View Full Version : So, what has the United States learned in the Ukraine vs Russia fiasco?
Averageman
03-15-22, 09:11
I've seen some interesting banter today calling for a "No Fly Zone" and actual involvement in this war.
I'm sixty, I spent 35 years serving my Country and I am aghast that we again look to be on the precipice of war.
Every one of the Ladies on the view yesterday, now want some boots on the ground, they won't say that outright, but listen and read between the lines and there you go. Boots on the Ground.
Phuck them. Seriously, if you haven't served you don't know, so shadda****up.
If we had strong forward looking and thinking Leadership this wouldn't happen.
I've seen some interesting banter today calling for a "No Fly Zone" and actual involvement in this war.
I'm sixty, I spent 35 years serving my Country and I am aghast that we again look to be on the precipice of war.
Every one of the Ladies on the view yesterday, now want some boots on the ground, they won't say that outright, but listen and read between the lines and there you go. Boots on the Ground.
Phuck them. Seriously, if you haven't served you don't know, so shadda****up.
If we had strong forward looking and thinking Leadership this wouldn't happen.
I will not go that far, but at least have some idea of WTF you're talking about and getting input from those who spend their lives studying and or living it. None of those morons could find the place on a map before this started, probably still can't. Some calling for a NFZ, should know better, such as politicians etc.
I'd say they have learned to go back to the old playbook.
Distract from your failures by starting a war. Age old trick. Not that Shitzizpantz "started" it, but he damn sure invited it and facilitated it.
I may want Ukraine to survive and Russia to lose but that doesn't mean I will support US involvement in the air or on the ground. Log and Intel, but not blood.
I can cheer for Ukraine while we fix our own damn house, that's the lesson I want to be learned.
If we had strong forward looking and thinking Leadership this wouldn't happen.
This is it. I mean a senile, corrupt ass wipe for an illegit President has set the stage for all of this shit.
I'd say they have learned to go back to the old playbook.
Distract from your failures by starting a war. Age old trick. Not that Shitzizpantz "started" it, but he damn sure invited it and facilitated it.
I may want Ukraine to survive and Russia to lose but that doesn't mean I will support US involvement in the air or on the ground. Log and Intel, but not blood.
I can cheer for Ukraine while we fix our own damn house, that's the lesson I want to be learned.
I think the question we should be pondering now, is what We The People are gonna do about it if these warmongers drag us into the war as declared combatants? Is there even anything we could do that would change their minds? :confused:
I think the question we should be pondering now, is what We The People are gonna do about it if these warmongers drag us into the war as declared combatants? Is there even anything we could do that would change their minds? :confused:Post on social media about how unpleasant this war is? I dunno
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
Averageman
03-15-22, 10:38
I believe there is nothing you can do legally to gain their attention, even less to actually change them, or to sit down and discuss issues.
We've reached the point where they simply don't care what we think.
I'm actually surprised News folks and Politicians haven't been shot randomly on the street by now.
Both sides / swamp are pushing for wwiii & I'm hating seeing the uptick it's headed that way...this should stay a european blood spill.
Seriously, if you haven't served you don't know, so shadda****up.
That’s like saying if you’ve never served in government you don’t know, so “shadda****up” as you say. When you take the oath, those words are literal and it’s a volunteer military.
Perhaps a better strategy is to be vocally and explain why you think they are wrong. Get started by writing to your representatives, local campaigns that can gain attention, and using social media.
Saying “STFU if you never served”, implying only those who “serve” get an opinion on this one, negates the idea of “serving” rather than buying the right to have a say-so.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
03-15-22, 12:38
That’s like saying if you’ve never served in government you don’t know, so “shadda****up” as you say. When you take the oath, those words are literal and it’s a volunteer military.
Perhaps a better strategy is to be vocally and explain why you think they are wrong. Get started by writing to your representatives, local campaigns that can gain attention, and using social media.
Saying “STFU if you never served”, implying only those who “serve” get an opinion on this one, negates the idea of “serving” rather than buying the right to have a say-so.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, what I am saying is, unless you fired a shot in anger, don't talk us in to a war. If all you have done is spent some time on TV, and made some "B" movies, and you didn't even bother to graduate high school, your opinion is shit.
You've done exactly nothing to make things better. If you're too far gone in to the Liberal hivemind then you really shouldn't open your mouth, especially when someone else's Kid is going to pay the freight for the bull shit coming out of your mouth.
More in response to hawkish idiots who are just blindly parroting bad ideas...
It's a valid, but suboptimal, way of articulating that most people of that opinion haven't arrived there through critical thought OR experience.
No, what I am saying is, unless you fired a shot in anger, don't talk us in to a war. If all you have done is spent some time on TV, and made some "B" movies, you didn't even bother to graduate high school, your opinion is shit.
You've done exactly nothing to make things better. If you're too far gone in to the Liberal hivemind then you really shouldn't open your mouth, especially when someone else's Kid is going to pay the freight for the bull shit coming out of your mouth.
You’re treading on a slippery slope here when you think you get to decide who’s opinion counts and who’s do not. You may be talking about one person specifically, but anything you advocate for can be turned around against you just as easy.
Your statements are anti-American….some animals are more equal than others.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
After our administration FUBAR the Afghanistan pull and left large number weapons in the hand of the Taliban. I would think that we would not want to get involved in the Ukrainian war at all if NATO does a no-fly zone will been seen to Russia that WWIII is on with nuclear weapons on the table.
