Lord Ratner

February 29

3 hours ago, gearhog said:

If it is reasonable to expect to die, then you must also believe there is a reasonable expectation and legal justification to kill an unarmed person who has committed no acts of physical violence purely for the reason of attempting to enter a locked door.

Surely there must be some law, or even Supreme Court decisions that address this.

Sorry dude, but you're being willfully obtuse if you can't see how a crowd of people trying to force their way into *any* structure that is being defended by law enforcement, knowing full well that their presence in that building is not welcome, and that their numbers require the use of lethal force to satisfy the concept of proportionality, would be setting themselves up for a fatal interaction.

Our system doesn't work if it has to be designed for the dumbest people amongst us. This concept is why we have such a litigious society now, where you can sue McDonald's because you didn't realize your cup of coffee was too hot. If it is unreasonable to assume that breaking through a window and crawling through with a literal rioting crowd behind you into the line of fire of a sole police officer will get you shot, then the word "reasonable" has no meaning.

If the police tell you not to go somewhere, and you go there anyways, and especially if you have to use force to literally break your way into that location, you should know that the potential for getting shot is high. That is a reasonable expectation. People defending January 6th have gone from reasonable to unreasonable, because everything must be black or white now.

February 29

3 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So, hypothetically, if a NATO country were to send troops into Ukraine and kill Russian soldiers and in response Russia then retaliates by striking that NATO country, would that invoke the NATO charter?

If they (let's say France) only kill Russian soldiers in Ukraine, then Russia has no basis to attack France. If France launches attacks into Russia, then it's game on for Russia to attack France, but NATO should not have to join in.

February 29

11 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

look man bottom line is this:

if NATO commits troops into ukraine WW3 is on. is that what you want? i dont.

pretty incredible how careless the pro-intervention crowd is.

But it is Europe's fight, yes? So France and Poland have an interest and right to participate as they see fit? Or does NATO membership mean the US dictates everything?

I don't want it, but I'm much more sanguine about it. WWIII is inevitable. The details are flexible but the catastrophic nature is not. I would rather get it over with while we are morally weak but physically strong, rather than both morally and physically weak. Another decade or two of "peace" and I think we will look much more like the European countries do today. I don't want to give China any more advantage than they already have.

Interventionism doesn't have a bad track record, weak commitment does. Our intervening in world war II led to a pretty incredible period of prosperity and calm. South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Israel, and even Taiwan are evidence. Righteous intervention can yield good results. Fucking around in the Middle East without a goal or real leadership is proof that mindless intervention can be catastrophic.

Let's not forget that the Western governments had no interest in intervening in Ukraine with military support. It was only when the populations expressed shocking and very loud support for the Ukrainian cause that the politicians jumped on board. Everybody assumed that after 20 years of pointless wars the citizenship would be permanently biased against any form of intervention, but the cartoonishly evil nature of the Russian invasion hit a part of the human psyche that we forgot we had.

Before world war II the youth of that generation were all hot and bothered over the Oxford pledge, yet when the actual war came, that generation became the "GI generation" and then the "greatest generation" and formed a sense of community that they rode to the grave.

February 29

14 hours ago, gearhog said:

There's still an important distinction to be made. One committed a deliberate act to end his life, the other had no reasonable expectation to have her life ended while committing no acts of violence against herself or anyone else.

If you're making the case consumption of unhealthy information leads to death, I guess you can do some logical gymnastics to reach that conclusion. But, only on one side do we see the completely irrational conclusion that self-destruction is a reasonable way to achieve a political goal. That's what makes wokeism dumb, and different.

You absolutely will, always, have a reasonable expectation of dying if you are trying to force your way through a locked door with law enforcement behind it. That doesn't make it right. But it is absolutely a reasonable expectation.

You have to be fucking delusional to think otherwise.

February 29

17 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

but we ARE meddling. we're attached to a little boys club called NATO. and if NATO troops get overrun and fucked up in Ukraine then what do you think will happen?!

and once again Ukraine is NOT NATO.

if europe wants to fuck around and find out IRT russia have at it, but don't drag our country into it.

my arguments were correct about COVID. i assume they will be correct about ukraine.

Being right about covid is like being right against a flat earther. Not a very high bar.

So now your argument is that because the European countries are a part of NATO, they are not allowed to engage in military conflict outside of the alliance without the permission of the US? Or of all NATO countries combined?

