tac airlifter

Ok, enough internet for me today 🤮

I had to sift through several childish posts to find a sentence worth engaging, it'd be nice if you were more mature. The problem with your quoted point is the police refuse to do anything because the mayor refuses to do anything because the governor refuses to do anything. Fortunately we have a POTUS who disagrees with your opinion of constitutional limits, and unlike the LAPD will not allow this behavior. I'm glad you agree these dudes should be stopped.

We should. We’ve been invaded.

I stayed 21 years because people were great and mission was awesome; I wouldn’t have stayed if we weren’t at war. Although the war was managed poorly and much was wasted, we were killing terrible people and I’m convinced my 20s and 30s were spent doing tasks worth my best efforts. That’s very cool and rare in life.

Wow, what a change. Thanks for the explanation.

Trump spoke at length on Rogan about the style described above. Like it or not, it’s deliberate. He starts a point by taking a long winded trip (allowing opportunities to reference topical events, jokes, say random shocking things to get people like you riled up) but prides himself in having the mental wherewithal to return back and complete the point he was making. It sounds bizarre and is not my favorite style, but hey he’s a 2x POTUS and I’m a random no one so clearly he’s got something. He also likes (and references) how much his style irks people like you. You’re bothered by the random things he references and can’t see he’s doing it on purpose to bother you: it makes you say he’s like Biden, whereas any clear thinking person can objectively assess that isn’t the case, thus making you look crazy by comparing his mild eccentric affectations with an obvious dementia case. This frustrates democrats thus advantaging him.

That alone would be amazing, but even better if we can buy a suppressed SBR at Walmart the way George Washington intended.

Dose BBB bump them off the NFA registry or just eliminate the $200 tax?

Yea, I said that. " If you can have a massive stack with gunships that'd be great, but these guys couldn't get it. Of course if you can only get unarmed aircraft to support you: something is better than nothing" The context of my statement in this year old thread had nothing to do with strat vs tac ISR or what asset is best, and that's not a subject I'm interested in.

You're responding to a post about the Niger ambush where they needed armed ISR to say the U2 can do cool things without being armed.... ok? Can you tell me where I asserted ISR had to be armed to be effective? Or where I suggested one asset could do it all? You seem to be projecting onto my statements rather than reading words, and doing so absent context of the discussion. for clarity: if American citizens are on the ground in danger and ISR is overhead anyway, it should be armed in order to PROTECT OUR PEOPLE. If you can have a massive stack with gunships that'd be great, but these guys couldn't get it. Of course if you can only get unarmed aircraft to support you: something is better than nothing. But in Niger the embassy made a decision to take weapons off aircraft providing tactical ISR to these teams despite the host country asking for it. This was a political decision for optics, similar to the Marines guarding their barracks in Lebanon being forced to take loaded magazines out of their weapons. I can't believe I have to explain this to somebody who's been around a while. To summarize-- If your kids were in an ODA working sources in enemy territory with an ambush imminent and could only get 1 aircraft assigned to them, would you rather have a U2 or armed ISR? The answer is obvious; I'm not disrespecting anybody else's platforms or jobs or usefulness, but the answer in that situation is obvious and this discussion is silly.

Agree to disagree Huggy; if US troops or citizens are in danger and ISR is watching, that platform should be armed. Great as the U2 is, it's not helpful if you need a shooter.

I know how it sounds as a headline. I'd win over most with details. If your commanders commanders commander has a specific combat requirement and you as a non-deploying less experienced EP take a stand against the culture change, prepare to get fired. Send it to a different thread if you want more.

Disagree Bif; If the goal is occupying Kashmir, Pakistan for the win.

