FLEA
-
Posts
2,053 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
34
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by FLEA
-
-
2 hours ago, TreeA10 said:
Hawaii and Alaska??? Hell no. California, Oregon, and Washington.... Can I get back to you on that?
Id want to keep Washington as well. Seattle is, well, its seen better days. But the Peugot Sound and northern cascades are still legendary outdoor wonders.
-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, brabus said:
Indeed. It’s funny how minds work when one can’t explain something, but only due to a lack of specific knowledge that they don’t know they don’t have, not because they’re dumb or aliens are taking over.
Wasn't the DoD getting more interested in stuff like this a few years ago, realizing China might have technology we don't understand?
-
8 hours ago, Negatory said:
Nah bro, says that you oversimplify things significantly into right or wrong, black or white. You have become what you criticize, and you all wonder why folks stopped commenting back. The forum turned significantly more into an echo chamber the last year, which has been nice for you guys, but doesn’t necessarily represent reality.
We all, right now, have the benefit of knowledge we did not have when decisions were being made. Your debrief choice (i can’t really call it a loop) is that we all made and then executed the wrong decisions in the beginning of the pandemic, and that “we” have doubled and tripled down and screeched the entire time. But in reality we as a society had very limited SA or perception of what the actual truth of the situation was until science uncovered some of those answers. It took months to years for that. And, you seem to forget, we had to operate and make decisions in that limited SA environment. You can’t put the big arrow on a decision when your SA is super low. The ends don’t justify the means. I believed, and will continue to believe, you 100% did not have the SA in the Summer of 2020.
For example, we now know mRNA vaccines are entirely ineffective at stopping transmission - we were hopeful they would be very effective. Didn’t know that. We now know that we’re looking at a significantly lower mortality variant with significantly higher spread - the first variant spread slower but had a mortality rate about 10 times higher pre-vaccine. Didn’t know when that was coming. We know that COVID is airborne. Didn’t know that, remember folks sanitizing everything? We know how to test for it, and we know generally how long folks are contagious. We understand mortality risks much more completely now (fat and old). We did not know any of these things with significant certainty for a long time.
You’ll also note that many folks on here changed our minds on many policies as more data emerged. As folks got vaccinated and mortality decreased and transmission reduction efforts clearly failed, many folks like me changed our opinions. We built SA and made decisions with said SA. You can demonize that, if you want, but it’s a pretty rough take.
If your point is that in the absence of proof, we should be optimistic, fine, that’s your philosophy. But it doesn’t mean those that wanted to be conservative in the face of unknowns are inherently wrong and/or evil. In fact, you literally can’t prove that those efforts didn’t save significant lives (bang your head against the wall on that one, if you want).
For the record, I think that masks and vaccine requirements now should be entirely removed in society with the exception of elderly care or hospitals. We should have gotten rid of it over a year ago for the military. There is more nuance to how decisions have to be made and opinions should be formed than you give credit.
Nah bud you didn't have the SA. Not we, you. Everyone else did and was trying to explain that--and we were examining public data with a finer degree of granularity and recognized the data available was based on assumptions that weren't compelling enough to justify the length of policy measures being made. This wasn't high level college statistics. It was basic data 101. Instead we were gaslighted, shut down and dismissed. You're advocacy permanently damaged lives and will go on to upset many more as we walk into a recession that will likely see a growth in homeless populations, and a correspondent rise of substance abuse. Trying to dismiss yourself of responsibility for it isn't going to fly.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Prozac said:
Why on earth would Russia want to widen this conflict? They are getting their asses handed to them by the Ukrainians and now they want NATO to join the blanket party? I think not. Typical bluster and scaremongering from Putin.
They don't want to and their intention wouldn't be. However bringing in Belarus short term would be helpful to them. Bringing in Belarus on its own isn't problematic for Russia but Belarus has baggage with the rest of the EU that can quickly trigger something larger.
-
Its utterly ridiculous. Could you imagine us invading Mexico, and NATO obviously won't get involved. But when Mexico attacks some force staging areas in Texas all of a sudden NATO goes "woah Mexico....., that's an Article 5 violation! You attack one of us you attack us all!"