I give the Ukrainians credit that they are giving the Russian some troop loses but probably just a matter of time before the Ukrainians lose. I know the Russian haven’t use the Air Force that much since requires ground and air force to communicate so the ground troops avoid being killed buy the Russian air force.
https://youtu.be/liKtIsMoPoA
Averageman
03-15-22, 12:57
You’re treading on a slippery slope here when you think you get to decide who’s opinion counts and who’s do not. You may be talking about one person specifically, but anything you advocate for can be turned around against you just as easy.
Your statements are anti-American….some animals are more equal than others.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So it's now anti American to openly opose being slow walked in to a war by idiots?
Say what you like, I look at free speech like triage, some of us simply aren't going to make it, they don't have the power to see past the end of their nose. So have your opinion, but if it's so stupid, if it is lunacy, perhaps STFU is the best thing for everyone.
Serving in public office simply doesn't hold the same weight. Sorry.
If you've put nothing in the pot, fold your F'ing cards and go home.
US boots on the ground would be a disaster.
Enforcing a no-fly zone would be a disaster.
IMO, the Libs want this conflict to try to salvage the mid-terms. What they're likely to get instead is Russian ICBMs landing in US cities with the very real possibility of nuclear escalation. When you haven't fought a near-peer military in 70 years, it's easy to think this will be another clean and easy Kuwait liberation with miles of smoldering Russian armor while life goes on at home. But when you're dealing with a psychopath commanding a fleet of long range missiles and enough nuclear warheads to kill everyone in this country multiple times over, all bets are off.
But I didn't serve so I suppose I should "shadda****up"...
Averageman
03-15-22, 13:08
US boots on the ground would be a disaster.
Enforcing a no-fly zone would be a disaster.
IMO, the Libs want this conflict to try to salvage the mid-terms. What they're likely to get instead is Russian ICBMs landing in US cities with the very real possibility of nuclear escalation. When you haven't fought a near-peer military in 70 years, it's easy to think this will be another clean and easy Kuwait liberation with miles of smoldering Russian armor while life goes on at home. But when you're dealing with a psychopath commanding a fleet of long range missiles and enough nuclear warheads to kill everyone in this country multiple times over, all bets are off.
But I didn't serve so I suppose I should "shadda****up"...
Let's hand Biden's football off to the Girls on the view. I mean afterall, there "View" is always so, On Point, right?
Some people and I include everyone on the view are living breathing H2O thieves.
By simply considering their opinion in to the conversation, especially when we are talking about nuclear war makes your own IQ drop 25 points
So it's now anti American to openly opose being slow walked in to a war by idiots?
Say what you like, I look at free speech like triage, some of us simply aren't going to make it, they don't have the power to see past the end of their nose. So have your opinion, but if it's so stupid, if it is lunacy, perhaps STFU is the best thing for everyone.
Serving in public office simply doesn't hold the same weight. Sorry.
If you've put nothing in the pot, fold your F'ing cards and go home.
I didn’t say it’s anti-American to oppose potential war. Either I’m not communicating well or you’re being intentionally obtuse. I stated that it is anti-American to decide certain people aren’t entitled to an opinion. Furthermore, the idea that only those who “serve” get an opinion is asinine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
More in response to hawkish idiots who are just blindly parroting bad ideas...
It's a valid, but suboptimal, way of articulating that most people of that opinion haven't arrived there through critical thought OR experience.
Who are you talking to? And who are you talking about? :confused:
You’re treading on a slippery slope here when you think you get to decide who’s opinion counts and who’s do not. You may be talking about one person specifically, but anything you advocate for can be turned around against you just as easy.
Your statements are anti-American….some animals are more equal than others.
There is no power to compel anyone to shut up, or threats to make them shut up, just an opinion that they should shut up. Sounds like free speech.
Maybe take it down a notch. Or even consider that veterans earned the right to be a little bitter about how cavalier those who flourished the most from freedom are to sending someone else’s sons off to a pointless war.
There is no power to compel anyone to shut up, or threats to make them shut up, just an opinion that they should shut up. Sounds like free speech.
Maybe take it down a notch. Or even consider that veterans earned the right to be a little bitter about how cavalier those who flourished the most from freedom are to sending someone else’s sons off to a pointless war.
If you have “earned rights” another doesn’t have by serving, you didn’t “serve”, you bought new rights. And that’s bullshit.
Somebody calling for a war, as misguided as they may be, still has free speech to do so.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
03-15-22, 13:28
I didn’t say it’s anti-American to oppose potential war. Either I’m not communicating well or you’re being intentionally obtuse. I stated that it is anti-American to decide certain people aren’t entitled to an opinion. Furthermore, the idea that only those who “serve” get an opinion is asinine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let me explain, we are so detached from violence and haven't had a real 1864 era level of domestic violence, since well, 1864. The majority of the people have no idea what war is. It happens somewhere else, to someone else and everyone say's "What a Shame" then they go home to A/C, cable, running water and hot meals.
If you haven't experienced it, you have no idea, sitting safe behind a camera what you're asking for, so shut up and sit down.
And considering we're talking about nuclear war, well let me tape your mouth shut too.
Let me explain, we are so detached from violence and haven't had a real 1864 era level of domestic violence, since well, 1864. The majority of the people have no idea what war is. It happens somewhere else, to someone else and everyone say's "What a Shame" then they go home to A/C, cable, running water and hot meals.
