FourFans

That P-3 took it like a champ!

Sure, but I don't see behind any curtains anymore. In short, Russia is a dog we cornered that we have to be very careful with. We're probably doing this for the same reason the US Government limited Ukraine's starlink access as they tried to advance into Russian territory: Russia have nukes on functional ICBMs pointed at western nations. Cutting off Venezuela and Iran in Russian oil calculus has made our sanctions that much more effective. I'd imagine we now have to carefully meter just how tightly we squeeze. Too hard and we get nukes airborne. It's a position of power that has to be carefully managed. Again, that's from my non read-in perspective. If I've learned one thing, it's that open source media is never privy to the behind the scenes negotiations that end up changing all the diplomatic calculus of how, precisely, the US is screwing over other countries. I'd guess this article is us seeing 10% of what's actually going on.

Entirely agree. Unfortunately that's basically a carbon copy of the definition of "International relations" (a.k.a. countries screwing over other countries). All that stuff never really goes away, it just moves from the battlefield to the diplomat's office and the stock exchanges...which is where I'd prefer it stay. My hope here is that our government stands by it's declaration that we won't be sending in conventional ground forces. If they do try to commit conventional troops, I think we can expect a significant uproar from every vet who served over the last 20 years, myself included. Short of that, I've seen enough of our strategic level to know that what the rank-and-file as well as the American public are seeing is either psyops or cloaked information at this stage in the game. We won't get to know what the full game plan was (or was not) until all the books are written in 20 years. Before that, to the trained eye, this op has many markers for an executed-as-planned campaign when compared with Iraq and Afghanistan. Some easy markers I see: Pakistan, Iraq, Syria are all playing along and even engaging directly in support No countries in the region have opposed or restricted US ops Trump actually when on record with an expected timeline (never done by Obama, Bush Jr, or even Bush Sr with Desert Shield) Cooperation and engagement from Allied countries AFTER the shooting started. Again, historically not normal in conflicts like this

True. What's making a real dent in the oil market...is it the actual loss of oil, or the perception of loss? Not saying it doesn't hurt, but the bounce back will be faster than we think, at least in the USA. Moreover, the USA doesn't need anyone else's oil. The only people severely hurt by this are Russia and China, and even with that it'll be shorter lived than any pundit will acknowledge. We backed a small dog into a corner. Oh no. Their capabilities are insignificant. They'll try, but it will be feeble at best. Their much vaunted Navy of missile destroyers was bodied in a single day. Not that they can't hit, just that they can't actually hit hard. The biggest actual question mark is whatever sleep cells they have in the wind. That op targeted the hardware that man men were using to try and hold their adversaries (mostly middle eastern countries) at threat. They didn't stop, so now we've targeted the mad men themselves. You mean that we're in the middle of an active shooting war and our wild-card of a CinC isn't showing all his cards? Weird. It's almost like that's how he's operated every single time in the past. Definitely time to panic. There is clearly a ground element to this game (spelled in part 'Kurdish'), and I guarantee that it's been in the works for a while now. This is a long game that involves a LOT more players than the US and Iran. Critiquing the man in the arena while the swords are actively swinging is a game played by fools and universally leads to incorrect conclusions. Let it play out.

ClearedHot knows that because he hooked Eddie on his first contact check

Fair point. I feel confident that she didn't single handedly run down and eliminate a threat to children.

Outstanding. The dude has no LEO experience, and I'll genuinely believe he'll do a great job. Character matters. AR has a long history of power hungry and otherwise low-professionalism cops. Let's hope he can clean house.

I was wondering the same thing. From what I'm hearing from dudes that knew him at my airline, there's no way he had a TS after how he departed our company. Alcohol, physical altercations, and denial of all of it.

Don't flatter yourself. You are of no account and your uninformed opinion doesn't matter. This discussion is about preserving the honor surrounding the actions of heroes, as is my response. I will call out anyone who so blatantly critics any MoH recipient, especially those who weren't there. Small individuals who choose to criticize the man in the arena and his rewards all deserve the same treatment: exposure of their cowardice and dismissal. I've worked too closely with real heroes to see their heroism belittled by insignificant men.

