administrative leader with some vague experience would definitely help with prioritizing some things in that realm. I'll agree that mastery is not a necessity for administration. However a basic familiarization is probably a good idea. When's the last time an AMC guy led ACC, for example. Your point is fair, and open to opinion. Not mandatory, but again, familiarity is probably good. So, I'm assuming you're ok with this: Reminder, Phil Washington has managed two major airports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Washington#:~:text=Phillip A. Washington (born 1958,Joe Biden's transportation transition team. Should he be able to answer all those questions? Absolutely not. Should he be able to answer at least one of those questions? DEFINITELY. Any pilot, dispatcher, or certified airfield manager would have gotten at least two of those questions. This guy's been a CEO of Denver and LA Metro, and can't even talk about at least ONE of these topics...especially considering the most recent history of air traffic close calls? That's not lack of expertise, that's just doing your homework before getting interviewed by Senate of the United State. It's simply lazy. We don't need any more lazy. But by your logic, that's ok. The predecessors were ignorant of the specifics, so the next guy can be ignorant. Experience entirely gained by OJT for a federal administrator is cool. But bear in mind that a Senator, who's job is even more general than this guy's would be at the FAA, did some homework and was able to talk with even a fake level of expertise. Again. Lazy. FFS, this guy was an Army CSM. He should know better. This kind of political appointee laziness needs to stop. I don't give a shit how bad they were in the past. I am very concerned about our future. Considering the fact that you have adamantly reinforced that you agree with this administration and all it's been doing: the disastrous and treacherous withdrawal from Afghanistan, our completely opaque and apparently open ended involvement in Ukraine, the suppression of a free investigation into hunter biden's dealing, dismissal of President Biden's own mishandling of classified documents while vilifying Trump doing the same exact thing, a suppression of fossil fuels production in the US for no obvious reason...except...the uplifting of green renewables despite overwhelming science to counter their sustainability, the affirmation of providing gender transition surgeries to minors without parental consent, and in general endorsing an agenda over and over that gender and skin color make a difference in one's ability to do their job, the intentional increase of inflation through endless spending of money we don't have, and on, and on, and on...I'm not surprised.

It absolutely matters, even if they say it doesn’t. If they’re inviting you to interview they are giving you a chance to land your dream job (if that’s what this is to you). Getting a nice bottle is an easy way to show how much it means to you and they do notice it. The extra money you spend will be worth it when you get a “nice bottle, man” comment versus getting roasted for bringing something bottom shelf. If you want the job, put yourself in the best position to land it.

Be unique if you want. Maybe something local or well known, but don’t get something cheap. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Keep the tradition alive and bring one. Give it to the person that greets/hosts you when you get there. Keep it simple. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

How can anyone NOT be skeptical after COVID?! the burden of proof is on the feds. They have zero credibility. “Trust the experts” turned out to be the biggest hoax/crime in US history. also the 51 intelligence “experts” who swore the Biden laptop was “Russian disinformation”. That turned out to be a lie as well.

Thanks for that. It helps me understand why my fellow squadron mates treat me like they do. #enlightened #olddelriofaip

This past year of watching my kid go through traditional UPT (not 2.5) was somewhat eye opening to me as I got the first-hand account of training, syllabus, etc. Some of it was good... a lot of is wasn't. Huggy Jr graduated with 65 hours in the T-6 and 72 in the T-1. Wow... that just seems incredibly low, and with a lot less solo time than I remember during my years in Training Command. I went though Vance earlier this year and got a look at the virtual trainers, as well as getting to talk to the T-6 IP's there. My impression is they are well on the way to finding some really good, new ways to train future UPT students. Some of the stories from the T-6 IP's I spoke with were very enlightening and positive. As usual, it sounds like the line IP's are doing a great job with what they are given. Much like Edison trying to invent the light bulb... AETC is going to make a lot of mistakes as they create 2.5. And yes, they will learn and adjust from them. The eventual solution should be a much better UPT... hopefully soon. Of course, that's assuming they fund it properly and actually quit skimping on training for the sake of the All Holy Time Line. Until AETC started moving toward these new training methodologies, UPT really hadn't changed much in over 50 years. I'd say it was time to find a better way to do things. The road to change isn't easy. I'm confident AETC will be successful... the question is when will that happen?

Yeah. The officer corps is arrogant. That’s not a “O vs E thing”. It’s on display in this thread. military officers arrogantly wanting to poke the Russian bear in the eyes and arrogantly advocating to fight WW3 (lord ratner). This is the same professional officer class who pussied out the last 20 years in the GWOT and constantly told congress were “almost there” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never had the balls to say “we are losing”. Never had the balls to put your (that’s a general “your”) careers on the line to call a spade a spade. Just happy to pass the buck and make the next rank. The same pussy officers who tout the “diversity is our strength” woke bull shit trope. And now you mother fuckers think you’re so smart and can defeat a nuclear armed Russia? you think you’re so fucking smart to win at a geopolitical chess game with a country (Ukraine) no one gave two fucks about just a few years ago? Jesus Christ man. Talk about some unbridled arrogance.

Do you sincerely think this war would still be raging if Russia could win? Like, for real? Dude, come on. No. This "war" is now about Putin's pride and him being able to save face. Russia ain't winning shit. Flip the script. 1991. It's taken us a year and a month and we're still not all the way to Baghdad. We've lost a 100,000 troops. Untold more have been maimed. Would you still think our victory was right around the corner if the shoe was on the other foot? It sounds like you would be quite the cheer leader. Victory is right around the corner! Get real. Putin has lost. I mean holy shit, it hasn't even devolved into a state of insurgency yet. Putin doesn't have a guaranteed victory. It is far more likely that this war ends in a stalemate ala the Korean War.

Of course it's a waste of time and money. But if democrats incited a riot that happened in the capitol building of our country during an election certification vote, you and I both know the right would have a political theater conniption too. Dems are going to milk this for everything it's worth, and they'd be stupid not too. If you don't want useless committees and hearings calling your party evil insurrectionists, maybe don't give democrats the best ammunition ever. edit: final put.. I don't know about you but Jan 6th didn't feel like a run of the mill riot to me. There have been a lot of riots in this country in the time I've been alive, but I only remember one time when the riot was inside the literal capitol building.. in direct response to a vote currently in progress.. for the presidency.. egged on by the guy who lost the presidency. That feels pretty damn unique to me.