Jump to content

tac airlifter

Supreme User
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by tac airlifter

  1. 5 hours ago, HU&W said:

    Same article, no paywall - https://news.yahoo.com/old-again-air-force-special-201159107.html

    A few more interesting tidbits:

    "Going forward, Bauernfeind wants to use the first four years differently.  As he sees it, airmen would spend up to two years in initial qualification training before reaching their special ops squadron. Once there, they’d get up to 18 months of training time to learn more about their mission and the special operations culture before deploying."

    "Other tweaks, like dropping a requirement that students learn a particular type of landing that has never been used in combat, are streamlining the C-130 syllabus as well. And adding more simulators and virtual reality software can free up aircraft to fly combat missions instead of being tied up in training at home."

    Anyone know what he’s referring to here?

  2. 20 hours ago, nsplayr said:

    Which pieces of your hometown / state / etc. would you be willing to negotiate away after you've been invaded by your belligerent neighbor? Please be specific.

    Quite a bit if the alternative was my family dying, and I would deeply resent a foreign power meddling in my business.  I’d bide my time and wage an insurgency when I felt I had the upper hand.  But I wouldn’t bleed my neighbors against an adversary so much larger than me, I’d play it smart like the Taliban and eventually gain my land back.  What were witnessing is just bad tactics.

    It is astounding to me how the warmonger crowd acknowledges they are sending kids into the meat grinder with no hope of victory yet they claim moral superiority for their stance.  All the while advocating for somebody else’s family die with the guns we give them.  I do enjoy war and I don’t mind killing Russians, but what is happening right now is just foolish. Brought to you by the same people who lost Afghanistan and gave Iraq to the Iranians, lol.

    • Upvote 3
    • Downvote 1
  3. 1 hour ago, pawnman said:

    In your mind, is there a difference between keeping the current level of support and escalation? 

    Great question.  No, but let me explain: the current level of support is escalating not remaining static.  From types of weapons (cluster bombs, F-16s) to amount of funding to real-time tactical intelligence used for lethal targeting, it’s continued up up up with no end in sight or coherent vision of an upper limit.  I would answer yes if anyone had a cogent articulated strategy with self-imposed limitations (example: containment, MAD, etc.), but we don’t.  
    I’ve had GOs summarize our strategy as “continuing to dial it up as the Ukrainians need, to bleed Russia dry.”  This seems open-ended and risky, but my question is how much say should the electorate have in the risk our leadership accepts on our behalf?  

    • Like 3
    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  4. 7 hours ago, Lawman said:

    Yes because we have no historical examples of proxy wars with an opposing “great power” that led to not-a-nuclear-exchange…

    Jesus Christ we are giving them munitions to fight a war they aren’t the aggressors in.

    When we start flying strike sorties out of Spang to blunt Russian logistics or putting regular Army troops on the ground in Kiev maybe you have substantiated examples and a point to make. Until then vague warnings about WWIII is just grand standing to make a point in an argument. Given the anecdotal evidence it seems that is entirely politically aligned and not actually based on some form of strategic analysis of the facts.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    You missed the point, which isn't surprising.  I'll try once more and see if you can stay on target: in the USA the opinion of the people is supposed to impact government policy.  Polls show the people do not support further escalation in Ukraine.  Question: Do you think we should continue supporting the war despite our population mostly opposing it?  

    Yes yes, Russia bad, got it.  I don't want a moral lecture, I'm curious if you think we should be doing things that get us closer to an actual war when the population doesn't want it.  Please be smarter than implying we're just giving them weapons.... there's literally a post on the last page about how close the UK came to exchanging blows, which would drag us in.  Don't even reply if you can't control your emotions enough to engage maturely.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  5. On 9/6/2023 at 12:12 PM, Day Man said:

    for some context, A&W's 1/3 lb burger failed because Americans thought it was smaller than the 1/4 lb burger


    Are you implying Americans are too stupid to have negative opinions on sending their kids to WW3?

    • Like 1
  6. 3 hours ago, pawnman said:

    I don't see that one standing up in the Supreme Court. 

