Leaderboard

Yes, many. Among them are the UN Charter, the 1975 Helsinki act, the 1990 Charter of Paris, and the 1997 NATO-Russia founding act. None of which place any limit on NATO's expansion or which exclude Ukraine from joining NATO. All of them recognize each nation's sovereign right to determine their own alliances and allegiances. Russia is a party and signatory to every one of these treaties and agreements. Make note, Bashi didn't provide any treaty or agreement that limited NATO's expansion - no such document exists. He provided you a video of a guy saying that Putin (Putin, specifically) warned us not to. That's different. There is no reading of the facts which alleviates Russia's full responsibility as the aggressor in this conflict. They are in direct violation of every one of those treaties. One could argue, as Bashi does, that it was unwise to allow NATO to expand eastward, and that can be a basis for a good argument, but it's also fully opinion, and there is no treaty or arrangement that Ukraine or any other NATO member state has violated that Bashi can point to which places any legal blame on the West. Ask him to provide a receipt. He'll be unable. In 1999, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia (all former Soviet satellites) joined NATO. Czech and Poland also join the same year. In particular, Poland's accession into NATO had been underway for the entire decade - starting in 1990. Notably, Russia signed the NATO-Russia founding act in 1997 - which as far as years are concerned, comes after 1990 the last time I checked. Also of note, Poland was once a former Soviet satellite. Hey, the more you know! Right? Tough for me to know how long and on what setting I would have to microwave my brain in order to believe that Russia was super upset about its former satellites joining NATO, but would also simultaneously sign an agreement saying it's cool, but then again, I'm no statesman. Hence, why the entire line about them being upset over Ukraine joining NATO is total horse shit. In 2008, Ukraine (and Georgia) were "invited" to NATO at something called the Bucharest summit. As his final act as President before stepping down, Putin expressed discontent that Ukraine would be invited to NATO. Understandable. Falls squarely into Bashi's opinion that "we provoked" this conflict. We get it. Putin didn't want Ukraine in NATO. And because Putin didn't want it, it's our fault. This is the one fact Bashi can lean on and which comprises the totality of his argument. Putin didn't want it. Undisputed. Flash forward to 2014 and Vlad is back in power pushing little green men into Ukraine. I, for one, can always tell who the good guys are in any conflict by who's soldiers are wearing unmarked uniforms, occupying another state's parliament buildings, and then holding "elections" for them which in turn result in the dissolution of their government. Flash forward to 2022, and Putin has his full-on invasion. Personally, my opinion is that Putin is concerned about Ukraine becoming (more) Westernized because of the enormous economic power they wield both in terms of agriculture and energy. Putin (or Russia) losing a substantial amount of their economic leverage over Europe would be strategically devastating for Russia. NATO expansion is a pretext because Ukraine can continue down the path of Westernization with or without being a NATO member state. Yeah, there is a complicated relationship between NATO and Russia given the legacy of warfare in Europe in the 20th century, but there is nothing which has ever limited any state from choosing their own alliances - and this includes Ukraine. Anyone who wants to read them can find them on the internet. Russia has signed all of them. I predict two things. First, that this war will end with Russia annexing eastern Ukraine (Crimea), permanently. As the trade to achieve peace, what is on the west side of the front (Ukraine) will eventually be allowed to join NATO. The second prediction I have is that Bashi will down vote this comment.

Rich isn't it. The double standard is astounding especially when you look at the case of Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell who actually WAS having an affair with a Chinese agent...no big deal according to Democrats.

me too. General Chang.

Assert dominance. Make it bigger.

Then Europe will get what it deserves. why should we fund their defense when they could do it themselves but choose not to?

I don't think people who have never been falsely accused of a crime, and acquitted, understand the "innocent until proven guilty." They're also the dipshit who don't realize how easily it is to be accused of a crime and fuck up your personal and professional life.

Here we go again. If innocent until proven guilty is a technicality for you, then your evidence-free initial response to COVID seems to be the standard by which we should judge you. I'm old enough to remember when the Democratic party called Brett Kavanaugh a gang rapist based on absolutely zero evidence, including the newly-rejected vice president. So pardon me if I choose to trust our founding-principals on the assessment of guilt rather than the oft-corrupted media complex when deciding if Gaetz is a child rapist. Until the sin of the Kavanaugh hearing is confessed and atoned for, I won't be trusting *any* accusations of guilt from Democrats unless I see the evidence myself. You know, the same way I literally saw the Hunter Biden laptop materials with my own eyes. Why is it you pop up here only to make the absolute dumbest arguments?

