tac airlifter

March 4

9 hours ago, Banzai said:

It’s not that hard. Many people on this forum have been exposed to literally near constant pro Russia propaganda for the past few years.

This is just the natural result of that reality.

I'd be happy to engage with you if you could answer one question: who blew up the Nordstream pipeline?

March 3

29 minutes ago, LiquidSky said:

Considering the sheer number of agencies reporting it and that our allies are commenting on it, I'm inclined to believe it over a random rep.

Regarding POG, oops my bad. Actually confused him with our illustrious POG VP. Not to be confused with the newest Navy secretary who has 0 military or defense experience. Funny how everyone is an unqualified white male in this admin. Does that make them DEI hires?

So from your perspective coordinated MSM reporting based on anonymous sources is more credible than a sitting member of Congress fully read into the subject matter and speaking on the record? We disagree.

Given your use of POG as a pejorative can I assume you yourself have a combat infantry background?

your assertion that everyone is an unqualified white male in this administration is false, rendering your DEI question moot. "Qualified" is subjective but gender/ethnicity is not:

IMG_1524.jpeg.9f936b79188d9b89a94c245b48fe130a.jpeg

March 3

25 minutes ago, LiquidSky said:

"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth orders a halt to offensive cyber operations against Russia Russia has intensified cyber operations against Ukraine and NATO countries, according to previous U.S. intelligence and private sector reports."

Glad we have a washed up POG Major in charge.

Is there any chance you’ve been misled by the MSM regarding the precise nature of SECDEF cyber order? I personally don’t know what going on, but the MSM lies constantly and here we have someone in the know disputing your assertion. 🤷🏽‍♂️

Also curious if you can explain the “POG” characterization since the dude literally deployed as an infantry officer in combat?

March 3

12 hours ago, Banzai said:

I would commit a lot of the Air Force, including my pink body if they’ll let me.

If you establish real air superiority you won’t need those troops.

This is a great point, once we established air superiority against the Taliban, the Houthis, & HTS we've dominated. That's why Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria are solid victories for the US 🇺🇸 Honorable mention to Libya, Somalia, Mali. And the "all air power no-fly zones" from Iraq in the 90s definitely prevented a decades long ground war.

You seem like someone who spent the last 20 years fighting all over the world gaining a wealth of practical combat experience, not at all a new guy.

March 1

17 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

If you don't know anything about the person, why waste our time quoting him? It's one thing to quite someone relevant, otherwise this is like your drunk father in law forwarding spam email chains.

The whole point of a message board is to make articulate points. If you watched the video, articulate your point. Then you didn't have to deal with quoting racists or morons.

I quoted that person because after responding myself multiple times I felt perhaps their words would make the point I was attempting in a way which resonated better and added details. If you feel my own points were inarticulate I welcome that feedback. I did watch the video. In fact I posted a 10 minute clip of the video. If you have feedback on something I said, I’m ready to listen. If you have additional inputs on the quote I added to assist my point, I’m not interested, it’s boring.

14 minutes ago, Day Man said:

still standing by for your standard...

Didn’t know you were waiting? Here’s my standard: if the quote is cogent and concisely articulates a concept I find true, I will use it. I have a whole list of quotes, and many of them from people with moral failings including Ghandi (who beat his wife), Socrates (who was found guilty of corrupting the youth) and Sun Tzu (who was a racist mercenary). I try to judge ideas based on the ideas, rather than dismiss them because the speaker has other failings.

March 1

29 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think the more relevant point is if the only people you can find to support your position are racists, there aren't enough people supporting your position.

Just find better supporters. It's the Internet.

Sure, the line between eugenics and racism is fuzzy, but he was using a pseudonym, so let's not pretend this clown is like Charles Murray. He did also apologize, and young people say dumb shit.

But, find a better spokesperson

“The only people you can find?”

Bro the thing just happened today and I linked a post which made articulate points. If that poster has posted offensive stuff about a different topic at a different time, I do not care or find any relevancy.

1 minute ago, Day Man said:

hey, this guy's a racist piece of shit, but he has a take on geopolitics that aligns with my views so it's cool...what the hell even is this timeline

So your standard for quoting someone is you agree with them on every topic they’ve ever articulated? Noted.

March 1

1 hour ago, Day Man said:

while everyone has their inherent biases, having a known racist articulate a similar POV is not ideal IMO

So a "known racist" has a POV on a topic unrelated to race, and it's "not ideal" that a similar POV aligns with this? What?

hope you don't like vegetables, because Hitler liked vegetables and we know how that turned out.

February 28

11 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Maybe this is why you don't take questions from media when doing these negotiations.