    It will take years to get there, if ever, and too bad for anyone arrested in the meantime (loss of security clearance is a real possibility for our bros in ABQ).  Not to mention anyone killed by a criminal who has lost the official right to defend themselves.  There will never be any personal consequences for the tyrant democrats issuing anti-constitutional dictates.

     There’s a school of thought that the constitution is our unifying philosophy and any changes/limits should be addressed via legislative branch in a manner the constitution itself allows for.  There’s a competing school of thought that once we have power we should just do what we want and see if anyone is willing & able to pushback.  Might makes right, if you will.  If you want to sue to stop it, go ahead and try… but expect the FBI to interview extended family, the NSA to search your browsing history and share with The NY Times, the IRS to audit you with a fine tooth comb, etc.  All of those things have happened to those who push back (what happened to Tea Party members 10-12 years ago was criminal).

    If you follow this to its logical conclusion, the next step will be separating families for teaching hate speech.  Already happening in Canada.  We do not live in a free country anymore.


    • Upvote 4
  7. https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/governor-bans-carrying-guns-in-albuquerque-after-11-year-old-killed/article_a02a0b24-4e59-11ee-85ee-db977338b047.html

    NM Governor bans legal carrying of weapons to prevent criminals from committing illegal shootings.  Of course she herself enjoys armed protective guards, but you aren't allowed the same privileges.  The order cites Gun violence as a public health emergency, and is only for 30 days to flatten to curve.  

    Can't make this up, democrats are the party of tyrants.

    • Like 4
    • Upvote 3
  8. 50 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

    Uh, what? 


    You think Cuba resisted us successfully without the financial and military support of the USSR? Or is relying on a superpower benefactor to resist another vastly powerful invader only ok for some countries?


    Our entire system of modern geopolitics is predicated on the idea that we do not simply allow for the strong taking the weak. Your life has been incredible because of this, and a whole lot of people like us got to serve in the military with a remarkably low chance of dying because the world stopped the practice of empire building through force. Sovereignty matters.


    "It's fine because the Aztec are gone too" is a hot take.

    Cuba has resisted us well after the USSR fell.  Like them or not (I don't) they've earned it.

    and I'm not saying it's "fine" that Russia invaded, I'm saying there's a limit to how much I'm willing to help the Ukrainians.  A financial limit but certainly I'm unwilling to send my son to die there (which is not unthinkable).  Sure sovereignty matters, but why is the US always doing heavy lifting while making ourselves broke?  

    this is more nuanced than your characterization implies, and that's what's frustrating about this (and many) political debates nowadays.

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 1
  9. 15 hours ago, pawnman said:

    Do you think Ukraine should exist as a country? Because where I see a negotiation that gives up a bunch of Ukrainian territory is another invasion in a few years (like they already did to Crimea). Then another one a few years after that. Then Russia's in Kyiv and there's no Ukrainian government anymore.

    In my mind, it's not just about Ukraine. It's about whether we want to set the precedent that bigger nations can just seize territory from smaller ones at will, because we don't think we should get involved in territorial disputes.

    I'd also say one big difference between Ukraine and Iraq is that the US didn't set out to conquer and annex Iraq. There was never, even for a second, the consideration that Iraq would become a US territory. 

    Do I think Ukraine should exist as a country?  If they can keep it, yes. If they can't, then no.  Thats the answer I'd give regardless of the nation in question.  The Aztecs no longer exist because they could not keep their country, communist Cuba still exists (where I just came from) because they resisted us successfully.  Whether I think a place should exist is irrelevant, it can or cannot based upon its merits.

    As a practical matter, I do not think we should continue supporting Ukraine financially at the scale we are because I believe it is a bad investment.  Germany is the richest country in Europe, why are we doing so much more than them despite them being closer to the threat?  The simple answer is they don't feel threatened by Putin which should cause us to reconsider our own conclusions.

