Lord Ratner

I want to help Ukraine stop and reverse a Russian invasion. Nukes would help towards that goal. Yet somehow I manage to justify not sending Ukraine nukes, because they would do more than simply help return Ukraine to the Ukrainians. Do you really have a hard time imagining a world that isn't black and white, because I don't, and I don't think any of the "pro-Ukrainian" posters here do either

Agreed with everything except this. The Chinese are almost certainly drowning in stupid paperwork, especially awards. If there's one thing communist dictatorships love, its meaningless flair.

Dude just got paid 100k for time he didn't have to work. I'd love to have that lightning strike twice.

Baseops is making sure I know the best way I can contribute to the way effort 😂🤣

I don't mean this is an attack on you, but your post demonstrates why these things rarely change. Let's operate on the assumption that this guy actually has the authority and approval to put these types of changes into place. When an organization is run like dog shit for so long, you end up with a lot of lost-causes who simply can't move on from the amount of shit they were forced to eat for so long. I'm one of those people by the way. So when you come in as a leader with an attempt to make a drastic and immediate change to the very character of the organization, it's not going to work if you don't first go through and sweep away all the dead bodies. A perfect example of this is Twitter, I think they got rid of 2/3 or 3/4 of the company at this point, and that's what it takes to make sure the cynicism born of the previous however-many years of terrible leadership and decision making don't poison the future. The leadership infrastructure in AMC is built upon a system that this guy is trying to flip over. That means the leaders now are literally the opposite of the leaders he needs. The AF picked the current AMC sq/gp/wg commanders based on ability to process and adhere to administrivia. Now he wants leaders who excel in undefined environments, with a much, much higher probability of failure. We're talking polar opposites in terms of leadership characteristic. Is the air force ready for what accompanies those types of leaders? Considering the last decade of squadron-culture-eradication, I doubt it. This will not work until the stakes are so high that the AMC/CC can literally remove a commander on-sight and install his replacement on the same day. You need alignment of vision to make something like this work, and the outgoing leaders will not take their exile idly if they are removed one-by-one over time. Mini will not be the CC when this happens. He's the leader we need, but remember the first rule: timing is everything. He's too early, and as such he will fail.

You know it's funny, I read the memo and immediately believed it was false because of the tone. But then I think about what a lot of Elon musk's messages, or Steve Jobs messages, or Jeff bezos's messages sound like, and it actually fits the mold. It's just so strange to hear anybody commit to a real vision, because we live in a world of people playing it safe. That said, there is a 0.0% chance of this guy lasting in the Air Force now. He's played his hand from a position that does not allow you to have that type of vision. Only the top dog can, and he's quite a few rungs below. We have the same problem in corporate America. Companies that achieve great things through the vision and perseverance of their founder are eventually led by accountants and Wall Street hacks chosen by a board of other accountants and Wall Street hacks. Sometimes your board might have some other founders on it, but they're founders from different companies with different visions, and they don't offer anything useful to the company. Shareholders will only ever agree on one vision, short-term profits. So that's the type of leaders you get. This guy is done for. The current president of the United States has family members who are making money from China. And his transgressions are child's play compared to the entirety of the academic, corporate, and media world. China has done an incredible job of warming their tendrils into some of the biggest and most powerful institutions in America, and they aren't going to be extricated one at a time. China will have to do something so catastrophically unacceptable that America will just have to rip the Band-Aid off. And a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money in power, just like when we ripped the band-aid off Russia, but that's what it took. I hope Mini enjoys his retirement. It's coming soon.

It's not. The exchanges absolutely increase the volume of trades, that's their primary function. But they are not an inherent part of any cryptocurrency or blockchain. They are an external layer. Think of it like craigslist. Selling your old bike to another person doesn't require an exchange, however. Craigslist is somewhere that buyers and sellers can find each other. Without craiglist there wouldn't be nearly as many transactions, but ultimately Craigslist isn't a part of the transaction. Those were the earliest "exchanges." Then they transformed into something closer to Fidelity. Instead of having your own crypto wallet (which is just an address on the Blockchain, nothing more), the exchange opens a wallet for you, and does the transaction. And just like with Fidelity, you can transfer your crypto out to a wallet you control and go back to using it like cash, but of course with fewer people to transact with. The entire point of Bitcoin was to decentralize the digital exchange of currency. Digital cash. The exchanges directly contradict the whole concept, but it became a speculative asset instead of a currency, and here we are. They are the predominate means of exchange, but they are not inherent to the system.

Maybe it really is just all for the spring. If Russia is planning a big offensive to push back west, they're going to do it with tanks. Maybe knowing there could be a pair of Abrams waiting to ambush the convoy will change the calculus? As you said, they've clearly got a knack for asymmetric warfare. But they've managed to incorporate all sorts of very advanced systems into that advantage. Maybe with a fleet of drones distracting/locating the Russian column they can use a small number of advanced tanks to lay waste? I guess we're gonna find out...

