ClearedHot
-
Posts
4,133 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
359
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by ClearedHot
-
-
11 hours ago, BashiChuni said:
was that promise voted on in the senate and formalized in a treaty? or was it a legally non-binding agreement? is ukraine a part of nato?
So a promise has to be formalized in a treaty or it is ok to runaway in the middle of the night like Uncle Joe did?
-
51 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:
1. there is zero need for ukraine to join nato. it's incendiary and serves no purpose. would the US be upset if canada or mexico joined BRICS or the warsaw pact?
to answer your question...possibly, but no way to know. i think he would have invaded before ukraine joined NATO (such as present day conditions).
2. ironic. generally yes, but historically when has the US kept promises? also which promise are you going to reference?
"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents"
I did not ask if there was a need or if there was a purpose, it was a simple question. Your sort of answer is you think he would have possibly started a war with the west or attacked before they could join.
I didn't ask if the U.S. historically keeps promises, I asked if YOU believe in promises made, promises kept.
You tried to "generally" answer then quoted a speech. I suggest you review the Trilateral Statement, signed in January 1994, under which Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination. In return, Ukraine received security assurances from the United States, Russia and Britain.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:
NATO didn't need any more members...for what purpose? hope hundreds of thousands of ukranian lives were worth it. foolish.
certainly not a "unprovoked" invasion.
Two questions:
1. If Ukraine was a member of NATO before this conflict started do you think Putin would have invaded?
2. Do you believe in promises made, promises kept?
-
7 hours ago, BashiChuni said:
"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that."
"So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders"
- NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg 07 Sep 2023
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
I am shocked we didn't capitulate and sign...I mean Putin never lies...
-
3
-
-
On 4/14/2024 at 4:06 PM, ClearedHot said:
USAF shot down 70....repeat 70 drones last night. How many drone aces in the strike eagle community today?
-
11 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:
You're rationalizing why it's OK. That's part of the problem.
And you've ignored the same egregious behavior on the other side...that IS the problem.
-
1
-
2
-
-
47 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:
For those not in the AFSOC-know, can someone break down who is who... where are they going... who and how did they promote from O-7 to O-9... and which ones are the douchebags?
I can't keep up.
The douche canoe below known as Cat 5 (he has done more damage than a Cat 5 hurricane), also known as Fat Tony. As a SQ/CC he gave out 20+ Commander directed Q-3's, he tried to punish a U-28 crew dog with an LOR for losing his weapon only to lose his weapon a short time later and have it covered up when his Chief found his gun in the shitter.
He was "soft fired" by the SOCOM/CC Gen Brian Fenton. Multiple people in the room/on the line for numerous confrontations between the two including a VTC in that dissolved to a shouting match. Fenton being the four star CC called CSAF and said move him or I will publicly fire him. USAF in it's infinite wisdom decided to save this piece of $hit and screw all the cadets at the Academy. They don't want any more bad press.
Former AFSOC/CC and now VCSAF Jim "Slife the Knife" Slife has maneuvered to PURPOSELY keep gunship guys out of play (In the history of the only command that has gunships there have only been three gunship guys to command AFSOC....three out of the last four CC's have been Pavelow dudes...Fat Tony is a Talon turd, the only platform that will lift him off the ground. Slife is a complete sycophant who thinks only BPZ folks are qualified to command. He knows better than ANYONE...truly a HORRIBLE HUMAN.
BGen Mike Conley is a well respected Pavelow/CV-22 dude, has been nominated to go from BGen to LtGen and become the next CC. He is level-headed and thoughtful and will hopefully bring some peace and stability to the command.
-
2
-
2
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Biff_T said:
Edit: Special Ops Fighter Pilot Lieutenant Norris, after his first combat sortie.
Chuck Prof Advanced from B Course T-1 sortie to WIC grad DG - Risner Winner in one flight.
-
1
-
-
There will most certainly be a bid for qualified immunity...no matter that the police do they always try to invoke it.
-
-
-
1
-
6
-
-
1 hour ago, Inertia17 said:
Turns out, our fault again. Do we paint the helo on the Deid WX shop?
Meh...a kill is a kill.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:
No, you'll see him do more of whatever the fuck he wants, no matter what. He will 100% go after everyone that's "wronged" him. He will do things, say things that will make you think, "I don't think that's legal/allowed/etc," because that's what a king does.... whatever the fuck they want. You think the last show was interesting, the sequel will turn it up to 11.
You mean like use government agencies to go after his political adversaries...who would do such a thing...
