Blue

Had to look that one up. I agree: Old man rant ahead…… The original Top Gun was successful due to a simple two-part formula: The Tom Cruise Movie + Naval Aviation. “The Tom Cruise Movie” is a term coined by some movie reviewer that I can’t recall. But, in general, it’s an acknowledgement that much of Tom Cruise’s success in the early years was a product of remaking the same concept over and over. Tom Cruise is a young, idealistic character (often with some demons from his past). He’s placed in a new, challenging situation, where he must somehow persevere. After some challenges, he ultimately comes out on top. Along the way, there is a love interest. Often an older mentor figure. Risky Business: Tom Cruise and Early Adulthood Cocktail: Tom Cruise and Bars Days of Thunder: Tom Cruise and NASCAR The Firm: Tom Cruise and Evil Corporatism A Few Good Men: Tom Cruise and the Military Justice System Modern military aviation is cinematic in its own right. It’s hard to make military aircraft not look good on the big screen. Naval Aviation gets you the added bonus of military aviation at sea, making it even more cinematic and adding to the potential drama. “The Tom Cruise Movie” plus Naval Aviation resulted in an instant classic that made the studios a ton of money, catapulted Tom Cruise to ultra-stardom, and made the job of Navy recruiters much easier for years. Based on the trailers, I’m not sure what formula Top Gun: Maverick is following. Certainly not the original formula. It looks to be more like: Big CGI + Complex plot + Some sort of Goose-related conflict + Many, many head nods to the original. I’m sure it’ll be cool and make a shit ton of money. But it all looks so overdone, and just not as much of a fun movie as the original.

So, I didn't say any of those things. And I'm not sure why Tesla's stock price is relevant to the current discussion.....

This whole post is full of nothing but useless whataboutism.

What do I think Russia should capitulate on? Honestly, I don't know. Ukraine and Russia have relationships going back hundred of years. I don't have the expertise necessary to parse all that history into something that's workable to end the war. I don't know what the right answer is. Maybe Russia takes all of Crimea, the Donbass becomes an independent state, and Ukraine gets some sort of Swedish-like "NATO-lite" membership, where they aren't a full NATO member, but still enjoy some of the benefits? In theory, we have a State Department that's full of professionals with the expertise to facilitate these kinds of negotiations. Normally, these State Department pros would have the support and backing of the White House, as they seek to thread-the-needle of promoting global peace and democracy, while ensuring global stability, and at the same time looking out for America's best interests. Instead, we have a President running his mouth about pushing another world leader out of power. And as far as I can tell, Sec of State Blinken has done fuck-all to help deescalate the whole thing. I don't have a crystal ball any more than the next person. But I'm concerned that our foreign policy of the last 20 years seems to revolve around spending our blood and treasure dredging up old foes of the 80s and 90s, like we're some movie studio bent on rebooting all the classics. We got Saddam, we got Gaddafi, and our war on Iran seems to be forever under script development. We've done nothing but break a lot of people and leave instability and chaos in our wake. And now with Ukraine, we're seeing a possibility of remaking the biggest 80's classic of all: Evil Russia vs. the Red, White, and Blue. Only this isn't some tin-pot dictator in an isolated kingdom. Russia has a lot of nukes, and a lot of economic ties in Europe and Asia. I want to see us head down the path of de-escalation. Instead, all I see is "Russia Bad, Ukraine Good," and other such nonsense.

Because Russia's invasion wasn't "unprovoked." We've been "poking the bear" by advocating for Ukrainian entrance to NATO, along with our covert support of revolutions in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014. None of that is an excuse for Putin to invade another sovereign country of course, but shows that the invasion was anything but "unprovoked." I'd love to see the Ukrainian military defeat the Russians, and push them back over the border. Would love to see Zelensky wave the Ukrainian flag as the last Russian walks across the border defeated. However, I suspect that here in the West, we're seeing a propaganda-filled picture of the war thus far. I think we're seeing Ukraine's successes being amplified, and their losses being minimized. Anything's possible at this point, but I don't think we're going to see a quick, resounding victory at the hand of Ukrainian farmers stealing missile batteries and and Ukrainian soldiers sneaking around with anti-tank weapons. Ultimately, I don't think Ukraine has the resources to mount a force-on-force battle with the Russians, so they're forced to use more guerilla tactics. Which is fine, and could maybe lead to eventual victory. But only after a long, protracted war. Meanwhile, you'll have all sorts of opportunities for some kind of "fog of war" mistake that opens up a wider conflict. After all, we've got a senile old man with his finger on the nuclear button on our side. Meanwhile, Russia has their own old timer of questionable physical and mental state on their side. The whole thing seems to be unfolding to leading everyone down the path to global chaos.

I believe Putin's "off ramp" would be for Russia to take over Crimea and the Donbass, and for Ukraine to pledge to stay out of NATO. Probably some other nuances I'm missing, but I believe that's the broad strokes. I would have liked to see Biden come out and advocate for bringing Putin and Zelensky to the negotiating table. Russia has some claims to Crimea and the Donbass, so it's not outside the realm of possibility for Zelensky to capitulate a bit, and both sides declare victory and go home. Instead, Biden is bumbling around, talking about Putin being removed from power. Along with us shipping Javelins, anti-aircraft missiles, and other toys to Ukraine. Isn't this how Vietnam escalated? Lots of bombastic talk from politicians. We ship a bunch of weapons. Then we send military "advisors." Tensions ratchet up, until one day one of our ships gets shot at. Or maybe an airliner. One way or another some kind of "act of war" happens, and then all of a sudden everyone is committed.

The entire discussion around EVs as a panacea for high oil prices seems a bit misguided. About 40% of the typical barrel of oil is turned into gasoline. The rest goes to jet fuel, diesel, resins, etc. If you waved a magic wand and turned every personal vehicle in the US into an EV overnight, you'd still have the same problems of securing a steady oil supply.