Vance steps off with fortitude on the question and basically says giving arms didn't work, now we'll try diplomacy. Zelinski probably LnotOL in his head, "diplomacy??!!" and lays it out among multiple administrations. Vance feels called out. Trump too. Fireworks.

When Vance opened his yap to score points, I think that was the opening shot.

Yea, again I agree with that assessment. However, if Zelensky had the tiniest modicum of common sense he would've sat there calmly or made a short polite rebuttal: "we have different perspectives and are still talking this through" and all is well. Perhaps it's because English isn't his first language or he's dumb but whatever weird lecture/tirade he began was poor form from a practical standpoint given the power dynamics in that room. Simply put: he's dead without our support.

Now he has a very valid question: diplomacy didn't work earlier with Putin why would it work now? And if we stop here, what's to prevent Putin from assessing he has won and continuing the aggression? Dude, these are the real questions of the conflict and the attempt at peace. And I don't have good answers myself, and maybe neither does Trump. But how a world leader like Zelensky does not understand Trump is thin skinned and that tactic will not work on him is beyond me.

edit to add: this X post articulates my sense of this event

February 28

2 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Leave the nastiness where it belongs, behind doors.

Bro, I agree with all of that, but Zelensky made a gamble by going outside of those norms. Once he picked a fight, what was Trump supposed to do in your opinion?

February 28

1 minute ago, SurelySerious said:

With Putin’s forces walking back across the sovereign border in the humiliating defeat he deserves.

So for clarity, how would you achieve this humiliating defeat Putin deserves?

I don't disagree he deserves it, but it's not happening. Would you just continue more of the same?

I understand your emotion, i'm hoping for a practical answer.

February 28

20 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

In case you missed it, I don't like Russia and their actions. A stupid show. That wasn't negotiation or talks, that was bad cop worse cop. Is that how America is supposed to treat leaders of other nations? <--- Honest question.

Good question (and fair reply in 1st paragraph). No that was an embarrassing display on all sides. But honest question back: what should Trump have done when Zelensky went out of his way to pick a fight in a public setting? It was very rude and inappropriate, how would you have played it?

February 28

16 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

That’s a lot of words to say you side with Putin. Don’t bloviate, just lay it out.

I see you lack the ability to convince others or defend your thoughts, that's unfortunate. I'm sure relationships are difficult.

For the record I don't, he is an evil dictator. But as a thought experiment, how do you think the war will end? You'd advocate for more UKR funding and close yourself off even further to discussion. Ok, we've tried that for many years and UKR is slowly bleeding to death. Do you have any ideas on how to solve this conflict?

February 28

2 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Trump using Russian talking points. Not surprised.

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but that line of logic is not intelligent. For starters, Russian talking points are how Russians feel. If you want to negotiate an end to conflict, you must take into account how the Russians feel.

Secondly does labeling something "talking points" mean the perspective is invalid and not worthy of discussion? That's what's implied whenever I hear that phrase: a complete dismissal of the argument. I'm sure it makes you feel immune to propaganda, and it's fine if you hold all the winning cards and you're in a winning position. But if you're losing, like Ukraine is, then you kinda have to engage in diplomacy with other people, and that means an outright dismissal of their perspective is infeasible.

Finally imagine if that conversational technique was used against you, would you appreciate somebody dismissing your opinion and refusing to answer the concerns you raise because they categorize your thoughts as illegitimate and talking points from the other side? No, you would not appreciate that, in fact that would be a very dumb way to engage with you or anybody. Because it's dumb.

February 28

I noticed the veiled threat by Zelenskyy. Wow fuck that guy.

February 24

19 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Someone woke the Italians up on the weekend? Impressive.

I heard a passenger interview from an intercept once (not this one) & she was talking about how safe she felt once the fighter showed up. I don't think she understood what that presence indicates, but it's not passenger safety.

February 24

49 minutes ago, frog said:

This is the equivalent of the MSG Deputy tasking a Capt flying the line in the OG to justify their job. Would you be cool with that?

If the MAJCOM/CC did a BNR to said Deputy ordering this task: yes or course, wouldn’t you?

and let’s not pretend all fed workers are equivalent to a line captain training for war, lol. The reason this effort is happening (acknowledging execution is a mess) is the massive amount of worthless workers discovered who were getting paid for not working or otherwise gaming the system and adding no value. Not to mention the subtle threat of inside resistance to our duly elected new administration.

February 24

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

This is real, no-shit communication from our Commander in Chief. Would you accept this as "leadership" from one of your flight commanders or shop chiefs?

False comparison. People voted for this bro, just say you hate democracy (joking🙂).

Edited to add: I also wouldn't accept a brain dead Alzheimer's patient in command, but don't forget you were pleased with your vote there.