For anyone adding to the list of events that made voters rebuke the Dems, we now have a woman imprisoned for 9 years because she argued 2020 voting machines were compromised*, but we have several Dems in Pennsylvania outwardly admitting to violating voting law because they want to count invalid votes. Literally breaking the law trying to sway an election in their favor and not one mention of bringing charges. The gross imbalance of legal action depending on party affiliation is sickening and a major reason voters have walked away from the Dems. I will happily eat crow in the future if every one of them ends up in prison for years. *For those interested in what actually brought a 9 year sentence: “Peters was convicted of three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state.” Of note she didn’t actually manipulate any vote counts, unlike the Pennsylvania people mentioned above. So I guess they need over 9 years of incarceration…

Indeed, it was totally unnecessary for Putin to invade a nation unprovoked.

What's she going to do? Destroy the department of education? That would be ideal. It shouldn't exist.

Show is just the gift that keeps on giving

Sure, but the court of public opinion should still have an expectation of evidence. Point me to a single piece of evidence. One. That's all I want to see. This conversation is irrelevant specifically because of the number of times Democrats have outright lied about these exact situations to smear their opponents. If they hadn't pulled this as many times as they have, allegations might have more weight. And so far the only thing I've heard that is remotely substantiated about Gaetz is that he goes/went to sex parties. So yeah if my daughter decides to be a swinger with a soft spot for narcissists, then exactly what would I be objecting to? I'm also not sure what you mean by "let" my daughter date him. Is she a minor in this hypothetical? If so then obviously I'm not letting a minor date someone my age. If she's an adult, I'm not sure what type of backwards old-timey nonsense you're asking. My daughter will no more need my permission to date as an adult as I needed my father in law's permission to marry my wife. Look, I know you've still got wounds here from the number of times you've been wrong, so kudos for sticking around. But your inability to comprehend a simple point is keeping you in this Doom loop of nonsensical posts. Allegations are no longer trustworthy. We simply have to see the evidence that is made against politicians in this era to be able to make a decision. Your example illustrates this perfectly. All of the evidence regarding Trump's 34 felonies have been laid bare, and they are found wanting. I'm not denying that he had sex with a pornstar and then paid her off to keep quiet. That's the most believable thing I've heard in this entire election. I wish our choices were better than this, but they're not. If you can't tell why Americans didn't give a shit about these convictions, you're as out of touch as the Democrats who watched breathlessly as their candidate went down in flames. Trump has been pitched as a rapist, a literal Russian spy, the harbinger of Doom for democracy, a literal Nazi, a racist, a sexist... You get the idea. For nearly a decade we have listened to every shade of "expert" explain the many and incontrovertible ways that Donald Trump was a criminal and villain. And after all of that, to include a multi-year special prosecutor investigation with the full weight and resources of the federal government behind it, we get... "ledger entries for legal expenses." Cognitive dissonance indeed.

The AF is healing? https://www.af.mil/Diversity/

Laptop - real as admitted by the FBI. Gaetz allegations investigation not enough to charge - also FBI. If there is proof of crimes committed then charge him, convict him, and I'll gladly join the firing squad. Unsubstantiated anonymous accusations which seem common in the last couple years or rumors do not a criminal make but do make for great reputation destroying MSM fodder.

We’ve decended into Bizarro World when Fetterman and Sanders are the voices of reason!

So you’re saying there’s a chance… Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

I knew I was not getting a far left progressive who was happy to take away the 1st and 2nd amendment, while paying for the sex changes of illegals and felons in prison all while cramming DEI up my ass.