    Russia's invasion of Ukraine is terrible. It has created massive human suffering and death.  They are brutal.  However, I am personally unconvinced it is more than a regional dispute, and I don't think it's good policy for us to get involved in every regional dispute. Also, there is value in being able to understand your adversaries position.  99% of people blathering about Russian misinformation every time grown-ups try have a serious discussion are simply retarded.  "The first casualty in war is truth" is an ancient concept.  I get it, there's bullshit on every side, words are weapons, etc.  But if you cannot hear a different perspective because you are convinced it is acidic enemy propaganda that will poison your resolve, you are an idiot and your opinion is unworthy of further consideration.  We have those people posting here, who claim a self-righteous halo for their willful blindness.  People who don't question their own assumptions while being sure other positions are wrong, who insist there's a morale obligation to act regardless of consequences because it's worth the risk even though we don't fully understand the risk, certainly we don't owe citizens a COA analysis but of course we're doing this for democracy, and if it doesn't appear to be working just shut up and keep doing it!

    Eerily similar to what our country saw during Covid, BLM, climate "crisis" .... but I'm sure that's just a coincidence and not an indication we are being manipulated for political reasons. 

    • Like 5
    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  10. 2 hours ago, pawnman said:

    So in Russia's eyes, this is an existential war that they started because...?

    In Russia's eyes NATO has been encroaching on them for decades despite promises not to, and they started this war to prevent Ukraine from further aligning with the west and threatening them.  Additionally the area they invaded are full of ethnic Russians who claim mistreatment by Ukraine.  

    you asked the question so I'm answering it, not endorsing Russian actions.  Although I would add that my non-US friends are quick to point out that a preemptive invasion to deter a threat to their homeland.... is exactly what the US did to Iraq.  

    my opinion: we need to end the war in Ukraine.  It would involve Ukraine giving up territory.  That sucks.  However, that is preferable to me than getting the US involved in war against Russia to settle a regional dispute.  

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 3
    • Downvote 1
  11. 2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

    I think I speak for just about everyone here when I say that your first post is not what an aviation enthusiast would first ask.  Political leadership first question because you’re an aviation enthusiast?—really?  We’ll moderate the content for the time being.

    Don’t be a hard ass; he obviously just wants to know the pulse of the force bra.  He’s totally not a non-aviation front office worm that told a GO he had inroads with the cool kids.  He even said “fr tho” so you know it’s a young “enthusiast.” Super common word for kids to say.  And his username says Butt: so edgy, trust high.

    • Haha 3
  12. 1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

    The 44% claim was debunked. It is now on the conspiracy theorist to provide a newer number, this time with adequate support.

    I get where you’re coming from and if circumstances surrounding the shot were different I would agree with your logic.  However the conspiracy theorist isn’t encouraging me to give this shot to my pregnant wife.  Whoever is (FDA, Pfizer, CDC, etc) should sell me on both necessity and safety.  If you’re buying a car and someone tells you “that car is unreliable” the salesmen could reply “you prove it!”  But you don’t have to buy the car unless you want to; if the salesman wants to make a sale he should probably convince you to buy it.  

    To continue this analogy, in the crazy world of C19 vaccines the salesmen have convinced the government to force you buy it while also censoring true facts indicating the car is unreliable.  

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  13. 10 hours ago, Pooter said:

    My bad, I thought people were mad about the mandates.. reference the conversation above ☝️☝️ and dozens pages before it. 

    Which is why I brought up other medical things the military mandates that people don't think twice about.  Hence the political lightning rod comment. 

    It's funny, the prevailing attitude in the military was, until very recently, to shut up, complete your readiness requirements no matter how stupid, go hack the mission, and load up on go pills/rip it's/no gos/coffee/cigs/dip to get the job done, crush beers afterward, all while knowing full well basically everything the military asks you to do is bad for you. 

    Is this a healthy outlook? Nope. But you can't say it wasn't common.

    But then all of that magically did a 180 with COVID. Do we think that's because everyone in the military simultaneously had an epiphany that their body is a temple? Or is it because COVID turned into a culture war, and then we do what we always do and revert back to two warring tribes. One tribe is double masking alone in their cars to show how health conscious they are while the other ignores even the most basic precautions to own the libs.