February 23

28 minutes ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

Look man peeling you guys apart as a job sucks enough as it is, I may well lose my retirement after 16 years of doing this so I’m glad this is all working out for you……Apologies, everyone is entitled to their opinions and votes, but we are straight up not having a good time right now. The dripping condescension from the DOGEbois is a bit much.

I’m sorry for the turmoil you’re experiencing. It sucks. My comment was meant to compare the state of our nation under this admin vs what would have been under another, not kick you while you’re going through something. My apologies if it came off personally unkind, although I do believe what I said.

FWIW, I think your job & retirement is fine. The Trump admin MO is big talk, scare people, then negotiate. There’s so much indefensible fat to cut that I think they’ll remain locked on politically palatable targets (NGOs, charity fraud schemes, USAID type BS) instead of government contractors.

4 minutes ago, icohftb said:

So who's gonna read all the responses?

AI or a lonely teenager pounding Mountain Dew.

February 23

Yup, a shit show for sure. But 100 times better than Harris; I remain pleased with my Trump vote.

February 22

Treaty violation is another fascinatingly inconsistent aspect of the pro-UKR war folks. And I’m not referencing you Viper or any other posters here, we’re all just nobody’s chatting and I trust your opinions are honest and nuanced. I’m talking the senior IR crowd. Jake Sullivan talked a lot about that to justify Biden’s stalwart commitment to UKR funding, but he conveniently had a different rationale which allowed for ignoring international norms and treaties to invade Libya. And Syria. Traditional republicans are no better: Cheney is all about UKR support because we just can’t have countries invade each other without provocation! Except Iraq 😂

I’m distrustful of inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

February 22

12 hours ago, jonlbs said:

Mormon Air Force

🤣

February 22

Justice. B3 next.

February 21

5 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I'm not expressing an opinion that elections shouldn't ever be held. I'm expressing incredulity at the prospect of conducting a proper election under true, wartime conditions.

How do you suggest the 90% of displaced residents in any given bombed-out apartment building get to participate? Where even are they? Could they hope to participate? How would you ensure rampant fraud isn't injected by some sort of, you know, hostile counter-intelligence force? In short, all I'm saying is that the drum-beating about how Ukraine isn't a democracy because they're not holding elections right now is nakedly cynical. And that's coming from someone who is pretty cynical. Especially considering most of the "democratic advocacy" is coming from people who don't bat an eye about the legitimacy of Russian "elections."

Yea I don't bat an eye about Russian elections, I know they're BS since Russia is a dictatorship and we aren't their ally. Standard is higher for someone who wants my money to purportedly fight for my values. And the Afghans managed to hold elections, at our insistence, despite actual wartime conditions and an enemy who was actively conquering provinces.

It's strange to hear from guys like nsplayr (who I personally like) about how UKR can't hold elections due to martial law and their constitution allows for that... and the constitution must always be followed of course. But that standard of strict adherence to the constitution doesn't apply to our 2nd amendment. Then I hear from other folks how elections would be so hard now, but we needed them in IZ/AFG because otherwise government is illegitimate. And of course UKR must be given cluster bombs and allowed to strike deep into Moscow but God forbid we strike structures in Yemen that might have terrorist kids inside. There's no logic to these inconsistencies.

My sense is the pro-UKR war crowd lacks consistent application of principals they espouse. Which means they aren't principals, they're just feelings. And I get it, an unjust thing happened to Ukraine and Putin sucks. But damn dude, they have no path to victory. Zelenskyy outlaws opposition parties and has indefinitely suspended elections. He's asking for nukes. His military is posting hundreds of videos of them killing unarmed surrendering Russian soldiers (which is a war crime if I do it).... oh and we're broke. Time to negotiate peace and accept some territory lost. Table it for future reacquisition, it can't be defended anymore.

February 21

5 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I don't have too much to say about "suspending elections", but I will say it's possibly, just possibly, a little bit disingenuous to think that the should hold "elections" while they're in a fight for the very existence of their country, when it's been under assault for the last decade..

It's tough to reply to anything in this thread. You and others make good points & maybe we can have a good chat over whiskey sometime.

Regarding the elections thing I'll just add I don't agree with your take above mainly because it's the opposite position our nation has had historically and no one explained why the change. The Afghans & iraqis both held elections during the height of their wars for survival. And we insisted because we knew the legitimacy of government directly correlates to the consent of the governed. We preached it loud for years, and I still agree with it.

February 20

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

Their Constitution calls for no elections during a War?

Thanks for helping me understand their law better. Could you quote the applicable section of their constitution for my edification? I couldn't find it.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Blogs

Downloads

Wiki

Posts posted by tac airlifter