It's pretty hard to film a HIMARS hit that happens dozens of miles behind the enemy line. Your post doesn't specify biggest public relations successes, just success. The ability to quickly blow up any Russian colonel, general, or ammo depot that the US Intel apparatus uncovers stopped the Russian advancement nearly overnight. I agree the PR is definitely more influenced by YouTube videos. That's not too say the Ukrainians aren't doing an amazing job in other ways, but HIMARS have Ukraine the ability to decimate Russian logistics. That's what wins wars.

That's incorrect. Nearly all cryptocurrencies are traded peer-to-peer as their native behavior. The exchanges are simply the easiest way to connect buyers and sellers.

I think HIMARS coupled with American intelligence providing the targeting coordinates has been far more decisive than the grenade-laden drones.

I only have one question for you... What's does this say?

Huh? You're a bot, right? Not even General Chang was this good 😂🤣

I might be disconnected from your reality, but I don't think that's the one the rest of us live in. You don't think devastating effects are being brought upon Russia? Because the Russian media sure would disagree. They obviously have a very different opinion as to why those effects are being brought upon them. This is the type of nonsense I'm talking about. It is perfectly rational to disagree with our support of the Ukrainians. But denying basic realities because they don't support your position just wastes time. Next, everyone I know who's acted as a good Samaritan against a violent attacker has gotten a handshake and a pat on the ass from the cops. While the stories of homeowners being charged for shooting a burglar are viral on the internet, they're not representative of what happens in the real world, which again, I'm not sure you are a member of. And some of the biggest self-defense cases have ruled in favor of the defendant. Zimmerman and Rittenhouse to name a couple. Maybe you live somewhere like California? It's been a long time since I lived there, so I suppose it's entirely possible the insanity there has escalated to the point Californians don't remember how the rest of the country operates. And finally, do I need to explain how analogies work? 😂🤣

Close, except for under this scenario. Mexico/La Raza would be Russia annexing California, and the immoral party. I agree though, it is a much better analogy. Here we completely agree, though the situation is still quite complicated. This is the only argument I've seen so far that justifies Russia's actions. Informed debaters like you and flea have made it, but it is not a mainstream argument. You also get to the question of whether or not the world going back on a promise of territorial alignment can justify the widespread slaughter of civilians. I suspect that it cannot. But it at least adds an element of justification. Let's also not forget that Ukraine did not join NATO. Maybe it would have, but that was a long way out. You can't preemptively respond to a violation of an agreement. It seems much more likely to me that this was merely used as a pretext for something Vladimir Putin had wanted and planned for a long time. This started in 2014, not 2022. Yup, this is pretty classical post-modernist. And wrong. First, while we have most certainly interfered in the conflicts and politics of other nations, we have not sought to expand our physical empire. That makes us rare amongst modern powers. Seizing the land of another nation is quite clearly different than meddling. And slaughtering civilians by the tens of thousands in pursuit of military, political, or economic goals is also clearly different. To compare the two morally implies no sense of morality at all. And even if we have the same moral past as Russia, that still doesn't affect the moral implications of today's conflict. You cite examples of both countries being immoral then imply that somehow obviates the possibility of judging this conflict. But how can you judge the previous conflicts (by both Russia and the US) as immoral, then be unable to judge present conflicts? So more to the point: Let's ignore the hypotheticals, because we don't need them. We have a very clearly defined situation now that you are clearly educated on. Is Russia acting morally or immorally? Do they have the right to do what they are doing, or not? Does Russia have a legitimate claim to Ukraine (they tried taking Kiev), and is a military attack justified in pursuing that claim? That doesn't even touch the war crimes. Just the military decision to take Ukraine and (try to) destroy the Ukrainian military in doing so. The historical perspective is useful for judging the present situation, because experience and comparison are important. But stopping short of making the actual judgment negates the entire exercise. I suspect the reason so many of the don't-interfere-in-this-conflict crowd are unwilling to finish the analysis is they don't want to, either consciously or unconsciously, say that an evil is happening but they are willing to let it happen. It's a bad look, even if/when it's the correct call. But it also makes the debate difficult to the point of satire. Because when the question of morality inevitably comes up and is danced around, instead of talking about the prudence of acting or not acting against evil, we end up talking about whether or not the situation is evil at all, when it is clearly so.

I'm not entirely following here. Reductionism is useful in theoretical conversation, but it can't be confused for a framework for viewing the real world. There are no relevant hypotheticals, the real world has already created the scenario. Is Russia being evil in their actions? Is Ukraine to blame for the invasion? Who is right and who is wrong in this conflict? The world is not black and white, but the many shades of gray do fall on a spectrum that are either more black or more white. Arguing that Ukraine has done something wrong, and therefore a moral judgment cannot be weighed against Russia, is the geopolitical version of saying well she shouldn't have cheated on him if she didn't want to be beaten to death. It really is amazing to me how many people are using other conflicts as some sort of basis for minimizing the obvious moral dilemmas we face in Ukraine. Past acts do not impact the moral characteristics of present conflicts. Right and wrong are not relative. To argue otherwise is too close to post-modernism, which is thoroughly deviod of intellectual substance. It is also remarkable to me that conservatives are now using the same twisted logic that progressives have used for the past decade or two. Well the United States had slaves, so who are we to judge? It's nonsense. Did the chauvinistic kleptocracy deserve to be invaded or not? A fundamental basis for our nation is that we do not inherit the sins of our fathers. Ultimately, there is no United States of America, there are only the people who make it up and the decisions that they make. I don't give two flying fucks if other people made the wrong decision in the past. My job, my duty as a moral being, is to make the right decision in the scenarios I am faced with. And when I fail, as I have before, I do not get to use that failure as some sort of justification for future inaction. Now, I would not say that the moral nature of international activity binds us to any course, but the Tucker Carlson wing of the Republican party seems hell bent on disputing the moral nature of this particular war, rather than just the appropriate national response, and I find that to be almost laughably obtuse.