Normally I’d agree, but these are exceptional circumstances. Think of his context: he’s been hounded by false accusations, literally had SES level players working with opposing campaigns to fabricate stories about him, his own generals illegally conspired behind his back to undermine his orders…. This has been a unique period on our history. He was given a decisive mandate for change by the American people, and knows from experience he cannot execute without a team committed to his vision. If you were a WG/CC leading a complete re-org under pressure of WW3 and given total hiring authority, would you rather have a team of SQ leaders you trusted to follow your intent or a team who had the normal pedigree but you knew their hearts weren’t onboard with your priorities? An imperfect analogy but it conveys my point. saying “loyalty is a key hiring criteria” plays into the dictator claims made against him, but I also see his perspective. If a boss asked for my loyalty, I’d say “loyalty to what?” The mission? The team? The ideas we took an oath to protect? Commanders intent? Or you personally even if you commit crimes? The first 4 are fine of course, the fifth definitely not. He’d be better served saying “trust” instead of “loyalty” but who am I to give advice? Bottom line I’m excited to see how it plays out and optimistic.

As reticent as I am to do someone's homework for them, I'll move the ball down the field...so, yes. Watch for one minute; up until about the 3:30 mark. And no, I don't think she's a Russian agent. She characterizes the Iraq war as a war for "financial reasons" that was sold on lies. Now, I was a naysayer (at the time - like in 2003 when I was a cadet) about Iraq part 2. Put another way: I was against the Iraq war before Tulsi was. I didn't think we should have gone in for the reasons we did and I have posts on this site that go back years which indicate that - I'm no Iraq '03 apologist. That being said, there are only two ways you can fairly approach an understanding of our decision for going into Iraq the second time. The first is a fear-based reaction that is grounded in our assumption or lack of knowledge into what Saddam Hussein was up to in the aftermath of 9/11. I thought there were smarter ways to handle that fear and I think in different times and under different circumstances we would have done better. That said, it's a perfectly acceptable response to the "why" behind our decision to go in. The second (fair) way to approach the decision is to acknowledge that we "went in for the oil." Though that one requires you to grapple with the fact that we're going to trade blood for oil. I am a blood for oil guy because I'm a realist. We are not going to allow a dictator on the other side of the world put a stranglehold on the global economy. We fight over natural resources. We always have and we always will. Decrying "no blood for oil" is absolutely ignorant, hippy-coded nonsense. If you want to be a realpolitik type, you can lean on this one. If you want to be a hippy pacifist, you can lean on it as well. It works for both groups. So yes, I agree, if you want to characterize it as "we went in for financial reasons," then yeah, sure we did, but then again, everything we do has a financial dimension, so it's really not a very illustrative way to view the world...but I digress. The problem I have with her, however, is her characterization of the "why" surrounding going in for oil. She posits some sinister, financial, get-rich-quick, evil motivation that led the likes of Dick Cheney to use 9/11 as a pretext to get Halliburton into Iraq - which was always his master plan...it was closer to the view I had when I was 20...but I was 20. I'm now a grown up. Zip ahead to 4:45 when she goes into "just like we wouldn't want Venezuela to come to our country..." to over throw our government, we shouldn't go into theirs...blah, blah, blah. It underscores this neo liberal idea(l) that all country's are equal and get to have an equal say in the way the world works. Nah. No thanks. Venezuela's merry-go-round of dictators don't get to have an equal say in the way the world works because they're a so-called country with borders on the map. There are other examples available, but I'm not going to trouble myself more tonight by expounding anymore on them at length. The bottom line is that her world-view is conspiratorial, and that one which has no place in a position as serious as the DNI. So no, what I'm doing is not name-calling. I am looking fairly at the implications of her worldview and it concerns me. I haven't written her off. Like I said, I hope she's a fast learner with an open mind. On a somewhat related note to help characterize how I approach the world, I also think the regime in Iran must be toppled. October 7th has necessitated it, and it's only a matter of time before it becomes a reality. I'm not a war-monger, though. I'm just taking an honest look at who's who in the world, and "countries" that engage others in that manner have to be transformed. That usually takes force.

It's not sarcastic. She possesses a high-school-debate-club-level understanding of politics, war, the Middle East, and our role in the world. I hope she wises up quick if she is confirmed to that role. I don't want someone in that role who thinks we're up to no good at a fundamental level, or someone who thinks we can all get along. I want a stone-cold killer as the DNI. She doesn't seem to fit that description to me.