So basically the existence of NATO means, non-nato countries are expressly excluded from any form of direct military support from NATO countries, because that would, in your opinion, necessitate the intervention of NATO as a whole, including the US.

What a fantastically interesting argument, and then why wouldn't Russia want other countries excluded from joining NATO? Not only are they not part of the alliance that Russia overtly hates, but they are now fair game for conquest because NATO countries cannot defend non-nato countries by your logic, regardless of their regional interests in the war.

Now, if you want to make an argument that the United States should declare ahead of time that they will not invoke Article 5 if NATO ground forces participating *in* Ukraine are attacked *on* Ukrainian soil, that's a more reasonable position.

But your arguments is the best advertisement I've heard yet for other countries joining NATO. If you don't join NATO, there are literally no circumstances under which friendly NATO countries will intervene on your behalf. You're on your own, good luck.

You're just arguing for pure isolationism. That doesn't have an impressive track record.

February 29

11 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

You aren’t!?

No. I thought the whole point was America shouldn't be meddling in European affairs.

Now the European countries are deciding they don't want to tolerate Russian expansionism in their back yard. That's their choice, right? But you're against that too? So countries should be able to defend themselves without external assistance, or be taken by whoever decides to invade. That'll play out well 😂🤣

So now you're not an America First isolationist, you're just pro-Russian.

You've always had the weakest arguments on this board, but this is a particularly interesting development.

February 29

9 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

The Russians are happy to pay for it. They are winning. As evidence I submit the panic in the EU. And nato. Floating ideas of committing NATO ground troops in Ukraine. That type of dangerous rhetoric wouldn’t be happening if Ukraine was winning.

so celebrate all your tactical victories as we lose the strategic war. Typical American officer corps.

Wait, are you against non-US NATO countries sending ground troops into Ukraine?

February 28

On 2/26/2024 at 5:40 PM, BashiChuni said:

its gonna happen. ole joe gonna lead us right into WW3

This has been building for decades. The election of an idiot political class is part of the process, not the cause.

Francis Fukuyama is going to have to release a revision to his book. I'm just glad my kids will be too young for what's coming.

February 27

8 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Terrible end for a clearly disturbed person. Obviously had no business near a commission or a security clearance.

Small blessing. His mental breakdown involved just killing himself, rather than shooting up a base.

February 25

10 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Amen. I actually read all of that and if a GS-11 civilian can do this, that is such a massive failure of so many people it’s hard to fathom. I don’t care if they have a strong union or not, you fire that chick immediately (assuming all his allegations are true).

You'll notice this dude was shit-canned as soon as he started hinting that the disappearance of expensive equipment would need to be reported. As soon as his "antics" transitioned from obnoxiously advocating for his unit to potentially tarnishing the reputation of his leadership, he was toast.

You don't get to the top in today's military (college, government, etc) through competence, results, and successful leadership of your subordinates, you get there by protecting those above you.

When the consequences for failure are restored, the institutions will resume filtering for and rewarding competence. It's going to get a lot worse before that happens, I fear.

February 25

13 hours ago, McJay Pilot said:

320th STS/CC fired at Kadena and there’s a data dump on FB here, that reads similar to the 27 SOG/CC’s rebuttal from awhile back.

I know a lot of the names mentioned, it’ll be interesting to hear what all they have to say.

This sounds like the O6 leadership at every base I was stationed at.

At some point people are going to realize that the corporate, academic, and political rot within the leadership class has completely infiltrated the military as well. It's a bummer, but it should not be surprising.

February 24

12 hours ago, nsplayr said:

In my very limited interactions with Dag, I was not impressed. If he is indeed next, it sucks that AFSOC's leadership selection process keeps hitting foul balls over and over again at the highest levels...

An economist would ask: what is the organization maximizing?

They aren't hitting foul balls, they're just not playing the game you think they are.

February 17

1 minute ago, uhhello said:

How is anything getting through?

That'll be the innovation part. 20 years ago we could track debris the size of a baseball, and that was just the unclassified level. Model the debris, predict the hole, and launch. We got bombers made of century-old tech to fly through oceans of flak, this won't be the challenge some are predicting it to be.

Not ideal, but it never is. I can't even think of a capabilities scare that came true. Peak oil, deforestation, the ozone hole, Moore's Law, overpopulation, etc. Our problems will always be socio-political, not technological.