Lol, you've taken your analogy way beyond relevantly to this conversation. I'm def not an MC130 guy, commanders work for commanders, and evaluators will do what their boss says or lose the Q code 🤷‍♂️

Not a perfect comparison but I’ll play: No I do not to your first question; the second one has more than two options and it’s where your analogy falters. Stan/eval is a commanders program, and I fired an EP (once) for not evaluating in accordance to my directives. The gentlemen fired was safety focused to a fault, and I wanted to accept more risk for gains in combat. He wouldn’t change his outlook to account for the aggressive culture I was hired to facilitate, so I overrode his judgement, reclaimed the authority, and hired new EPs who got with the program. Good reply! I’ll start by saying I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement quoted. My understanding of POTUS perspective is a challenge on what constitutes “due process” as he’s searching for a streamlined system fit for circumstances. Getting 20 million people in front of a judge surpasses existing resources, and it was illegal for the previous administration to let them in. If the legal answer is impossible, what’s the real world solution? The people elected an executive who said “I’m deporting them” because they were tired of Laken Riley’s being murdered by illegal criminals. Democrat lawyers say “not so fast, rule of law!” (Ironic since they ignored rule of law to get the nation into this situation) and have frozen our executives ability to do what the people want. You’re right the best answer is congress to legislate, but absent that are we forced to accept millions of Venezuelan gangsters soaking up social resources and killing citizens? This issue was ignored for years when numbers were small & the people were mainly coming in to work. Under Biden some countries dumped their prison population on us, the amount of young Chinese men who entered is worrying from a national security POV. So thank you again for the thoughtful reply. What do you think POTUS should do since the courts cannot process the volume of people we’re dealing with?

You sort of addressed the question in your last sentence which was the nuance I sought to explore (SC rulings can be reversed or clarified when new situations arise, therefore an opinion on constitutional matters is in a different category than the document itself). But why are you putting words in my mouth & asserting what I believe? I’ll pass on engaging in discussion with you, needlessly combative.

Please reconcile for me the discrepancy between your statements here. Does the constitution actually say illegal criminal invaders require due process prior to deportation as you claim? Or has “it been decided” meaning a court issued an opinion on something not explicitly covered by the constitution?

I replied to him with a specific opinion on a specific subject one page back & got no response, so your accusation is invalidated. Instead he (or she!) is creating composite narratives with which to argue; a bad faith tactic and one for which there is no need since real people with opinions are right here. This is a fun page with lots of cool folks holding diverse perspectives yet shared experiences. It's priceless really. However trolls are sand in the gears and must be purged. Not saying this dude is one (you certainly aren't) but I am saying this conversational practice is a red flag, hence my sharper than normal rebuke.

Well said. Banzai your post is boring and your thoughts shallow. Is there a specific thing you want to talk about or is this general purpose amalgam condemnation?

From a philosophical standpoint I don't understand life in prison with hundreds of extra years versus the death penalty. Seems cruel to the offender and unsatisfying for victims. Just kill them. What am I missing about the utility of this punishment? I'd vote for that. With extra penalties if you hurt someone.

Fuck the SEALs. Plenty of good ones but an above average amount of shitbags for a Tiered organization. I worked at the Beach; they have a massive ego issue within the command. How anyone could see this account and not be excited to celebrate Chapman is beyond me but they’ve drawn it out for years. Disgusting.

Repeat drunk driver hammered off his ass middle of the day and driving to get more booze, that's who killed one of the finest warriors and family men produced by the USA. He won't last. Matt made so many people better during his too short time here, we'd all be lucky to have the same said for us. Life is precious, enjoy every minute with your loved ones.

GMAFB, you are presenting the false dilemma: treat an unprecedented mass of illegal murderous gang members with the same deliberate protections of law provided citizens or we cannot maintain the constitution. I reject your premise. Is there any doubt how our founding fathers would've handled this situation? They were actively driving out the natives & preventing additional British colonists from staying; it was obvious to those who wrote the constitution how/when "due process" applies and who is eligible. Yet now we're arguing to obey the constitution we have to do the opposite of what the authors intended? Go with your opinion on the mandatory Covid vaccine, forced closure of churches & arrests of people engaging in the free exercise of religion during that time, assault weapons bans, sham trials for J6, FISA court abuses....

Point of order: the 16-year-old son was not specifically targeted but was armed & at dinner with multiple named objectives. Also, he was killed by GBU54 is not a hellfire. Also, whoever found/fixed then lazed those bombs did not know the 16-year-old son was there, but had they known they would have killed him anyway 🇺🇸⚔️