Listen to Dan Crenshaw's latest podcast for a fascinating (and horrifying) look at the war from an American operator who joined the Ukrainians. Reminds me of much earlier in the thread when some of us were simply content to spend a few billion fighting evil. A much better use of my tax dollars than keeping old fat people alive until they're 100, bailing out the banking mafia, funding the university indoctrination apparatus, attacking the basis for advanced civilization (energy production), or funding virus research that fist-fucked the global economy for a few years. It's also lost on some of the isolationists that we don't need some sort of additional justification to "meddle" in this war. Russia invaded a sovereign nation. Whatever reasons we decide to involve ourselves, our "right" to interfere was granted when an innocent ally was attacked and called for help. If you see someone being mugged, and you beat the shit out of the mugger, no one cares why you did it. Maybe you saw evil and felt compelled to act. Maybe you have a hero complex. Maybe you just wanted to feel someone's life end in your hands. Doesn't matter; motive is only important when you're doing the wrong thing. There are all sorts of reasons we might not participate. The budget is one. But I hate hearing people start dancing around the relativist cry of what right do we have to decide what happens there? We have every right.

Don't forget the example it sets for China. While I'm skeptical the current batch of global leaders are capable of such forward-thinking policy, the Ukraine-Russia-West dynamic is very similar to (while smaller than) the Taiwan-China-West dynamic. I have no doubt China is paying close attention.

Haha, and I usually fail. You shouldn't have much trouble relating😂🤣

This is like Jews who only go to synagogue a couple times a year, but take every opportunity to call themselves Jewish while they advocate for and support political stances that are in direct opposition to the Jewish faith. Being raised both Catholic and Jewish, I've seen many of both. And for clarity, I am firmly atheist. Since I don't believe in any of the sanctity or spiritually of the religion, perhaps I have an easier time identifying religious vs non-religious people. You are religious if you follow the teachings of your religion. You are not if you don't. You can love the idea of airplanes, respect the history of airplanes, marvel at the complex engineering of airplanes, and even spend a lot of time hanging out at FBOs, airshows, and in airplanes. But if you don't fly them, you're not a pilot, regardless of whether you believe yourself to be one. One of the most vital elements of religion is the formation of a clear and definable identity that one can use to guide their life such that they can successfully adapt to living in a given society, and advance that society through their participation. Each religion has different prescriptions for doing so, but this new-age nonsense of I don't have to do anything but identify as the religion in order to be a part of it is strangely reminiscent of the new and obnoxious dogma regarding gender.

Fair hit on the periodic table, but that just means my point is correct, my detail wasn't. I'll own that slip. It also wasn't anything more than a small example to refute your very weak (or very poorly made) point that international supply chain security are economic factors that aren't worthy of killing people over. Usually I try not to come off as rude on the internet, since the internet biases us towards that type of behavior. But now you're playing the victim, and it's boring and disingenuous. I called you out on a very (very) obvious straw man, and now you're doubling down, which which is a type of internet debate I have less time for. So when you can read someone's opinion without mischaracterizing it to buttress your own (or weaken theirs), maybe we can have that talk. Otherwise it's the same pointless team-ism that's crushing the national dialog in all parts of life, and I get enough of that in the real world. No thanks

Neat. Next time let's have the conversation people are actually having, like that, instead of using straw men to... Honestly I have no idea why you feel the need. We can get into your hyper simplistic view of international trade tomorrow, but we did create a supply chain, in Taiwan. And Ukraine, actually. Now other nations seek to threaten that. And with the blessing of Taiwan and Ukraine, we abso-fucking-lutely are entitled to blow up some enemies to protect those supply chains, should they be attacked. Doesn't mean we should, we have to balance other interests, but we certainly are entitled to the decision. When you say "violate sovereignty" I have to imagine you mean the idea of attacking China for semiconductors that are produced in China? Another straw man.

The above is not in the same universe as: If you are arguing that only existential threats merit intervention, then we can have that conversation. But you're not, just like I'm not arguing we are on the brink of extinction. "A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making." There are plenty of economic reasons I'd consider justification for blowing up our enemies. We can use any threats to our access to advanced semiconductors as one example. He doesn't need your help making bad arguments.

Straw man

Don't forget semiconductors. Ukraine produces a ton of helium.