If you haven't experienced it, you have no idea, sitting safe behind a camera what you're asking for, so shut up and sit down.
And considering we're talking about nuclear war, well let me tape your mouth shut too.
Show me on the doll where free speech hurt you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Show me on the doll where free speech hurt you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://arkansaslawking.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/RightToRemainSilentArkansas-624x346.jpg
Averageman
03-15-22, 13:38
Show me on the doll where free speech hurt you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don't see that "Free Speech" in this case is totally farcical?
We are talking Nukes, Putin did say he would go nuclear if we put in a "No Fly Zone". So yes, I see that, (calling for a No fly Zone) as counter productive, and for that to be going out on National TV is disgraceful.
And just to take a note from the leftist hive mind, how isn't that "Hate Speech"?
Both sides / swamp are pushing for wwiii & I'm hating seeing the uptick it's headed that way...this should stay a european blood spill.
^^^This, I feel for the people of Ukraine but ultimately if they did fall to the Russians it wouldn't mean any more than Crimea did in 2014 when everybody in Europe looked the other way. I really hope that we get a stronger Europe out of this, another ally against aggressors like Russia or China wouldn't be a bad thing. Hell if history repeats itself we just got out of a bogged down war in Afghanistan after not learning the lessons of the USSR, maybe it is time for Russia to get bogged down just the same, either way it isn't my problem. We need to clean house here and get the Dems out of the White house, Congress and the Senate.
I may want Ukraine to survive and Russia to lose but that doesn't mean I will support US involvement in the air or on the ground. Log and Intel, but not blood.
I can cheer for Ukraine while we fix our own damn house, that's the lesson I want to be learned.
More or less where I'm at. I'd love to support the Ukrainians, and if my "season of life" were just a bit different, I'd likely have tried to join the International Legion. I really wish we as a country could do more, but I'm not stupid enough to think things would go well if we put boots on the ground or tried to enforce a no fly zone. I don't know what's between that and what we're currently doing (besides sending more weapons) but I'm open to ideas.
You don't see that "Free Speech" in this case is totally farcical?
We are talking Nukes, Putin did say he would go nuclear if we put in a "No Fly Zone". So yes, I see that, (calling for a No fly Zone) as counter productive, and for that to be going out on National TV is disgraceful.
And just to take a note from the leftist hive mind, how isn't that "Hate Speech"?
On second thought, you’re right. We can only have opinions that Putin approves of and we should lock up those that verbalize descent. Thank you for fixing my wrong think.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
. Seriously, if you haven't served you don't know, so shadda****up.
The overwhelming majority of MOS are skill based, and have nothing to do with war strategy or tactics.
If we had strong forward looking and thinking Leadership this wouldn't happen.
Which we have not had in 35+ years.
The Uniparty is only interested in stuffing their bank account and could not care less about future consequences.
You don't see that "Free Speech" in this case is totally farcical?
We are talking Nukes, Putin did say he would go nuclear if we put in a "No Fly Zone". So yes, I see that, (calling for a No fly Zone) as counter productive, and for that to be going out on National TV is disgraceful.
And just to take a note from the leftist hive mind, how isn't that "Hate Speech"?
OK, if you honestly believe that Putin would go nuke over a NFZ over Ukraine, what would you consider productive? What's going to get him to stop his murder spree?
The overwhelming majority of MOS are skill based, and have nothing to do with war strategy or tactics.
We have a winner.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK, if you honestly believe that Putin would go nuke over a NFZ over Ukraine, what would you consider productive? What's going to get him to stop his murder spree?
Bingo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK, if you honestly believe that Putin would go nuke over a NFZ over Ukraine, what would you consider productive? What's going to get him to stop his murder spree?
There's an interesting article in The Hill by a political science professor from Rutgers. Basically Putin is almost certainly done. The loyalty surrounding him will deteriorate when the Russian economy returns to crap. The Ukrainians have, at minimum, bogged Putin down into a "slog". I'm even impressed by the overwhelming sanctioning against Russia. The terroristic attacks on civilians and hospitals will seal the unpopularity of the invasion, and solidify his image ass a giant asshole.
Averageman
03-15-22, 18:08
OK, if you honestly believe that Putin would go nuke over a NFZ over Ukraine, what would you consider productive? What's going to get him to stop his murder spree?
The Potatoe currently posing as POTUS dropped the ball. Not only did he drop it in terms of negotiating this, he probably did one of those, "Oh the 1980's called and want their foreign policy back" things laughed and walked away. He absolutely didn't have a clue.
No, I think politically Biden owns this mess, though being Teflon, the media will bolster him up yet again.
At this point you can offer to negotiate, but in that cabinet who do you send Harris? The Polish are now telling Harris jokes.
No, the best we can do is offer to negotiate and set back and wait. Or I guess we can do what a lot of people on "The View" want and go in guns blazing, well your Kid, not mine, mines going to Harvard.
Averageman
03-15-22, 18:15
Which we have not had in 35+ years.
The Uniparty is only interested in stuffing their bank account and could not care less about future consequences.
I dunno, I think Reagan did some great stuff and Trump too.
The overwhelming majority of MOS are skill based, and have nothing to do with war strategy or tactics.
We definitely don’t want people who have seen the horrors of war deciding whether to send other peoples kids to the next war, right?