-
1
-
-
Its like people sat on the train tracks for 2 years watching a train coming at them in slow motion and just said it was going to be ok over and over. Now they are realizing they are about to be hit by a train and they are scared and want accountability?
Like good lord, I can go back in this thread to 2020 and see people talking about this exact topic. It was well known hospitals received additional federal funding based on "how bad" the COVID pandemic appeared to hit their facilities and associating deaths with COVID was the best way to secure more grants.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:
This is pretty scary. The conditions are being set to escalate this into a much wider regional conflict.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-sets-ultimatum-formally-pull-184620634.html
False flag border attack ala Nazi Germany on Poland followed by short notice impossible ultimatum, Belarus is the aggrieved party with Russia riding to save them and we’re off…
They may bring a bit to their fight but probably not much, guessing they would be used to free up more Russian troops for offensive operations while they guard the bases and already secured areas
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThey don't even need a false flag. Ukraine has already launched drone attacks into Russian territory (like actual Russia, not "new Russia") That's enough pretense under their current language.
-
I wonder if they understand how ridiculous this sounds to even some of the conflict's staunches skeptics to include me:
Quote“Any use of force by the Kyiv regime or a Ukrainian military invasion of either Belarus or Russia would be enough to trigger a collective response," Aleksey Polishchuk, a director in Russian Foreign Ministry, told TASS, referring to the so-called Union State that Belarus and Russia formed together years ago, in which the countries have been enmeshing their banking, military, and economic sectors.
“The republic has the sovereign right to defend its territory through all means available and Minsk can count on Russia’s full support here,” Polishchuk said.
This is pretty scary. The conditions are being set to escalate this into a much wider regional conflict.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-sets-ultimatum-formally-pull-184620634.html
-
42 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
What happened last time?
This literally already happened. We were alive when it did.
That wasnt an internal collapse. More correctly the fall of the Soviet union would be a dissolution because it was orchestrated from the inside by design and the central government remained in power. An event like that happening again is completely reliant on Putin releasing control to a person who is heavily pro-west. Considering Putin believes the fall of the Soviet Union was the most tragic event to occur in global history should give you some insight into how likely that is.
When people are concerned about internal collapse they are more so referring to the fallout of an enormous power vacuum if the central government is vacated. In which case the primary concern is a power grab by strongmen and oligarchs, purges, revolts, and insurgency.
-
8 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:
Facts don't care about your feelings. Russia, China and North Korea are all run by cults of personality. If history tells us one thing about that kind of governing system, it's that the only predictable long term outcome is chaos and sadness. No ground truth is making it out of those countries concerning just how close-hold, or hair trigger the nuclear forces really are. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean the threat isn't there. Three highly narcissistic and insolated-from-truth men hold the keys to some seriously powerful weapons. Are you happy to simply ignore that? You're ok saying "I can't see the threat so it doesn't exist"?
Er..... lots of feelings and assumptions in those statements, lol.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:
That’s solely conjecture assuming that perspective knows about the check-and-balance, if any, system Russia has over their nuclear weapons. Who’s the say that Putin doesn’t have direct control over all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and could use them at his whim?
What exactly do you guys think is going to happen to those weapons if Russia experiences internal collapse?
-
5 minutes ago, nsplayr said:
^^ so what you’re saying is that nuclear weapons are very dangerous and we should be worried when a larger number of belligerent tyrants and/or unstable shitholes control them…and also you’re questioning if Russia is a threat??
🤷♂️
No, what I'm saying is the likely inevitability is that Russia is going to go down in history as one of the most benevolent actors with possession of nuclear weapons. And that's a sad but truthful statement.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, FourFans130 said:
Is this an honest question, or sarcasm?
It's an honest and sincere question. I would like to see where people build the structures that upheld that belief. My reason is because the I-NPT is getting weaker every year and will likely collapse in a matter of time. And I largely believe the US is making a mistake is not accepting that we are probably going to have to accept living in a nuclear armed world with little regulation to control. For example, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea now or have previously operated outside the I-NPT. Another 5-7 countries and I think it would be fair to say the treaty is 100% unenforceable.