Sounds like I hit a nerve. Noted.

I feel comfortable aggressively telling you to STFU. Especially about a -47 pilot being shot 4 times and still successfully operating a helicopter the size of a bus in combat. I'm doubting you've ever been shot at, much less shot at while actually in range, much less while piloting a helicopter, which I've heard equated to as balancing on a swissball while playing a guitar. Dear keyboard warrior: Stop talking Beyond that, it's the CONGRESSIONAL Medal of Honor. Every single one has politics behind it. The president puts it on, but a LOT of other people approve it first. No doubt political shenanigans were at play...but also no doubt this dude did something to deserve it.

https://www.pizzint.watch/

Mark Tape: Mamdani will be found in the future to be putting a lot of this tax money in his own pockets.

That was an artful dodge by not answering any questions asked of you, while poking at the answers you apparently deserve. You appear to be one of the "take the world as I want it to be, not the way it currently is" fellas. Good to know.

Is that Vietnamese subtitling? Appropriate.

They had to zoom out so much to fit all of Cat 5 in the shot that you can see more stars on the flag. (yes, i can tell that's not quite right...but neither is how epically fat Cat 5 is)

Answers first, in my opinion: No. No. Yes. I answered Yes. Absolutely. Yes even Moreso than the president. See below. Why I served is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and would take too long to explain here. Honor is of the utmost importance. It is the product of a lifetime of wrestling with tough decisions, making mistakes, learning from them, and actively trying to become better. It centers on TRYING to do the best and right action in every situation. Honor does not demand perfection, it demands accountability for one's actions and respect for human dignity and fallibility. One display of honor is how one treats those they don't need to treat well...such as complete strangers on the internet. That's my short answer on honor. Please feel free to define what you mean by "honor" in a positive sense, not in the negative space (negative sense such as 'honor is not what trump is') To the implied insult to my service and sense of honor (yes, asking a service member if honor means shit to them is generally insulting, especially when you don't know them): I'm not taking your bait, but asking that question certainly speaks to your character. You've never met me. You know very little about me. I served honorably in combat. I've witnessed lives taken, and I've facilitated the taking of lives. I did my best under stressful circumstances that crushed many good men. I was not perfect. In line with this thread, I voted for Trump once. I've voted D, R, and I in local, state, and federal elections. I refuse to compromise my integrity because of someone else's lake thereof. I also feel no need for your validation nor do I owe anything to entitled critics. I would like to have an adult conversation though. That is an example of answering questions. It's what adults should do. I'll try asking questions in line with this thread again: What was our realistic better option than Trump in 2024 (meaning electable individual on the ballot in the last federal election)? Who did you vote for and why? Who do you want to see as our next president?

Yeah, I'm just at my limit on hearing all the critics pointing out how the man in the arena is stumbling while offering not a single constructive word. I try to operate on the assumption that not everyone in the world who disagrees with me is wrong. Unfortunately I've been finding more and more strong opinions are simply covers for cowardice coupled to aggressive levels of ignorance backed by raw emotion and media soundbites. I actively want someone to prove me wrong and to provide a factual well argued stance on what the Left actually stands for. So far it's been emotive responses, name calling, and an intellectual vacuum.

Misspelled "targets"

It would be great to have a healthy Cuba, and healthy western hemisphere for that matter. I just wish Trump realized that every time he changes his tariff policy, he drops a bomb on US long term economics. It might be working in the short term, but at what cost? I'd appreciate an administration that actually looked at the long game, not just the short game. But again, maybe they are looking at the long game with Cuba and South America...maybe there is some genius in these moves. Thankful that I get to sit back in safety and watch.

Do you view the left and the right with the same critical eye? I also don't like trump. Do you believe the that current Left side leadership is a better? Would Harris have been a better president? Was Biden? Speak in the active space. Stop telling us what sucks and what you stand against. Tell us what you stand FOR.

If they make it a law though, all the people that intend to use guns for nefarious purposes will be first in line to turn their in, right?