Averageman
03-15-22, 21:01
We definitely don’t want people who have seen the horrors of war deciding whether to send other peoples kids to the next war, right?
No, just shove them in breech and fire 'em down range.
It's the "Democratic" way to do things.
We definitely don’t want people who have seen the horrors of war deciding whether to send other peoples kids to the next war, right?
Definitely not. The Constitution empowers Congress to declare war and POTUS to be CiC. I see no reason to change it, but feel free to try if you do not like it.
Keep in mind nobody goes off to war that did not volunteer.
Seems like a great system of checks and balances to me.
Apparently nothing we did not know already .
Averageman
03-15-22, 21:25
We definitely don’t want people who have seen the horrors of war deciding whether to send other peoples kids to the next war, right?
Definitely not. The Constitution empowers Congress to declare war and POTUS to be CiC. I see no reason to change it, but feel free to try if you do not like it.
Keep in mind nobody goes off to war that did not volunteer.
Seems like a great system of checks and balances to me.
And God forbid anyone in Congress or for heavens sake not the Potus actually serve in the Military before they make those decisions or put other lives in jeopardy, right?
I can remember when military service was practically a mandatory precursor to a political career.
Ya Know?
And God forbid anyone in Congress or for heavens sake not the Potus actually serve in the Military before they make those decisions or put other lives in jeopardy, right?
I can remember when military service was practically a mandatory precursor to a political career.
Ya Know?
So do you vote for Tulsi or Pete?
BTW. Bush served, how did that work out?
We definitely don’t want people who have seen the horrors of war deciding whether to send other peoples kids to the next war, right?
Well said. Only the dead have seen the end of war. Only those who have no experience with war or have not seen the horrors of war are willing to send someone else to fight the war in their stead.
Only those who have no experience with war or have not seen the horrors of war are willing to send someone else to fight the war in their stead.
Obviously you have never heard of the Bush family. What branch did the twins serve in while he sent others to fight?
eta
How could I forget Daddy Bush! So lets recap:
Last 3 major wars (Iraq1, AFG, Iraq2), all started by POTUS who had served and none sent their own family.
Interspersed were 3 POTUS who did not serve, and did not start any wars.
So basically, what you said is the exact opposite of recent reality.
Haven't watched all of this yet, but got over to the part of Yeager and others being potential pawns to lure others in to something that isn't even remotely understood. Enjoy night owls ;)
https://youtu.be/vjETidgQ58g
We definitely don’t want people who have seen the horrors of war deciding whether to send other peoples kids to the next war, right?OK, "seen the horrors of war"... I'll play.
Sounds good in concept. They're the only ones who get to commit the US to combat? Deployments? Defense spending? Foreign negotiations?
Does that mean CIB if army? Or maybe we allow the CAB now. Marine equiv? And only the pilots who saw combat, naval people that fired the guns or had their ship shot at?
The old rule of thumb backed by statistics was only about 10% of the military actually sees combat. And the majority of that was combat arms. (Though clearly there are exceptions)
And I say this with a serving combat arms son who's spent most of his adult life OCONUS. Literally years away from his family. A likely future son-in-law also combat arms. Many friends and some family who did see combat.
With all the hardship that military life has, don't denigrate it with the implication that all of the US military sees the horrors of war and should get special vote because of that.
Those who serve that I'm family or good friends with would be adamantly opposed to this crazy idea. Primarily because that's not how our constitution was written. But for some other reasons I'm not going to enumerate.
I respect the service and occasionally wisdom, but that doesn't give someone a special vote.
Apologies in advance for saying the uncomfortable. And I have the utmost respect for those who served or will serve. I'll thank you for your service, and donate to causes that support service members.
But I'm not going to let you vote for me.
Averageman
03-15-22, 23:41
So do you vote for Tulsi or Pete?
BTW. Bush served, how did that work out?
There's more choices you're being a smart ass.
So, what has the United States learned in the Ukraine vs Russia fiasco?
I don't think this is fiasco as you put it. I'm confident that this conflict is exactly what U.S. and some western countries wanted (less so neighboring countries). That's why nobody talks about how this could have been prevented and what transpired before the conflict besides shipping weapons to Ukrainians.
U.S. intel knew exactly what's going to happen and when down to the hour. I suspect there are a few high-profile moles in the Russian military or we've gotten really good at reading all of their communication.
I strongly believe this situation/conflict could have been avoided by both Ukraine and U.S./NATO allies via nominal concessions to Russia. Countless lives could have been saved. It would not have had any detrimental effect on anything for Ukraine or NATO. I think this was just a perception or hubris issue which is contrary to the good policy negotiations. Bad faith or incompetent political negotiations => countless lives destroyed.
I don't think this is fiasco as you put it. I'm confident that this conflict is exactly what U.S. and some western countries wanted (less so neighboring countries). That's why nobody talks about how this could have been prevented and what transpired before the conflict besides shipping weapons to Ukrainians.
U.S. intel knew exactly what's going to happen and when down to the hour. I suspect there are a few high-profile moles in the Russian military or we've gotten really good at reading all of their communication.
I strongly believe this situation/conflict could have been avoided by both Ukraine and U.S./NATO allies via nominal concessions to Russia. Countless lives could have been saved. It would not have had any detrimental effect on anything for Ukraine or NATO. I think this was just a perception or hubris issue which is contrary to the good policy negotiations. Bad faith or incompetent political negotiations => countless lives destroyed.
