tac airlifter

I agree with you in theory. The best inspection would be auditing a normal deployment or even a blowout to validate squadrons have legitimate processes ensuring trained airman are equipped and mobilized with alacrity towards a specified task. Bonus points if inspectors highlighted support agencies causing mission friction and could provide wing and Hq commanders suggestions on changing the present paradigm where deploying squadrons jump through hoops to accommodate arcane requirements by non-deploying support agencies. however, this will never happen. It is unfortunately not in our culture; our culture is preserving stateside bureaucracy who view overseas missions as a distraction to home station status quo. This has remained true regardless of who the commander is because it's entrenched culture within the organization. It's sad looking at YouTube videos like the one above postulating our forces are not ready for the big one. Of course they aren't, when have they ever been? Every war has required a waiver to some current process in order to allow operators to meet the task. Think about that for a minute. How many new ideas have you seen that made sense and could've helped the mission but could not happen without some multi agency multi year waiver, and the gatekeeper at every increment is some non-deploying homo who needs to be convinced the requirement is real. How totally fucked up is that? It is an indictment of every level above the line unit, which is one more clue in the puzzle of how we can kick so much ass yet never seem to win. Given this reality, I am not a fan of no notice inspections because I do not trust the system to do them intelligently. They will be done in the dumbest way at the worst time focusing on all the wrong things. And fantastic squadron commanders who are prioritizing lethality will get fired because they've been pioneering new TTPs instead of plodding through MICT. it's not all depressing, I do have a proposed solution, but it's better over 🥃 . You should swing by sometime!

He certainly shined a light on extremism...

Great question. I don’t know anything about this specific scenario, but a common phenomenon is weak commanders fearing interpersonal conflict allowing a leadership void to develop which is exploited by uppity civilians.

Damn Charlie, good on you for going through two UPT's; that is a serious gut check. Well done bro and good write up.

Sounds like Dag Anderson is SOCOM favored. Surprising.

You are hard to talk to and full of assumptions, so I will end our dialogue by answering your above sentence, which seems to be the core disagreement. False. Maybe they went back-and-forth with policies I don't know, but just for fun I opened my old folder from group deputy and found the Red Cross authored policy for DOD as of Jan 23-- zero restrictions on blood donation of any type after Covid vaccination. In fact, it was encouraged for some reason. I'm not going to scan the memo, but this popped up in a 1 second search essentially saying the same thing: https://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/press-release/2023/blood-community-reiterates-the-safety-of-america-s-blood-supply.html I was unfortunately heavily involved in discipline issues during that time, meaning after graduating SQ/CC I was an admin bitch for WG & GP leadership picking through the complicated nuances of Covid discipline. Guidance was changing constantly, faster than the organization could communicate. Frequently guidance would be in conflict with other guidance. I don't know what the policy was in 2021 since I was busy killing enemies, but I know what it was in 2023, and I know that it has changed in 2024. Cheers.

1. Your first comment is wrong. You cannot give blood immediately after receiving a vaccine if it is in the category of manufacture requiring a two week wait. That is new. That's what this post is about. This new policy applies to some manufacturers and not others, for brevity I left that out of my original statement. 2. The point of my post is given this new restriction, what information is that based on and what other implications might that information have? That is the whole point. It's not a smoking gun, and was not meant to be. 3. you're confused why I brought up illegal immigrants, so let me spell it out for you: you said 99% of Americans received a vaccine not impacted by the new two week restriction. But there is a new large group of people giving lots of blood coming from locations where this is relevant. Is this why there's a new policy? A speculative question on my part, but this is a discussion board, and the point is to discuss. Clearly I'm not as articulate as I thought I was if you don't understand the point under discussion. 4. And that is ultimately my response to you: you are looking at this as a completely irrelevant minor detail being blown into a large issue. If it's so irrelevant, why did the Red Cross come out with a new policy? Given how cagey information surrounding Covid has been, this was new and noteworthy and worth mentioning. I did not blow this into a major issue, other people did, by assuming more into the post than is actually there. Cheers.

It's absolutely not a nothing burger, but neither is it some giant gotcha moment (which I didn't claim). In 2023 you could donate blood immediately after receiving a vaccine, now you can't. What changed? What other implications might that change have? You talk about the manufacturers from 99% of Americans, but consider over 7 million illegal immigrants recently added to the country and many of them are donating blood to make money. Have you donated blood recently? I was blown away how many non English speaking obvious new immigrants are using this as a cash source. if you were expecting a smoking gun to collapse the liberal C19 scam, this isn't it nor did I say it was. But think for a moment about the second and third order effects of the subtle policy shift, and the fact we are now acknowledging unknown risks were forced upon us; it should be clear this is not fake news to be ignored.

Is something I posted incorrect?

From the link: “If you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, you’ll need to provide the manufacturer name when you come to donate….There is no deferral time for eligible blood donors who are vaccinated with an inactivated or RNA based COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by AstraZeneca, Janssen/J&J, Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer” Sounds like manufacturers are a variable based on the techniques of manufacture (some have live attenuated and some don’t), but you’re right perhaps my reading comprehension is poor. However, I didn’t claim it was a smoking gun and since you need help understanding my point I’ll clarify for you: This is a new (ish) restriction from the Red Cross. The fact they have new information resulting in new safety guidelines means new things are being understood about a vaccine we were forced to take and undermines the 100% certainty of “safe and effective” used to justify vaccine coercion. Which leads smarter people to wonder “what else might we not know about these vaccines? And what risks exactly were discovered resulting in new guidelines? And if giving blood after certain types of vaccines is deemed unsafe, is breastfeeding safe?” Etc. Ergo I care less about the technical specifics and more about the indication that risks exist where no risks were claimed. Pro-vaccine tyrants want downplay every new piece of information as insufficient to a mature case overturning their assertion that C19 vaccination was required. But we’re learning, slowly, new risks ASW these vaccines and by compiling a list of those unspoken risks (of which this is an additional example) I’m making a case to the reader that more thorough study of these vaccines is warranted. Edited to add: I’d love to know what you think my “vaccine conspiracy theory” is. I made it pretty clear what I think- these were forced on us without enough testing. We should study this further, and learn from the emotional overreaction. That’s it. The fact you cannot have a rational conversation about the subject without claiming I’m a conspiracy theorist and insulting my intelligence doesn’t make you more convincing.