There is also the perspective that if it wasn't for Russia we'd live in a more dangerous world. (In the sense that those 5K weapons exist whether we like it or not. Russia at least has the authority and control to safeguard then where as a Russian collapse would most certainly assure they find their way in the hands of irresponsible actors.)
-
1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:
Any nuclear optioned state that has a tyrant in charge is a threat to the U.S.
Why?
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Bigred said:
Not only do you get a new kid, but an exciting new STD! It’s a win-win?
To be honest, now that Biff_T mentions it, they may need to amend this policy to not apply to load masters.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, Prozac said:
Also….this is appropriate in this discussion:
This was amazing.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Stoker said:
I think there's a legitimate Arsenal of Democracy case to me made on top of the realpolitik aspect. It just feels damned nice, for once in the past seventy years or so, to be on the side of a no shit more or less democratic and free people who are more than willing to put their own asses in the firing line on behalf of their country. We've spent trillions and tens of thousands of American lives in defense of people who couldn't find the will to fight for their country with two hands and a map. What a cruel joke it would be if we gave the Afghans our support for twenty years but couldn't be bothered to help Ukraine.
I think a lot of people on this forum are going to have had diverse experiences with how close their interactions were with Afghan counterparts and their impression of those reactions. I understand why people believe what they believe but its not my experience there and I see a lot of apple and oranges comparisons. One thing Afghanistan missed sorely was a leader like Zelensky. Rather they got a corrupt president who fled before any fighting even got close to him and took a butt load of cash with him. That's a pretty damning action in war and one that almost guarantees the other side victory.
-
2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
I mean, if we're going to play shocked, pearl-clutching humanitarian, this conversation will be even less fruitful.
We judge the worth of a cause every day from the homeless panhandlers you drive by to the countries we send missiles to. Don't be intentionally obtuse.
The Nigerians aren't offering us the opportunity to decimate the military capacity and reputation of a geopolitical adversary.
Part A: That's MMT, which I certainly don't make arguments for. The spending increases matter, but they matter as part of an overall economic problem. They do not matter in regards to Ukraine, because the funding for Ukraine does not represent specific type of spending that, if halted, would solve our budgetary problems.
A weak analogy: If you have hypertension because you only eat bacon and chocolate burritos three times a day, you have a heart condition that could kill you when you exert yourself. But when the neighbor's smoking-hot ex-wife is putting the last of her things into the U-Haul, and she offers you VIP tickets to the suck parade for helping her get the tailgate closed, one might argue that your heart-condition is going to be materially worsened by by accepting her offer of oral nirvana. But it wasn't MILF blowjobs that put your heart at risk, and this opportunity is about to drive away forever. So you do the math and take the risk, because at the end of the day it's your addiction to deep-fried butter that put your heart in danger.
Part B: There is no "healthy for the country" solution; we are well past that. The disease is now a cancer, and the treatments are all going to be a whole lot more painful than life would have been if we had just put sunscreen (balanced budgets) on in the first place. But there are treatments, and they will still work in the future, though they will be more painful the longer we wait. A lot is going to depend on the attempted bifurcation of the world currency system by China and Russia. They might be able to accelerate the collapse of fiat to the point we see some solutions in the next decade as opposed to the second half of the century.
With the worldwide decline in birthrates and the suicidal refusal to produce cheap energy, the grow-our-way-out-of-it solution that the entirety of the planet has been relying on seems completely unrealistic. So that leaves the really shitty solutions.
This is probably the best response to this whole debacle I've read, so thanks for articulating as well as you did. I appreciate your understanding that this is not a humanitarian mission and is simply a state interest to remove Russia from the strings of power.
Dont 100% agree that it should be a state interest but this explanation makes thousands of times more sense than the normally emotionally based "but the Ukrainians were invaded....."
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
Because those causes aren't as worthy, or favored, or popular, or whatever you want to inject as the adjective.
Just because nobody cares about the debt enough to do anything about it, doesn't mean we don't still prioritize and select for spending opportunities.
The consequences for the global debt bonanza are going to be devastating. On that we agree entirely. The same reason I don't support slashing the defense budget to zero, due to our massive debt, is why I support spending the money on Ukraine. At some point in the next 50 years the debt issue is going to be resolved. And while it is going to get worse each year we wait, it will still be resolvable.
