Lord Ratner

Every time a movie has a political foundation, it sucks. This one will be no different.

Jet Bridge Jesus strikes again!

Yeah dude, because it turns out that freedom and liberty are not provided for by an all-loving and generous universe. They are luxuries of societies that are either isolated from intruders, protected by an external guardian, or so strong themselves as to ward off foreign threats. This would be simpler if you just pointed to the societies in history that survived on individual choice for funding and defense. No mandatory taxes or conscription, but the successful defeat of a foreign invader. After all, if they won't voluntarily pay for it, it's not worth it, right? The system works because people don't actually care about freedom and liberty as their primary concerns. They care about fairness and family/tribe. You can force me to do many things as long as I perceive the same obligation being imposed on those around me. Literally to include an almost certain death, because that death ultimately supports the long-term survival of my family/tribe. Political ideology never trumps human nature.

This is why libertarianism is ultimately a failed ideology. Honestly I put it into the same category as communism. Romanticized ideals of how the world should be, that never survive contact with real societies.

Yeah that's just not how countries have ever worked. Including the freeest bestest country in the world, the United States. Conscription is a age-old and normal component of statehood. World war II would have worked a lot differently without draft. And I don't think the world would have been better off if the axis had won...

I don't tie the border to my support for international policy. Both sides are being really cute trying to connect the two, but let's face it, the border isn't being dealt with because the Democrats don't want to deal with it. And when Republicans had the opportunity to, they didn't. By this twisted logic, the United States should deal with no international issues unless the domestic issues are suitably addressed. But when your party loses elections, you don't get to decide what domestic issues get addressed. You're basically arguing for an all or nothing approach, but you certainly can do, but I find it to be a completely unrealistic political philosophy.

Says who? One of the primary reasons I support Ukraine is because they are willing to die for their country. Western Europe is no where in my calculus.

Exactly! Me "dipping my toe" in to check the temp:

The pace of 2A cases is eye watering. For most of my life it was a "subordinate" right, despite being the second enumerated right. Suddenly it is treated with the same reverence as the first amendment, as it always should have been.

Nice to see the senior ranks are finally feeling some pain from the pearl-clutching alcohol hysteria aimed at the worker bees for all these years. I always loved getting lectured on responsible drinking by a Colonel who had a bottle of scotch in his desk and some less-than-sober pictures scattered around "heritage rooms" from their CGO days.

"According to Dedonder, 'it's the military's societal role to provide young, inexperienced, and less qualified individuals with an opportunity to enter the job market'. An argument could be made that this is precisely not the role of the military. On the contrary, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Dedonder's attempt to integrate the role of an educational institution into the Belgian Army's mission, given the context of manpower shortages and capability disparities compared to other NATO nations, is fundamentally misguided." The country is run by people who believe that the mere existence of militaries is the root cause of conflict, and a direct impediment to their cosmopolitan goal of a single world government. It seems like intentional sabotage because it is.

At a certain point you realize that most people don't actually have political views. They have political positions. The difference is that a view requires research, dialogue, analysis, and for many things political, there's not a lot of reason for someone to do that. Why learn about abortion if you're not getting an abortion? Should the average American really have an opinion on Palestine when they don't even know where it is on a map? So whereas the military leadership class used to be conservative, it wasn't because they had conservative views, it was just because they wanted to be a part of the group of people who had conservative positions. Their superiors. Now that we are in a rapidly changing political environment thanks to the spread of populism, the military leadership class is suddenly seeming much more liberal than the lower ranks, because the political establishment of Washington is fiercely anti-populist, including most of the legacy Republicans. They were never conservative, and they're not truly liberals or progressives now. They're just yes-men. Groupies. Sycophants who will morph into whatever they believe will please their bosses most. And since Charlie Kirk runs on a platform of "government is the problem" and makes no exception for big-government Republicans, obviously the power players on Washington are going to despise him. And like good little soldiers hoping for a reward, the generals will follow suit, threatening the careers of anyone who dares question or criticize the political "leaders" the generals hope to please and one day join.

https://variety.com/2023/film/columns/joaquin-phoenix-and-his-one-man-cult-of-depressive-method-acting-vanity-napoleon-1235808410/amp/ This is a great critique of Phoenix. Everytime a movie goes fishing for an Oscar, it backfires. And often it doesn't even get the award. There Will Be Blood is my favorite example of this.

What a ride

You've never heard me say that. A country is not just whatever portion of the population works for your particular political position. A country is represented by its government, and its government exists at the discretion, or at the very least inaction, of the population. When the opposition to the Vietnam war became great enough that the congressional and presidential elections were decided on it, the US shifted course. That's just how governments work. The government *is* the country.

I'm still confused that anybody in the military would hold a general to some sort of higher expectation. If anything my experience demonstrates that they are less likely to impress. These are the people that taught themselves to love the taste of shit just so they could one day be a general. The ultimate "yes men". They were not promoted in the field due to battle competence.

It does. We have that too, after all. Obviously you have to discuss these issues on a national level, not an individual level, otherwise conversation is literally impossible.

If they can't achieve an objective without us giving them something new or different, then they are stuck. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but if they can't change it on their own.... Also the demographics of their fighting forces is getting rough. Very rough. The spring/summer offensive did not go as advertised. But if they still have the will to fight...

I don't know if I count as a cheerleader, but we got good value and the Ukrainians wanted to fight. Now that they are completely stuck, it's probably not worth it to continue. I'm assuming they will push to end the conflict soon, but that's their problem.

That's where I see much of the disagreement. You aren't replacing or backfilling a capability if the replacement isn't purchased in sufficient numbers to adequately accomplish the task. Getting rid of 500 Gen 4 fighters to buy 100 Gen 5 fighters (made up numbers) is not modernizing, evolving, or replacing. It's dumping one ability (supported by numbers) for another (supported by tech). This also seems to be why these divestiture plans always collapse. The Air Force comes up with some sort of bullshit math where we get rid of an old fleet worth a certain dollar amount, and apply those dollars to the new weapon system at a much lower quantity, because obviously new stuff is more expensive. But then in some congressional hearing where a congressman is fighting to keep a base or a weapon system in their district, the general is forced to admit that the new weapon system, in the quantity planned, will not adequately replace the capabilities of the old weapon system at much higher quantities. Then surprise surprise, we don't get rid of the old weapon system, which means we have even less money going forward for the new one. It's a vicious cycle of stupidity and disingenuous arguments, and it's so short-sighted that the obvious result in the long run is an overall weaker military.

On my phone? No. What do you recommend?

Is the site making much money off of the ads? Because they've gotten pretty shitty again. Constantly covering up the top banner of the page or sometimes showing up without a clear way to close them.

Fixed it for you.

That's a fair point. Considering how many sensationalist articles about the death of democracy in America I've read over the past 8ish years, and how completely unhinged all reporting about Donald Trump was and has been, it does make it hard to trust the same media to assess the political situation in a very different country and a very different part of the world.