-
1
-
-
On 5/18/2024 at 12:05 PM, HeloDude said:
So Trump is likely not to publicly name his VP pick until at the convention? Definitely a late announcement compared to recent times but I guess this way he can delay his choice based on what’s happening in the country, and it will also boost the coverage of the convention. One of the betting sites has Burgum as the favorite—I don’t see it, but what do I know? I’m thinking Scott or possibly Rubio.
I really wish he would make peace with Nikki...she would appeal to a lot of folks in the middle.
-
3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
I've got to disagree with you on this one. Look, my leadership was dog shit when I was court martialed, they basically trusted one misquoted OSI statement and assumed I was guilty for 6 months. But one thing they did well was keep silent publicly. And I wouldn't have expected any sort of public vocalization of support. They had no idea if I was innocent or guilty. You don't back a potential criminal; you quietly provide support to an innocent-until-proven-guilty person until the process is played out.
But when you have a video that shows, at a bare minimum, a very uncertain situation that probably didn't go the way you would hope it would, then you should not be making any statements that imply your subordinate did the right thing. Because how can we trust in the process when one of the people who is a literal avatar for the process, the police chief, is not acting in accordance with the concept of blind Justice?
I don't think a police chief should be fired because one of his guys fucked up, unless and until the process shows a leadership failure. But part of the police chief's job is public relations, and reflexively supporting an officer who, to my eyes, looks to have murdered an innocent man, is a failure of his position.
The tragedy in all of this is that policing very much does need an overhaul in the US, which is an argument from the left. Unfortunately the left has only bad and completely misdiagnosed solutions, whereas the right, I believe as a result of the left's unfair crusade, is reflexively supporting the police to the detriment of potential reforms.
It is such a fine line to walk as a Commander, you just never know.
We had a guy get arrested for Child Porn. Everyone liked him and it seemed very out of character. He professed his innocence and a lot of people publicly defended him. When it was over he set the all time DoD record quantity for Child Porn being found on a computer...Gigabytes...including stuff with toddlers.
As a Squadron/CC I got a call from the 57th Wing/CC around 0200 one Friday night..."why did one of your troops abandon his pregnant wife on the side of I-10 in Florida?...she just called the command post!" The troop in question was a bit odd, he had a few minor slip-ups but nothing major. That being said everyone thought he was guilty. Fast-forward a restraining order and a long investigation, it turns out the lunatic wife was three days from being his ex-wife when the event occured. After having been separated for over a year (bad on him for waiting so long), she was finally served papers which led her to act out. She was NOT pregnant, in fact she had a hysterectomy three years prior. She was living in Jacksonville with her drug dealer boyfriend (who actually dumped her on I-10). As soon as my troop was cleared he went on a quick TDY and when he came back the still almost ex-wife (the courts put the process on hold while he was investigated), had moved into his house...along with her drug dealer boyfriend! I had to move him on base for three months while the courts finished the divorce and she was evicted. Turns out, thanks to my first shirt, the troop had done EVERYTHING by the book, including paying spousal support based on the Florida support calculator.
You just never know.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Standby said:
I count 63 bodies, but I thought the wedding only had 54 casualties?
Each stick figure represents 10 kills, otherwise the entire plane would be covered. No comment on the Wedding Party, except to say Prox (airbursting), 105MM's are great for cleaning off a ZU-23/2. This reflects one rotation for this aircraft (probably 5-6 months), in the Mid 2000's.
-
2
-
-
Not from an exercise...I can assure you.
-
3
-
-
26 minutes ago, HeloDude said:
Ouch…shouldn’t we all be defaulted the benefit of being innocent until due process says otherwise? Maybe it’s a certain level of semantics, but “innocent until proven guilty” should mean it when we say it. I understand that precautions had to be put in place at times, and you couldn’t assume the accusation/issue should be over and done with until an investigation/due process has run its course, but if you’re not giving the immediate benefit of the doubt to the accused, (what I define as innocence), then I have even more serious concerns with AF leadership than when I was still AD (and I definitely had still had some serious concerns here and there with certain leaders).
Maybe I’m just misunderstanding you or words mean one thing to me and another to you? Perhaps this is how the UCMJ reads and I’m just very ignorant of the matter as I was never in legal or a commander?