The Ukrainian situation/opportunity does not have the luxury of time.
So people aren't worthy because they were born in Africa and not Europe? What makes Ukrainians more worthy than say Nigerians?
Hell of a choice of language.....
-
4 hours ago, Lawman said:
Oh it’s ok… it was in a GSA approved closet… That’s like totally secure storage.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIs it made by same people that make the GSA approved home bathroom e-mail servers?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, nsplayr said:
Humm…quick math says max waist for a 5’10” person is 38”. And I know a handful of people fatter than that and shorter than me 😅
What I wanna see is what I’ve heard the Space Nerds…er Force are doing with a wearable and tracked metrics year-round in lieu of a once a year test.
Some people may not like that and I wouldn’t want to see it as a mandatory program, but I’d love to try that out sometime. If anyone knows an AF squadron that has figured out a waiver or experiment among those lines holla at me!
The best thing that's going to come out of that program (Space Force) is an enormous research population to study. Its really clear that nutritionist and scientist aren't 100% confident on what's happening with obesity/health in the US. There is clearly a hormonal link that is altering our body's chemistry to manage hunger to the point that the simple CICO advice that was ingrained for nearly 5 decades isn't sufficient to really address the underlying crises. You can only tell a person to stop eating but if their brain is literally convincing their instinctual responses that the body is starving they are going to struggle to ever be anything but overweight.
-
2 hours ago, pawnman said:
Because waiting to be invaded and hoping your adversary has terrible logistics isn't a great strategy. If Russia were competent and less corrupt, this easily could have gone much, much worse.
Lets be honest for a minute..... we aren't talking about the US ever getting invaded. This is 100% about us being able to flex power on different continents. For the foreseeable future, at least several generations, the US is a fortress due to perfect oceanic terrain.
2 hours ago, pawnman said:We do not have the largest standing military in history. China does. Which is a good reason not to slash our budget.
Was already mentioned this above but by sheer force projection, spending, capability we do. If you are measuring raw manpower fine but its not a good measure. Also are you really worried about China invading the US? We are skeptical China can even invade Taiwan right now.... What is your concern here?
-
1 hour ago, MCO said:
While large, we don’t even have the largest standing army in the world today let alone in history.
If you are measuring by manpower alone, then no. But if you are measuring by accumulated power (industrial, machine, materiel and assets) then yes, we do.
This is a really useful site I go back to often for evaluating force strengths:
-
24 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:
Post American Revolutionary era draw-down led directly to the White House getting burned.
Post WWI draw down heavily contributed to an over-populated workforce and helped make the great depression even greater
Post Korea draw down coupled with the idea that all future wars would be nuclear lead to an entire series of weapons (century series aircraft) that were completely inappropriate and miss-matched for the real-world wars that were clearly on the horizon.
Post Vietnam draw-down lead to a completely hollow force (literally we parked airplanes with no engines in them to make it look like we had more than we really did). We got lucky that the 70s and 80s weren't more turbulant, and we got really lucky that Reagan revived our military instrument of power before it was needed.
That's just American history. Ask Germany, Japan, Spain, and France what happens when you let others do your fighting for you. No-one cares as much about you as you do. Pretending we can pay others to fight our battles from here on out is an easy trap to fall into, and has NEVER historically worked in the long term.
So this is actually kind of the point i'm making right now. We are fighting Germany's, Japan's, and Spain's battles right now. I won't say France because they actually do a phenomenal job of maintaining military independence. Japan is getting there. Germany and Spain not so much. You are coming at this from "why don't we let other country's do our fighting for us?" and I'm coming from this at "why are we doing other country's fighting for them?"
I am not advocated maintaining our military as is. I AM advocated for a right sized and CORRECTLY ORIENTED force (an expeditionary capable deterrent force able to hit hard and get out fast against a near peer. We can and should not be an occupying force.
Russian Ukraine shenanigans
in General Discussion
Posted
I mean can we just get down to the county level and do some quid quo pro's? Id probably give China some east coast cities as well if they want em.....