I have the same opinion about how the conflict could have been avoided. I hope and pray that we do not put boots on the ground, because I don't want to see body bags filled with young U.S. Service personnel.
If the United States gets directly involved, 1) we need to establish a clear cut objective, 2) Congress needs to provide the resources to meet that objective and 3) a theater of operations commander needs to be assigned and given full autonomy to meet that objective.
Some people here have never read the constitution or had a civics class and it shows....
Averageman
03-16-22, 08:42
OK, Those who serve that I'm family or good friends with would be adamantly opposed to this crazy idea. Primarily because that's not how our constitution was written. But for some other reasons I'm not going to enumerate.
I respect the service and occasionally wisdom, but that doesn't give someone a special vote.
Apologies in advance for saying the uncomfortable. And I have the utmost respect for those who served or will serve. I'll thank you for your service, and donate to causes that support service members.
But I'm not going to let you vote for me.
I'm with you, the concept; during the founding of this great land was, we are all equal because we all have skin in the game. If we lost the Revolutionary War, everyone would have hung. So, volunteering to serve, or deciding to sit on the sidelines, or being drug in to it kicking and screaming was irrelevant, if the British won, it would have likely been a hell of a slaughter.
I guess the next big thing was the Civil War, then WWI and WWII. But Again, we all had skin in the game.
Nobody has skin in this game anymore, we're just out of skin.
You're right, not a lot of people were granted the honor of serving in Combat Arms and participating in Combat. And God Bless those who have.
I'm all about your First Amendment Rights, but I think you can really abuse that and I think we as Conservatives need to point that out and figure out a way to silence the worst of it. We all know the Leftists have silenced us, publicly shamed us and tried to unseat a duly elected President with this crap.
So what would you like us to do about this?
And God forbid anyone in Congress or for heavens sake not the Potus actually serve in the Military before they make those decisions or put other lives in jeopardy, right?
I can remember when military service was practically a mandatory precursor to a political career.
Ya Know?
And you want that again?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
03-16-22, 08:56
And you want that again?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I Like Ike
I Like Ike
That doesn’t answer the question.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
03-16-22, 09:20
That doesn’t answer the question.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, all things being even I would feel much more confident voting for someone who had served in ground combat.
I think it would be comforting to know that someone who knows what war is the CIC as opposed to an Ivy League Boy Genius who looks like a Male Model.
Haven't watched all of this yet, but got over to the part of Yeager and others being potential pawns to lure others in to something that isn't even remotely understood. Enjoy night owls ;)
https://youtu.be/vjETidgQ58g
So Ol' Yeller wants to run away in Ukraine too? I'll wait for the video of that one.
So Ol' Yeller wants to run away in Ukraine too? I'll wait for the video of that one.
I believe he left this morning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So Ol' Yeller wants to run away in Ukraine too? I'll wait for the video of that one.Can you explain that reference? Sorry, I don't get it. I also don't follow that guy.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
I believe he left this morning.
Ha! That should make for another 10 years of viewing pleasure.
Although it appears he is terminally ill, so perhaps he's planning suicide by Russian to atone for his cowardice.
No, I am not wishing death or illness on him or anyone else, in case that isn't clear.
Can you explain that reference? Sorry, I don't get it. I also don't follow that guy.
Search the web for James Yeager coward.........A mountain of hits should follow, including video evidence.
Yes, all things being even I would feel much more confident voting for someone who had served in ground combat.
I think it would be comforting to know that someone who knows what war is the CIC as opposed to an Ivy League Boy Genius who looks like a Male Model.
Because it worked so well for Geo Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion? Or Ike and Korea? Or Kennedy and Vietnam? Or Bush and GWOT?
Doesn't matter if he wore a uniform or not. Wearing a uniform doesn't give anyone magical abilities to lead a nation in war.
I don't think this is fiasco as you put it. I'm confident that this conflict is exactly what U.S. and some western countries wanted (less so neighboring countries). That's why nobody talks about how this could have been prevented and what transpired before the conflict besides shipping weapons to Ukrainians.
U.S. intel knew exactly what's going to happen and when down to the hour. I suspect there are a few high-profile moles in the Russian military or we've gotten really good at reading all of their communication.
I strongly believe this situation/conflict could have been avoided by both Ukraine and U.S./NATO allies via nominal concessions to Russia. Countless lives could have been saved. It would not have had any detrimental effect on anything for Ukraine or NATO. I think this was just a perception or hubris issue which is contrary to the good policy negotiations. Bad faith or incompetent political negotiations => countless lives destroyed.
I have the same opinion about how the conflict could have been avoided. I hope and pray that we do not put boots on the ground, because I don't want to see body bags filled with young U.S. Service personnel.
If the United States gets directly involved, 1) we need to establish a clear cut objective, 2) Congress needs to provide the resources to meet that objective and 3) a theater of operations commander needs to be assigned and given full autonomy to meet that objective.
It all goes back to what I've been saying for well over 2 decades, the US cannot be trusted to honor their commitments when the shtf. Zelensky has learned that lesson the hard way, when all he had to do was google our history of foreign expeditions and "nation building" since Cuba. History repeats itself, again.