Sort of and I should clarify...The accused is always assumed innocent from a legal perspective. However there are some additional burdens/limitations on those holding G Series orders:
1. A commander should never default to public statements of innocence or guilt.
2. Commanders and designated Magistrates (many don't realize that the MSG/CC is also a federal magistrate at some bases), have some limitations and requirements that don't allow for absolute proclamations of innocence. As an example a commander will assume innocence and won't administer punishment without due process with all the protections (representation), the accused is entitled to have. However, they may also authorize pre-trial confinement.
3. Serious crimes outside the bounds of NJP go to a Courts Martial which purposely is usually removed from the commander's purview. I had a bad rape case and the defense convinced the judge to bar me from attending the proceedings. I had flown with the accused for many years so they used that to keep me our of the courtroom. I was never going to attend anyway but it was interesting when the judge sent an the order of to the Wing HQ.
Make sense?
-
1
-
2
-
-
51 minutes ago, M2 said:
It most certainly does, and as I stated, I don't defend what the chief of police said; but flyusaf83 is no more right in his statement than the police chief was in his.
His suggestion ("Just say you are sorry, that you feel horrible for the family of the victim, that you fully support murder charges, and that you are resigning because your department is full of trigger-happy douche-canoes") is just as wrong as the USAF's tendency to convict those of accusations without due process.
As I stated I don't defend flyusaf83's statement, indeed a wrong assessment.
51 minutes ago, M2 said:I would expect a police chief or sheriff to defend their officers or deputies.
This is where we differ, I would expect a police chief to defend the law.
51 minutes ago, M2 said:In fact, if it was a commander backing one of their accused troops, there would be unmatched praise for them on this forum!
As a Squadron/CC, Group/CC and Wing/CC I had troops accused of VERY serious crimes. I never defaulted to guilty or innocent, instead I made certain they had every protection provided by due process and the appropriate support mechanisms that all troops are entitled to have.
I never made a public statement defending their actions before conducting an investigation.
Body cams have changed the game in many ways and they are often viewed in exclusion without context. If one used just the body cam in this case it would certainly appear the shooting was not justified, in fact it was murder. There are certainly other factors in this case that must be investigated, at the top of the list is the female who guided the offer to the apartment and from her call and description to the officer painted a picture of ongoing domestic violence when in fact Roger was int he apartment alone.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, M2 said:
I get your point, but you're recommending basically succumbing to an admission of guilt before the investigation is complete. Not saying he was correct in his statements, but you're rushing to judgment.
Due process is still necessary no matter how much "evidence" is presented on social media.
Anyone in the military who has been subjected to the "guilty until proven innocent" approach should be very cognitive of that.Rushing to judgement goes BOTH ways. How in the world can you say @flyusaf83 is rushing to judgement without saying the Police Chief is rushing to judgement as well?
I hear what you are saying and fully support the approach of due process, the problem is that in 99% of all cases of suggested police misconduct the first reaction of leadership is to defend the officer's actions and that is just as bad.
The Police Chief should not succumb to an admission of guilt NOR should he auto-default to justifying the officers actions.
1 hour ago, M2 said:There's always more to the story...and a process to uncover the truth!
Sadly, police departments make this process PAINFUL. They always investigate themselves then the public has to draw out the truth/facts via FOIA and litigation. Luckily FDLE has the hammer on this one.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Clayton Bigsby said:
Yeah, odd that an army that has been starved of ammunition has been unable to stop hordes of convicts and conscripts and turtle tanks being thrown at them.
Post of the day!
-
On 5/12/2024 at 4:16 PM, DirkDiggler said:
Conley nominated to be the next AFSOC/CC. Pave Low mafia still flexing it’s muscles.
In all seriousness great news for the command.
BGen to LtGen - Strong move...solid dude, not as parochial as the other Pave low turds.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:
That was painful to watch.
Ironic that the video is comparing one mentally impaired president to another. All the shit that Reagan got, yet he was the image of perfect health compared to what Biden has become.
Further proof that absolute age is not the issue...it impacts everyone differently.
Most importantly there should be a cognitive test at some point...regardless of party affiliation.
-
Russian Ukraine shenanigans
in General Discussion
Posted
1. Because it is not true, you are actually spreading Russian disinformation. There were meetings and discussions but there was never anything singed and NATO leadership denies there was an agreement. Gorbachev FALSELY claimed there was an agreement and ultimately that lie was used by Putin (and now you), as a justification for war.
2. You cherry picking ideas AND timelines...was there a threat of Ukraine joining NATO in 2014 when Putin invaded Ukraine the first time?
3. As of today May 28,2024, Ukraine is NOT in NATO. In fact, the only discussions about adding them have come AFTER Russia invaded twice.