February 17

5 minutes ago, Dogs-N-Guns said:

This is called the Kessler syndrome. Some already think we are there and just waiting for the trigger event to start the cascade.

I don't know if current satellites can change there orbits enough to make a difference, and if they could, the expended fuel would severely shorten their lifespan.

Once the cascade starts, I don't think there will be enough time to react. Getting a launch vehicle through the LEO trash cloud would be difficult (maybe impossible) after the cascade. Atmospheric drag would eventually clean things up, but that would take a very long time. There is a lot of research into how to de-orbit space trash without making things worse.

Sorry, by everything I meant the new, replacement stuff. I worded that very poorly. 😂🤣

Existing satellites are fucked. But the replacement cost will be much lower. I'm not saying it won't be an issue, but there's a whole lot of room left for orbital innovation, and usually a disaster is the perfect catalyst.

In fact, I'd wager an "orbital reset" would put the US into a near space monopoly, over the medium term. The rest of the world can barely get assets in orbit now, imagine if it required an entirely new regime of space tech?

February 17

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

It's only cool when we do it. 😄

In 1962, it looks like there were only about 25 satellites in orbit.

Today, there's about 7000-8000, mostly in LEO. It's a near exponential increase. Somewhere near half a million objects 1cm or bigger. Some believe we're approaching a number where loss of control and/or collision of a few satellites could create an uncontrollable cascading effect that would make orbiting the earth near impossible forever. That would suck.

We'd just move everything to the next orbital level, each with exponentially-increasing room for more satellites. And no real effort has been put into cleaning up space trash. There will be innovation there for sure.

It'll be costly, but not prohibitively so. We can thank Elon for proving that. Still, not ideal.

February 17

2 hours ago, GKinnear said:

I'll end by saying you sound like a little bitch complaining about a system for O-6s...which guarantees an O-5 retirement at worst, with the added kicker of expanded career opportunities post-USAF.

34 minutes ago, GKinnear said:

Please make sure you have your retired ID card out before you get to the gate, and don't bore the thicc A1C a the gate with your "back in my Air Force" stories...some of us are trying to get to the shoppette before they stop selling booze on Friday night.

You sound like the twat in this interaction. Take that for what it's worth, which isn't much.

February 15

58 minutes ago, Sim said:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-tennessee-enforcing-state-law-discriminates-against-people-hiv

The Biden DOJ just sued Tennessee for making it a crime to knowingly transmit AIDS. 🤡

The article doesn't give much detail, but if the legislation distinguishes between someone with a viral load and someone who has taken the appropriate medication to suppress their infection, then I don't see the problem.

The laws and approach in general to AIDS have to adapt to the medical reality that this is now a manageable disease. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be disclosure obligations, but it's not as simple as claiming that HIV is a death sentence and as such giving it to someone else is akin to attempted murder.

February 15

15 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Someone is letting them in. I wonder what changed? Who could have done this?!

Which is why border legislation is so necessary. The previous/current system allows a president to simply "open the floodgates" as it were. That needs to be reined in legislatively.

February 15

20 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Broken record here but until you arrest the employers and prosecute them you would have to 10 x the border security (both north and south) and interior enforcement to move the needle

Turn off the electromagnetic pull of illegal employment and benefits then you can address this, it’ll never completely go away but it will get to a tolerable level

🎯

This is how you know the "elites" don't want the problem fixed. You could shut down illegal immigration in less than a year, to include the self-deportation of millions of illegals, without building anything. No additional agents, no increased court resources, nothing. Just redirect 5% of immigration agents to random workplace inspections across the country. Fine the employer $10,000 per illegal, per day of employment. After your third separate violation to go to jail.

And as a bonus, the countries that actually need working age men working towards an improved society get them back. Seriously do we ever expect the countries of Central and South America to advance to stability if we keep poaching their most motivated workers?

February 14

14 hours ago, brabus said:

Wow, I don’t know a single person who makes their own primers. That’s impressive…and short of full anarchy/Armageddon, below the cut line for me.

You know, That's actually an interesting point. A much more effective and effort-efficient way of prepping would be to make sure you have a bunch of books that describe how to do the things that you only need to do if shit really goes to hell in a handbasket. Like the chemistry of making primers.

99% chance you never read the books, but for a couple hundred bucks you could probably put together a pretty extensive survivalist library.

I'm going to have to add that to the project board. 🤣😂

February 14

14 hours ago, Lawman said:

And in the last ten days you read that bill in its entirety when exactly?