All of the back-and-forth aside, doesn't the above point to the current spike in oil prices being transitory? Looking at the oil futures, it looks like they're predicting a steady decline, dropping back below $100/barrel this summer.

I'm convinced some of the posters in this thread are Russians. Or Ukrainians. Or High Schoolers. One of the three.

FFS, no one is "validating" anything Putin has done as "acceptable."

Oh boy. Somewhere in America, some former servicemember with delusions of glory is digging a set of BDUs out of the back of their closet, stuffing it in a duffel bag procured from Wal Mart, and heading to the airport. Standing by for a photos of Meal Team 6 ending up on CNN.

I wouldn't fault Kinzinger for all his antics - if they were truly based upon his political convictions and/or the convictions of his constituents. But it seems clear that at least a portion of his actions are driven by pure political gamesmanship. A game which he appears to be terrible at. There was talk of him running for Governor of IL, or a Senator once his district got carved-up from underneath him. Both those possibilities were floated for awhile, and then disappeared. Ostensibly so Kinzinger could focus on his "Country First" PAC, but I have to assume the reality is the IL Republican party shut the door on Kinzinger for any statewide offices. Maybe he'll get some traction as a talking head for CNN or elsewhere. I assume a position as a lobbyist is a possibility, as seems the norm for other ex-congress persons. Ultimately though, I get the impression Kinzinger thought he had an opportunity to play his hand and rocket to the top of the political heap. Instead, he proved to be awful card player, and got spit out the other side with nothing to show for it. In retrospect, not surprising for a dude who comes on a message board and immediately doxxes himself as a congressman (hard to be more self-centered than making your username "congressman.")

To be clear, Kinzinger is not running for reelection to Congress. IL lost a house seat, and when they did the redistricting, he was the odd man out. As tends to happen when you try to play both sides.

That link appears to go to a scientific paper, and the video is 25 minutes long. Can you give a cliffs notes version of it all?

Gray! The world is gray, Jack!

Some insight on the Ukraine situation I haven't seen elsewhere, from Karl Denninger's Market Ticker blog. Highlights below. In 1994 we signed the Budapest Memorandum in which we committed to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Russia signed it as well. But that agreement was broken -- by Ukraine itself when they threatened to cut off a key Russian 12-month deep-water port, a critical naval asset. We could no more expect Russia to sit for that than we would be expected to sit for San Diego and Newport News being encompassed in a seceding set of States in the US. But let's cut the crap on any claim that we did not "interfere"; we most-certainly did. Indeed John McCain, a sitting US Senator, traveled to the Ukraine during Maiden Square and he met with the opposition leaders, including appearing on stage during a rally! It didn't end there; Obama's administration actively worked with the opposition to agree on successors to the elected Ukraine government, essentially attempting to install a US-chosen government. Oh, by the way, the name of one of the people to do said leading? Then Vice-President Biden.

You specifically say you had been in the Navy (squadron commander no less), and that your "friend" indicated they heard the audio, specifically: "I'm experiencing sudden and intense chest pain as if someone hit me in the chest with a baseball bat. Fucking vaccine!" Post quoted below for posterity, in case you try to delete it. Honestly, my personal opinion, I wouldn't be surprised to see this crash tied to the vax in some way. The recent death of a Navy SEAL candidate after completing Hell Week seems suspicious as well. But that's just conjecture of one dude on the internet (me), and not making up stories out of whole cloth.

Seen this video pop up multiple places. An exchange between State Department spokesperson Ned Price and AP reporter Matt Lee. It's a pretty good 5 minute listen. Price claims the US has "information" that Russia is planning on staging a false flag attack implicating Ukraine, in order to generate a pretext for further Russian invasion. Part of that false flag would be a propaganda video with "graphic scenes of false explosions – depicting corpses, crisis actors pretending to be mourners, and images of destroyed locations or military equipment – entirely fabricated by Russian intelligence." AP Reporter Matt Lee lays into Price, asking for evidence of these claims. Price basically says "take my word for it." Lee brings up previous State Department falsehoods such as: "WMDs in Iraq," "Kabul was not going to fall," etc. Along with this gem of a quote highlighted in the tweet below: "I mean, this is – like, crisis actors? Really? This is like Alex Jones territory you’re getting into now. What evidence do you have to support the idea that there is some propaganda film in the making?" Interestingly enough, Price is a former CIA analyst.

I'm not savvy on all the capes of these different platforms, but damn. That kind of sortie duration seems impressive. This is the AT-802 from L-3, right? Wasn't Iomax, and maybe some other companies doing combat mods to the AT-802? Was there something specific that drove the selection of the L-3 version, vs Iomax?

That South African Bronco-thing always seemed like more vaporware than anything else. Any idea why the Caravan was eliminated?

This is an interesting thread, but sometimes I wonder which posters are adults, and which are 13 year olds in their parent’s basement.

https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-warns-russia-that-if-they-invade-ukraine-america-will-evacuate-haphazardly-and-leave-86-billion-of-weapons-behind

Per multiple news sources, https://www.covidtests.gov/ is now live, allowing Americans to order up to four at-home Covid tests per household. President Biden has ordered 500 million tests, with a follow-on order for another 500 million. So, it sounds like the intent is to more or less flood the country with at-home tests. Couple thoughts: - All of the testing will drive the case counts into the stratosphere. - With all of the tests out there, will mandates start to include proof of a negative test in order to work/dine out/etc?

I wish that survey had broken out responses by gender. Unpopular opinion, but when I see any online discussion of Covid where the respondent's gender is identified, it's always the females who are the most adamant about damning the unvaxxed to the pits of hell. Reasoned or nuanced discussion be damned.