Excluding what you've seen online, how many, specifically, is "MANY"? I'm encountering and increasing number of individuals (specifically boomers and older x'ers) who conflate what they see online with "personal experience" and deriving personal beliefs and stereotypes that are actually based on exceptions and AI generated clickbate. The repository of stupid that's recorded online represents a tiny fraction of the law enforcement encounters. I try very hard to base my opinions on factual reality, not the exceptional cases that get lots of attention. I've been carrying in some form or fashion for 20 years now. I've had roughly 20 experiences with law enforcement of international, federal, state, local, civilian and military varieties that included detentions, warnings, breaking up civil disputes, traffic stops etc. Day to day type events. I've personally witnessed all of zero events where a police officer handled a situation poorly enough to call it "stupid". Overly cautious? Yes. Decisions I disagreed with? Yes. Stupid? No. So I'm curious to hear about these stories you have that resulted in your readiness to call a random police officer a "dumb fuck" by reflex, as you just did. Please elaborate for us if you will.

TL/DR: It depends entirely on the situation, but regardless I'm ready to be disarmed by a LEO. I'll fight it in court, not in the moment. It's about managing my own expectations and it all boils down to the officer and his/her assessment of the situation. If I talk to the sheriff in church as I walk by, I'm fine. She knows I'm armed. If I am the first responder who engages an active shooter in that same church, I fully expect that same sheriff to disarm me afterwards. A: the situation is over and shootings result in frayed nerves and shaking hands. B: evidence. The reason doesn't matter, I've decided before it all happens that I'm submitting to the proper authority. If the officer deems according policy/judgment that disarming me is advisable, I'm not resisting in the slightest. It might be a complete BS reason. There also might be a factor I don't know about. If I feel like my rights are getting trampled, that specific moment is NOT the time to take a stand. I must give the officer the benefit of the doubt. The officer is not required to reciprocate. In fact, the officer literally stays alive by NOT automatically giving people the benefit of the doubt. If it was wrong and/or illegal, we can figure that out in court...later...when loaded weapons aren't in play. I'm also of the opinion and experience that simply acting as described above will relieve any tension and most likely the officer will not escalate to disarming me. It's about expectations. If I act like I am superior with better legal knowledge than this officer, they can smell it, it's a red flag for them, and it does nothing to help the situation, regardless of how right I am. To use an analogy: I treat every police officer the same way I treat the range safety officer I've never met: With absolute deference to the authority they hold in that moment. Yes, some that suck. Most don't. But every single one should be treated with respect. If they prove undeserving, I bring it up with management later, not on the range.

There's always at least two sides to every story. What I see is the product of someone who wasn't raise right nor trained in concealed carry correctly meeting what appear to be either poorly trained or poorly disciplined law enforcement agents. One of the things that was hammered into me in the multiple carry trainings I've done is that the first interaction you have with a law enforcement officer in the wild is stating "I'm concealed carrying" with a full description of where the weapon is while making no threatening movements. In short order I'd fully expecting to be disarmed and possibly restrained depending on the situation. I'm perfectly ok with being disarmed as it's for everyone's safety. We're on the same team: defending public safety. This guy was carrying, while recording, and then actively stepped between the police and someone they were interacting with. Wrong on so many levels. On the opposite side, 7 v 1 with one guy disarming the individual while not effectively communicating that he's done so all in the span of seconds with heated words and actions is a hell of a chaotic situation. It did not look like a well led and organized response to what had been a non-lethal event. But non-lethal goes lethal real fast. That's the end of my speculation with one caveat. I had the opportunity to do shoot/don't shoot live role playing training with sims. I failed all 5 scenarios, which is, according to the instructor, absolutely normal for a normal dude off the street. I came away knowing I needed more training. Use of force events are messy, complicated, confusing events with split-second decision making bearing life-long consequences for all involved. It convinced me that I have no place critiquing cops in shooting events. I am, however, fully convinced this is exactly the kind of event the extreme left agitators have been wanting out of all this so they can beat the drum of tyranny, get a political win by twisting the media narrative, then press their advantage once political leadership caves. It's all straight out of "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals" by Saul Alinsky, which is the baseline organizers/agitator playbook. It's a disgusting abuse of ignorant, but largely innocent, protestors in the streets. The article from the marine highlighting that this is well organized and more of an insurgency than activism seems to fit the more I learn.