Can you explain that reference? Sorry, I don't get it. I also don't follow that guy.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
He fancied himself a hsld PMC operator in the early Iraq days. He made contact with the enemy and his self-assessment crumbled in short order. Since then he's said and done several inflammatory things that stir both controversy and clicks. Here's an old thread on another forum with some historical reading on the matter. About the only way I can describe him is "colorful", with all positive and negative connotations associated with that word.
https://www.dfwstangs.net/threads/anyone-know-who-james-yeager-is.311672/
Turkish TB-2 drones, that have the aerodynamic performance and vulnerability of a World War I Sopwith Camel, are surprisingly effective in the face of a supposedly modern air defense system.
About the only way I can describe him is "colorful", with all positive and negative connotations associated with that word.
https://www.dfwstangs.net/threads/anyone-know-who-james-yeager-is.311672/
That color would be Yellow.
That color would be Yellow.
I certainly wouldn't want to share a fighting position with him! LOL
Yes, all things being even I would feel much more confident voting for someone who had served in ground combat.
I think it would be comforting to know that someone who knows what war is the CIC as opposed to an Ivy League Boy Genius who looks like a Male Model.
I didn’t ask your feels. I asked if you believe that should be a pre-req for running.
Should ONLY combat veterans be permitted to run for political office?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I certainly wouldn't want to share a fighting position with him! LOL
Nope.
All mouth, no balls, even when his brothers are dying all around him.
I don't think we've learned anything...gotta gut feeling the whole escalation with the migs / fly zone is about to unfold. Chatter is getting too loud.
Averageman
03-16-22, 11:19
I didn’t ask your feels. I asked if you believe that should be a pre-req for running.
Should ONLY combat veterans be permitted to run for political office?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, and I never said that did I?
What I said was I would like to think before deploying my Son to some shit hole, a Combat Veteran might very well likely give it some more thought than someone who hasn't had those experiences.
In todays world, it isn't too hard to find likely Candidates.
I don't think we've learned anything...gotta gut feeling the whole escalation with the migs / fly zone is about to unfold. Chatter is getting too loud.
And please look where that's coming from, because the people begging for it are way off kilter.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-16-22, 11:22
Turkish TB-2 drones, that have the aerodynamic performance and vulnerability of a World War I Sopwith Camel, are surprisingly effective in the face of a supposedly modern air defense system.
Word.
I don't think we've learned anything...gotta gut feeling the whole escalation with the migs / fly zone is about to unfold. Chatter is getting too loud.
I don't know if it is a threat to Putin that he has to finish this stuff up soon, or if Putin would welcome it as a distraction. His attack on the western airfield in Ukraine, from aircraft overflying Russia is kind of reality check on what a no-fly zone could actually do.
No, and I never said that did I?
What I said was I would like to think before deploying my Son to some shit hole, a Combat Veteran might very well likely give it some more thought than someone who hasn't had those experiences.
Veterans have started all the wars since WWII. Non veterans Zero.
No, and I never said that did I?
In todays world, it isn't too hard to find likely Candidates.
As pointed out, the two veterans in 2020 election got nowhere.
For a variety of reasons, there are fewer veterans in politics now than ever before. But thanks to Bushes Wars, that should soon be changing for the next 20 years or so.
No, and I never said that did I?
What I said was I would like to think before deploying my Son to some shit hole, a Combat Veteran might very well likely give it some more thought than someone who hasn't had those experiences.
In todays world, it isn't too hard to find likely Candidates.
And please look where that's coming from, because the people begging for it are way off kilter.
You know, very very few have served in combat in the grande scheme of things. Of those that have, there is 3x the suicide rate of the general population. Some studies estimate nearly 50% suffer psychological illness following combat.
Most of those serving in combat aren’t leaders and certainly don’t go into combat in great numbers. But hey, it gave us John McCain.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And please look where that's coming from, because the people begging for it are way off kilter.
Right, the same folks who were so eager to shut down the country & force jabs to save even one life are the same trying to escalate & get US footprints across the pond...I so hate the swamp.
Coal Dragger
03-16-22, 12:53
Veterans have started all the wars since WWII. Non veterans Zero.
That is not accurate. First of all Averageman pointed out a distinction on the veterans. Combat veterans is what he said, not just veteran. There’s a difference there.
Secondly you would have to ignore the fiascos that Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama voluntarily got us involved in that did in fact involve military operations and casualties to US personnel.
With all of the volunteers going to fight in Ukraine. It seems like a good way to round up people with the will to fight tyranny and kill them off.
This will make less resistance for the New World Order folks.
Pretty smart.
That is not accurate. First of all Averageman pointed out a distinction on the veterans. Combat veterans is what he said, not just veteran. There’s a difference there.
No first he said "Seriously, if you haven't served you don't know, so shadda****up."
Then he said "and God forbid anyone in Congress or for heavens sake not the Potus actually serve in the Military"
then this am he said "served in ground combat" (i guess AF and Navy need not apply).
Trying to keep up, but he keeps changing his stance.
Either way, historically since WWII, veterans combat veterans, are MORE likely to get us into war, not less.
Who were the loudest mouths for more war in last 10 years? McCain and Graham. I am on his side (less war), but he is mistaken about who gets us into wars.
That is not accurate. First of all Averageman pointed out a distinction on the veterans. Combat veterans is what he said, not just veteran. There’s a difference there.
Secondly you would have to ignore the fiascos that Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama voluntarily got us involved in that did in fact involve military operations and casualties to US personnel.
In regarding Clinton and Obama, that is a great argument given the number of Republicans (who have been veterans) who've been in office, who have led us to war. Neither being nor not being in the military is a factor in being able to lead the country.