    Flu shot: minor inconvenience

    anthrax: there was a huge dust up about this, and it is no longer mandatory. 

    malaria pills: bro, I throw those in the trash every deployment; nobody is making me take them. 

    I disagreed with Covid mandates for military, but I got my shot when ordered.  I was doing cool shit and uninterested and making that my hill to die on.  But it was wrong. 

    Curious if anyone here supports mandates for the rest of the country: Schools forcing it on kids, businesses forcing it on employees, etc.  The whole conversation changes if we talk about mandates inside of the military or outside of the military.  


  14. 54 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

    ... while the Cookie Monster one is only 14 months old, so she's got time to trim her sails into something a bit less glamorous and wildly successful. 😆 

    Honestly the world would be a better place with more cookie monsters; don't kill that dream.


    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  15. 1 minute ago, pawnman said:

    Dont get vaccinated. Don't get your kids vaccinated. I don't care.

    Awesome, we finally agree! And I don't care how many boosters you take or how often you double mask your kids.  Have at it.  

    Freedom of choice has traditionally been a shared value in the US; it's only recently tyrants tried forcing us rather than convincing us.  If you've switched away from the mandate cultists, then I welcome you on the side of freedom regardless of your opinion on vaccine efficacy.  Live and let live.

    • Upvote 1
  16. 1 hour ago, pawnman said:

    I think you hurt your own argument when you completely make up new, scary side-effects that aren't supported by the data.

    The "data" doesn't support all the young athletes dying suddenly, yet it's plain as day that's exactly what's happening.

    turns out when you lie to people, they don't trust you.  I notice you didn't engage on whether you'd have your pregnant wife/sister/daughter get vaxed and boosted.  I don't blame you for avoiding the question, it's quite uncomfortable to realize you're the bad guy in a narrative.

    • Upvote 3
  17. Butte MT is a fantastic summertime OST location with great flying in all directions, a well equipped FBO, a few nice distilleries in their small downtown area and easy hikes in close proximity.  Unfortunately you'll have to watch out for the former SEAL actually asking people for free drinks because he shot UBL.  

    • Confused 1
  18. 6 hours ago, pawnman said:

    The burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion. What evidence do you have that the vaccines did cause all these additional miscarriages? Aside from counting multiple instances in the report twice to get a more alarming number, that is? 

    You're quite right, the burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion.  The assertion made is that we must get vaccinated, it is the safe & effective way to "stop the spread."  You should be prepared to convince a pregnant mom, not presume to order her.  

    You pro-vaccine zealots don't get it; 100% of the burden to prove vaccine validity is on you.  This isn't a tit for tat discussion, you need overwhelming evidence from impartial sources and total data transparency or no one will believe you.  You don't have it.  Would you  force your wife to take the clot shot while pregnant if risk of miscarriage increase was only 1%?  Which is greater: the risk a young woman will have and spread covid so severe it threatens her life and others, or the risk this shot will harm her unborn baby?

    Since you can't answer those question, you shouldn't be shaming people misreading data to err on the side of cautious prenatal care.  

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 4
    • Downvote 1
  19. 4 hours ago, Day Man said:

    Your article does not provide any actual data, it merely alludes to mathematical errors in the assertion that C19 vaccine causes a higher miscarriage risk.  If you want to "debunk the conspiracy" then we'd need to know the number of miscarriages in a non-vaccinated control group compared against the number in the vaccine group, then curate for other factors (lifestyle risk choices, age, overall health, etc.).  This should be easy to debunk given that data exists, I wonder why that wasn't part of your article?

    The only relevant information your linked article provided for those questions was the Pfizer comment that they did testing and do not assess miscarriage as a risk.  Except they've lied about many things during the pandemic, including efficacy of the shot.   **Edited to add: I did read the linked Sep 21 article claiming to prove no relation between vaccine and miscarriage; too old & not good enough, I want the Pfizer study data.**

    So good luck debunking conspiracies, I mean that genuinely.  But denial & counter-accusation does not actually debunk it.  Release of all raw testing data might. The appeal to authority is unconvincing in light of complete failure, uncovered deception and corruption by the authorities.  

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  • Create New...