I think Tulsi was a great pick. Gaetz might be entertaining at times, but he ain't right. I wouldn't select him as dog catcher. I hope he steps up and does his job appropriately, but that appointment might bite trump in the butt.

Day Man, She was an executive in the WWF, she also ran for political office, ran a big organization and was in Trump’s Administration as the SBA head. She ran for Senate as a Republican in Uber Democrat Connecticut and lost to Richard Blumenthal ( Perhaps you may think he’s more qualified, being he was a Vietnam Vet hero🤣). You’re gaslighting calling her a WWF personality. Just like people called Reagan, an actor, or Trump, a reality TV personality. Her and her husband built the WWF into a multi-million dollar organization. She’s no dummy. Probably not as Qualified as Pete Buttigieg, but her WWF days are long gone. Trump is a disruptor, and his picks are usually non-politicians and from the business world, ie. People who work, built things and aren’t on the government dole.

Your reply didn’t answer the question; why should we fund the defense of those unwilling to do it themselves? you can call it isolationism with a snarky jab, but try explaining your reply in a way that convinces a voter. Keep in mind we’re broke as a nation, unwilling/unable to rebuild in WNC & Maui, etc. Go with an unemotional argument for why I should pay taxes to help Europeans (instead of US citizens) defend themselves when they are perfectly capable but choose not to.

To maybe draw this away from insults and back to rational discussion. For those who are against - do you think we should turn a blind eye to Russian aggression? If no what is your response, diplomacy and sanctions or just ignore it. Do you think he will stop at Ukraine? What do you see as the impact of Ukraine under Putin's control? For those who are in favor - How do you mitigate the potential for the conflict to spill over? What are the downsides of providing munitions and money? What do you say about Ukrainian corruption? I've stated many times I am in favor of the support we have provided, for a relatively low cost we have removed Russia as a near-peer threat for many years to come. That being said I do have concerns about striking deep into Russian territory with American made weapons.

Innocent. Until. Proven. Guilty. If you have some evidence you would like us to consider, share it. Unless *you* know why the DOJ didn't prosecute Gaetz, why waste everyone's time with hypotheticals?

Hey you walnut, this isn't your strong suit but try thinking from a perspective other than your own. I understand why you don't support Trump over Harris. Obviously I think it's the wrong decision, but I have the cognitive capacity to view it from your perspective based on what you've said. Are you too stupid to do this, or are you just too hurt from the loss to do anything but snipe right now? I sincerely hope that the rest of your party, or better put, the people who think like you do absolutely nothing to analyze the constitutional failings of "their side." Because nothing at this point would make me happier than 4 years of trump followed by 8 years of JD Vance. You had a literal cartoon of a toxic progressive running for president against Donald Trump. That's why Trump won. If you sincerely think that a riot at the Capitol is the most dangerous threat to the Constitution in the past decade or so, then you just aren't paying attention. Some of us are familiar with and care about the entire Constitution, not just the parts that are convenient to our political narrative. I have two candidates who selectively favor parts of the Constitution/BoR. The Democrats far and beyond threaten more of, and more important parts. When the Republicans start threatening all of the norms of Congress, the executive branch, and the supreme Court, then I will wholeheartedly agree with you. But you are pretending like Donald Trump started all of this, when in fact he is just a response to the constitutional disregard of progressives for the past 20ish years.

The constitution doesn't give illegal immigrant pedophiles the right to swing their dong in front of my daughter in a bathroom while making it a hate crime for me to object. you know what, continue your absurd rhetoric. This obvious hysteria is what drove many liberals to abandon the democrat party. I support your TDS self-immolation, continue.

Biff checking in. Negative on Dibs. I'll leave that one for Rachel Maddow.

I think Trump defines loyalty as executing his directives as given and not stabbing him in the back…which clearly didn’t happen in the first term. Don’t military commanders expect the same from their subordinates? You can’t be told to do one thing by your commander and then intentionally try to undermine him/her without their being consequences. And if you believe what your CC is in the wrong, then you can go to their boss and so on, and/or write your Congressman. If you’re in charge of the executive branch, then you want your orders followed. As for those who need to keep Trump in check, push back against him if he’s going too far, want a way to “blow the whistle” etc, then that is the job of the other branches via our “checks and balances”. Perhaps the justice department should be its own separate branch of government that shouldn’t have to answer to the President, but that’s not what we have. We give our President a metric shit ton of power/control…if we don’t like who is in charge then the better discussion is how to reduce that power/control, regardless of who is President.