Whataboutism is stupid, and so is the argument for claiming only politicians who have been in the military should be involved in decisions on when, how, and where to use the military.
In regarding Clinton and Obama, that is a great argument given the number of Republicans (who have been veterans) who've been in office, who have led us to war. Neither being nor not being in the military is a factor in being able to lead the country.
Whataboutism is stupid, and so is the argument for claiming only politicians who have been in the military should be involved in decisions on when, how, and where to use the military.
Agree. And to add, it’s also stupid to say that only veterans get to voice an opinion. Some of the most worthless, dysfunctional people I’ve ever met in my life were veterans. Veterans are just a cross section of society and all that entails.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There are plenty of times that war is the least bad option. And I’m not trying to say only combat vets can or should make that call. But maybe you should be more willing to hear his perspective, or more offended by the chicken-hawk than the vet telling her to shut up.
It’s just so infuriating watching those with the least skin in the game harp the loudest for war. Her kids aren’t going to go fight it, that’s for the smelly Walmart peoples kids.
We are so blessed that we don’t have anyone but vets who can describe what bombed out cities are like. The suffering of civilians, and kids. Man, seeing kids hurt or killed is the worst. War is so “over there” or so far back in history when it was here, that we as a country don’t understand the stakes.
Whoever makes decisions regarding sending U.S. Troops to war, need to take into consideration the costs, both short term and long term, before committing U.S. Personnel to a combat theater.
I don't care which political party makes the decisions or whether the decision makers are Veterans or not, they need to think long and hard before killing young Americans to protect someone else's soil.
Averageman
03-16-22, 19:00
No first he said "Seriously, if you haven't served you don't know, so shadda****up."
Yes that was in reference to the Ladies on the View asking for a No Fly Zone, which in fact Putin said would be an act of War and that he would consider Nukes as an Option. "The View" believe it or not is pretty influential calling for a "No Fly Zone" that Putin already said was an Act of War, well, that's pretty irresponsible.
I don't believe anyone on "The View" has served, now do you see the connection? If you're not serving, and have no children who would be called to serve, don't be a dumbass and call for war, it's actually asinine and disrespectful.
Then he said "and God forbid anyone in Congress or for heavens sake not the Potus actually serve in the Military"
There was more than a serving of irony in that, in that I was being a smartass. I would love to see more Veterans serve, I think when unincumbered by connections to the MIC, they would be great Leaders and less likely to call for War.
There's a one eyed former SEAL here in Texas that would likely agree with me on that.
then this am he said "served in ground combat" (i guess AF and Navy need not apply).
Let me tell you why I feel that way, I appreciate all those tech's that joined the Military they sat behind screens, stayed clean and made sure I got parts, food and paid. They have very little understanding of the Spartan life and have likely never gotten dirt let alone some blood under their nails.
Totally different life, totally different way to live.
Pretty much, or with fewer exceptions those folks in the Air Force and Navy are exempt from that, but if they weren't "Bring 'em on Down."
Trying to keep up, but he keeps changing his stance.
Either way, historically since WWII, veterans combat veterans, are MORE likely to get us into war, not less.
Who were the loudest mouths for more war in last 10 years? McCain and Graham. I am on his side (less war), but he is mistaken about who gets us into wars.
I wonder how many Wars were avoided because of a more cautious Politician who had served and stayed the course rather than called for war and sent someone else's kid to do the dying and killing?
Averageman
03-16-22, 19:05
There are plenty of times that war is the least bad option. And I’m not trying to say only combat vets can or should make that call. But maybe you should be more willing to hear his perspective, or more offended by the chicken-hawk than the vet telling her to shut up.
It’s just so infuriating watching those with the least skin in the game harp the loudest for war. Her kids aren’t going to go fight it, that’s for the smelly Walmart peoples kids.
We are so blessed that we don’t have anyone but vets who can describe what bombed out cities are like. The suffering of civilians, and kids. Man, seeing kids hurt or killed is the worst. War is so “over there” or so far back in history when it was here, that we as a country don’t understand the stakes.
Like I've said, we've not seen war on our Contenant since like 1865. These people calling for War now, will call for Civil War later, and eventually someone will listen.
They have no idea what they are asking for, it will be Biblical in it's fury.
I do not know what America has learned, but I have learned something. I have learned that a good number of people are easily manipulated. People can see the lefties, rinos, globalists and the media all be on the same side (narrative) when it comes to Ukraine and still people can't see it for the horrible thing that it is. Getting played and distracted. There are "no good players" in the Russian invasion. None what so ever and we should not be involved.
Euro Parliament member on Afghanistan and terrified :rolleyes: Ukraine civilians, one that speaks some English.
https://youtu.be/LuNnY__eJzs
Coal Dragger
03-16-22, 22:49
In regarding Clinton and Obama, that is a great argument given the number of Republicans (who have been veterans) who've been in office, who have led us to war. Neither being nor not being in the military is a factor in being able to lead the country.
Whataboutism is stupid, and so is the argument for claiming only politicians who have been in the military should be involved in decisions on when, how, and where to use the military.
No argument about only politicians who have served argument. Military experience doesn’t automatically confer wisdom or competency.
That said I would love to see an amendment to the Constitution requiring the immediate conscription of any spouse, adult children, or adult grandchildren of POTUS and all Congress critters into a combat arms MOS upon the commitment of any US military forces into a conflict. Further requiring immediate deployment of said individuals into a combat theater to a front line unit as soon as their training is done.