Again when the head of the organization that is critical of the current admin but is tasked with actually solving the issues on the border says “yes we want this by consensus.” That means a lot more than Trump screaming “this bill is bad” which he did 5 days before normal people could read it, and a bunch of reps in the house lining up to say “we don’t support this.” We know they didn’t do anything to actually make any improvement to the border except bitch about Biden.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If your argument is "you have to read the entire bill in its legislative text form before you are allowed to have an opinion on it" then there is a follow-on issue with your claim that the Republican senators in favor of it should be some sort of endorsement. I assure you, they did not read the bill in its entirety.

Unfortunately the conflict in Ukraine is not exempted from the process of politics. You ask why Israel gets a pass on their funding, that's because both sides believe in funding them. That's it. Ukraine does not share the same support, so it must go through a more negotiated process.

I would love to live in the world where political brinksmanship wasn't the standard on every issue everyday. But we are nearing the end of this saeculum, and that's just how it works. In 20 to 30 years, if we are both still around, we can marvel at the newfound efficiency that follows great global conflicts, and the cycle will repeat once more.

February 14

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Then fix THAT bill.

Stop the bullshit of “we will do X if we get everything in the Border Bill we want” when we know the second it’s threatening getting Trump into full campaign mode we will sacrifice that as well.

Ukraine/Israel/climate change/whatever new issue excuse to avoid funding something has absolutely F-all to do with the southern Border and should be governed in laws as such.

The people now stepping forward to say “not without the border” in this thread only to immediately pivot to “Europe should pay first” when they are have simply decided whatever yardage or reason they will move the goal posts because NO is their only answer in regards to Ukraine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fine. Fix that bill. Then you can have the Ukraine bill.

I think you're trying to lump too many people into one group. At no point have I objected to spending the money on Ukraine, and I do not object to it now. In fact I have disagreed with those who claim we shouldn't be spending money on Ukraine because we have problems at home. We can do both.

What we can't do is only support Ukraine, and continue to let our domestic issues languish. Both, or nothing.

Politics is about negotiating, an inescapable, if sometimes unpleasant, reality. The Republicans are not crazy about funding Ukraine, and the Democrats are not crazy about fixing the border.

February 13

3 hours ago, Lawman said:

There is a deliberate separate Border bill that went through the Senate and is effectively torpedoed by the house to allow Political hay to be made out of it for the election.

Congress had the opportunity to do something about the border separate of Ukraine and they are deliberately choosing not to. Don’t now use that to justify not supporting this action.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a garbage bill. Plain and simple. It does not fix the problems at the border, and exists solely to take away the Republican talking point going into the election. I 100% support torpedoing that bill.

I'm completely in favor of supporting Ukraine, but they exist to me as just one issue facing this country, not *the* issue.

For better or worse, Ukraine is not an issue that unites the Republican party. However it seems like the issue is of minimal importance to the Democrats as well. There are at least well-reasoned arguments on both sides surrounding the Ukraine debate. There are absolutely no well-reasoned arguments supporting the absolute dumpster fire situation at our Southern border. Democrats would condition aid for Ukraine on perpetuating an overtly anti-American border policy, and as such they can be trusted with *nothing* that isn't codified in legislation.

How many times are Republicans going to fall for Democratic border "solutions?" No more. The Democrats dug themselves into this hole, and they can easily dig themselves out by simply fixing the border problem. Instead, for whatever unfathomable reason, they wish to perpetuate the millions of illegal aliens coming to this country, while still hoping to neutralize the issue going into the presidential election.

Let's say that they are successful, and as a result are able to retain control of the White House for another 4 years. I believe that would be terrible for the country, and far worse than whatever is going to happen to Ukraine, especially considering that even the positive possible outcomes in the Ukraine conflict are nullified by incompetent American leadership in the following years.

February 13

I've said before that there's no reason why we can't support Ukraine *and* deal with the border crisis at the same time. We are capable as a country of multitasking.

However if this bill does not include the border provisions, then we are by definition choosing Ukraine over our own border, and that I do not support at all. I hope the Republicans in the house tank this bill.

February 13

If they truly change the inspection system to be random and unannounced, that will greatly improve the lives of airmen. A lot of nonsense will have to be cut out for fear of ruining the records of Wing commanders everywhere.

I wouldn't count on it

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Blogs

Downloads

Wiki

Posts posted by Lord Ratner