Concur, my biggest concern about his picks. While I want him to shake up and change the establishment there should be some solid thought behind it. He was interviewed two days ago about his picks and they asked him about his criteria, his #1 was loyalty which I completely disagree with. We will see how is shakes out.

There's no such thing as a chief that polices reflective belts without generals who tolerate such behavior. Anyways, witch hunt or not, you can't inflict this amount of rapid change without a tremendous amount of pain. Rip the bandaid off.

My brain has two points of view on this: First and foremost, any leadership involved specifically in the Afghanistan withdrawal should be keelhauled, then fired, and exempted from any mil-industrial complex jobs. Second, the concept of subjective and politically based "purging general officer leaders" should induce shivers and revulsion from anyone who has studied history. This will be messy.

If you like your invasions justified, I have some history you'll enjoy reading.

Ukraine is a friendly democratic nation with zero expansionist desires that was invaded by an unfriendly, undemocratic nation with expansionist desires. That’s the reason that Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland joined NATO. Because none of them could trust Russia. And as long as Putin is in power and attempting to derail our foreign policy on every continent, neither can we. Abandoning Ukraine is giving him a historic come from behind win, and it damages trust in the US for every ally.

To hear Senator Pocahontas Warren calling Tulsi Gabbard a Russian Asset and Spy pisses me off beyond recognition. Unless she can actually prove it isn't that slanderous and legally actionable (even towards a public figure)? I'd love to see her charged and tried.

I am guessing and would not be surprised if there were bad things in the report and while I agree with you in principle, we've already lived through two years of a the system bending the rules to punish political opponents. Keep in mind, he was already investigated by DOJ and they decided NOT to pursue charges, seems like the system taking two bites at the apple to punish him politically. He is (or was), my rep and I do not care for him. But I do care for the rule of law and while I think he is the wrong choice for AG, I am vehemently against changing the rules simply because we don't like him.

who? @General Chang?

Just checked, FY17 had 60 selects. The two best years were FY19 with 90 selects and FY22 with 100. And those numbers are just for pilot, not the other rated positions

I’d put more money on it gets him out of that district in Florida since all he did was impede legislation and prevent any coalition. His only skill is causing chaos, not representing anyone. Without him in the House, might actually be able to make something happen. The tried and true Air Force way of firing by promoting.

lol what did you think you were getting?

I understand your point but disagree. I fully understand his optic and the relentless use of lies, deceit and government agencies to stop his candidacy. However, we are a nation of laws and if we simply go with people that are loyal to POTUS rather than the Constitution they we have stepped onto some very slippery ice. Think about the certification of the last election, Pence would not bend to the Trump will and was excommunicated for being disloyal. Like most of the people on this forum I swore an oath to the Constitution not the President. I don't like Trump but I am glad he beat was what clearly a far worse choice, going down a road of decision making that follows loyalty to POTUS over the rule of law and the Constitution is a non-starter to me. Trump has an epic opportunity to make meaningful change and to prove a lot of people wrong. I don't mind game changing picks like Hegseth and Elon, but we need people who will push back, even at the risk of being fired, when faced with choices that are more self-serving than legal.

50 gauge full auto, hmmm. @M2, where were you on Mon night, between the hours of 2000-2200?

Wouldn't most of the ones that retired recently be focused on reflective belts?

I'm baffled in this age of near instantaneous information exchange, Google searches in microseconds, and real time tracking of millions of package locations by freight carriers, why the hell can't votes be counted in a day? A week is just plain stupid.

What is wrong with you people? How could Hegseth with a Bachelor of Arts in politics at Princeton University, A Master of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard University, multiple combat tours possibly know anything about leading the people in the DoD? Instead we should rely on professionally trained people like Donald Rumsfeld, at the time of his nomination had three years on active duty and two terms as a Congressman under his belt. Maybe Obama's model is better, he picked Chuck Hagel who served as a squad leader in Vietnam before becoming a senator, businessman and LOBBYIST. You are all racist.