No more sending other peoples’ children and grandchildren into harms way without personal consequences or risk! If it’s vital enough to risk the lives of US military members, it’s vital enough for Joe Biden’s and Nancy Pelosi’s kids and grandkids to go get at shot too.
I do not know what America has learned, but I have learned something. I have learned that a good number of people are easily manipulated. People can see the lefties, rinos, globalists and the media all be on the same side (narrative) when it comes to Ukraine and still people can't see it for the horrible thing that it is. Getting played and distracted. There are "no good players" in the Russian invasion. None what so ever and we should not be involved.
Yeah I can’t get on board with that. If it were as simple as government on government fighting on the battlefields, maybe. But Putin is wholesale attacking an entire nation of 43 million people. The evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. Putin is committing war crimes at an exponentially greater pace. On civilians just trying to live their lives. People who have nothing to do with the government or corruption or racism or whatever bullshit excuse some people want so they can pretend this isn’t a historic crisis that may result in WWIII.
There is absolutely, indisputably a bad guy here and it’s Putin. All of his excuses for committing an acto of war on a sovereign nation are bullshit on the face of it.
I’m just not sure how much longer the entire world can turn a blind eye. No I still don’t want our forces in or over Ukraine, but not enough is being done yet. It’s pathetic that we have the weakest, most corrupt “leader” in decades pretending he’s managing anything more than his own sphincter, and perhaps not even that.
No argument about only politicians who have served argument. Military experience doesn’t automatically confer wisdom or competency.
That said I would love to see an amendment to the Constitution requiring the immediate conscription of any spouse, adult children, or adult grandchildren of POTUS and all Congress critters into a combat arms MOS upon the commitment of any US military forces into a conflict. Further requiring immediate deployment of said individuals into a combat theater to a front line unit as soon as their training is done.
No more sending other peoples’ children and grandchildren into harms way without personal consequences or risk! If it’s vital enough to risk the lives of US military members, it’s vital enough for Joe Biden’s and Nancy Pelosi’s kids and grandkids to go get at shot too.
I could get on board with that, but would you want to serve next to one of those pampered, self-entitled little wankers? :blink:
Coal Dragger
03-17-22, 01:31
Sure. They can be on permanent working party, shitter burning, rock painting duty for all I care.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-17-22, 01:47
Veterans over non-vet for political jobs?
Sooooo John Kerry and GW Bush over Trump? Since vets haven't been in the real economy for their careers, they don't get to talk about economic and market issues?
This is why we have elections, pick who you want.
No argument about only politicians who have served argument. Military experience doesn’t automatically confer wisdom or competency.
That said I would love to see an amendment to the Constitution requiring the immediate conscription of any spouse, adult children, or adult grandchildren of POTUS and all Congress critters into a combat arms MOS upon the commitment of any US military forces into a conflict. Further requiring immediate deployment of said individuals into a combat theater to a front line unit as soon as their training is done.
No more sending other peoples’ children and grandchildren into harms way without personal consequences or risk! If it’s vital enough to risk the lives of US military members, it’s vital enough for Joe Biden’s and Nancy Pelosi’s kids and grandkids to go get at shot too.
Better add the actual politician and their top 10 contributors to the list to err on the side of caution towards involving people they care about.
Not unusual for family members value to be limited to photo op material.
No argument about only politicians who have served argument. Military experience doesn’t automatically confer wisdom or competency.
That said I would love to see an amendment to the Constitution requiring the immediate conscription of any spouse, adult children, or adult grandchildren of POTUS and all Congress critters into a combat arms MOS upon the commitment of any US military forces into a conflict. Further requiring immediate deployment of said individuals into a combat theater to a front line unit as soon as their training is done.
No more sending other peoples’ children and grandchildren into harms way without personal consequences or risk! If it’s vital enough to risk the lives of US military members, it’s vital enough for Joe Biden’s and Nancy Pelosi’s kids and grandkids to go get at shot too.
Better add the actual politician and their top 10 contributors to the list to err on the side of caution towards involving people they care about.
Not unusual for family members value to be limited to photo op material.
Coal Dragger
03-18-22, 13:08
Well requiring POTUS to go serve on the front is not practical, same for Congress Critters. They do in fact have a duty to perform that is vital to any conflict.
Now expanding that conscription list to top 10 donors….. that might be useful too!
Would it really be a bad thing to use this moment to test our F22 and F35 capabilities against Russian air power? The Russians would never know unless they downed one with a golden bb like the Serbs did to the F117 during the Kosovo war. At most they would learn to stay low and only fly during the day.
Diamondback
03-19-22, 21:57
Well requiring POTUS to go serve on the front is not practical, same for Congress Critters. They do in fact have a duty to perform that is vital to any conflict.
Now expanding that conscription list to top 10 donors….. that might be useful too!
Make it all their firstborn children, no exemptions or deferments or 4-F'ing out. "You, my young friends, are going to the FRONT!"
Would it really be a bad thing to use this moment to test our F22 and F35 capabilities against Russian air power? The Russians would never know unless they downed one with a golden bb like the Serbs did to the F117 during the Kosovo war. At most they would learn to stay low and only fly during the day.
Yes it would be bad (unless you really to want WW III) and yes the Russians would know who shot their planes down.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.