Thank you for your post & link. I'm not spun up, but you're right that the commentary from the link I posted was needlessly dramatic; I should have just posted the Red Cross link. A deferral for blood donation depending on vaccine manufacturer is yet another strange clue that vaccine mandates were premature and ill conceived. My intent was adding to the growing collection of those clues listed here, not distract from how weird it is that C19 vaccines (from some manufacturers) now require deferral before blood donation. However, what you call hysteria I would phrase as righteous indignation at the crime of coercing the population to accept immature and dangerous vaccines which did more harm than good. You may argue that characterization is untrue, but many clues are slowly piling up (including this post) providing data for my point. The "hysteria" from this incident originated solely from the pro-vaccine crowd. Although the commentary on my linked tweet might be provocative, it isn't incorrect.

Please let this warm ray of sunshine fall upon us

What do you think is their most likely means of delivery mechanisms?

Lawman it seems you cannot grasp other people have different opinions than you.

this is an informative addition to the thread. The fat guy challenges Tucker a bit on aspects of the interview discussed here, and agree or disagree with his answers, at least you have them from Tucker rather than internet speculation on his motivations.

I don’t think it was just luck, something seems to have shifted behind-the-scenes as previously fawning media turns on Biden in formation. Perhaps polling has them shook and they’re trying to force a new candidate. But I don’t think Michelle Obama will be it, she doesn’t seem interested. Regarding that bizarre event last night, this guy said it better than me:

I thought Tucker hammered the WSJ reporter issue pretty well and held Putin to an answer. After initial prevarications Putin essentially answered “we will release the dude eventually, but I am bingo good faith gestures to the west so we’re not doing it now.” I don’t like that answer, but hearing it directly from Putin was illuminating for many reasons. I also reject your unspecified moral concerns at engaging in dialogue with someone who has done something bad. Of course Putin portrays himself as the good guy and is evasive; knowing he’s bullshitting isn’t a reason not to listen. I’m surprised how many military officers are disgusted by Tucker‘s interview. I would gladly hear from adversaries no matter how much I despise them. I want to hear from North Korea, from Iran, the Houthi’s, would love to hear a podcast from al Shabab, AQ, etc. I watched the Vice documentary on ISIS with interest. I would kill all of them with no hesitation, but talking is the way wars end and listening is potentially advantageous. This is a recent development in our country and not a good one: we used to listen to everybody and journalists were applauded by interviewing adversaries. Now there is a large group of people who cover their ears and shout when introduced to a different opinion, claiming it is propaganda disinformation malinformation. Yes it is, so what? The enemy believes things we think are wrong, that is why they are the enemy. Answers can’t always be taken at face value, we’re engaged against them so their speech is a lot of subterfuge and attempted manipulation and they fight with words. Listening to those things doesn’t infect me, it helps me understand how to resolve conflicts to my advantage. Where might we agree? What are things they care about that we don’t where concessions might be made? What are sensitive areas where we might ascertain vulnerabilities previously unseen? How can we exploit their words against them? Who are the charismatic, intelligent leaders who have a chance of defeating us that we should target and kill? Who are the dumb ones we should prop up to weaken their organization? There are also tactical advantages: UBL, ISIS & NVA were targeted successfully based on analysis of items in the background of videos they allowed reporters to take; fucking dummies. I encourage that (Napoleon said never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake). So let’s all be mature and realize there is goodness here if we are smart enough to filter appropriately. And if hearing a different perspective challenges your own conclusions, that is healthy as well.

APA also against it.

Well put, quoted for truth. There are good and bad individuals within every group, and I'll note Huggy is a good one. That said, has there been a generation more greedy or who wrecked things more for their kids than boomers? The phenomenon seems unique to the US by the way, Latin America is full of older generations working to leave things better for their kids. I get it older CAs, you want an extra million bucks before retirement regardless of the impact on others and it makes you feel better to pretend we're all as shallow. Whatever. But don't expect me to endorse it or support it.

I used to think this way too but have changed my mind in the last few years. You are right about Ivy League OSD staff being idiots directly responsible for failed policies (how many of those weaklings have ever been in a fight?) but I also blame senior military leaders. Many of them are good people with good hearts, but there is a culture of overly compliant subservience which is unhealthy. They order people to take physical risks, yet they themselves are 0% willing to take moral, administrative or ethical risks on behalf of those people exposed to harm; that is unacceptable. Think about when our nation used to win wars and the generals who led us to victories: Billy Mitchell, Patton, MacArthur... do we have 4 stars today capable of leading boldly and accepting the consequences, their own career be damned? No. I have also seen a handful of general officers try to do the right thing or push forward mildly aggressive COAs. However, all of them pivoted at the first sign of resistance for fear of their own progression. The military still attracts hard-core pipe hitting young people, and God bless them. Unfortunately all of our senior military leadership has proven incapable of winning wars, and yes, I blame them for that failure.

It's not a careful dance, it's limp dick garbage. I want maximum carnage as our response to the Tower 22 attack, instead they are telegraphing the strikes a week beforehand and blowing up empty warehouses while all Iranians forward deployed get a couple weeks off at home. WTF. No surprises though, the same genius generals who have lost for 20 years are in charge of this retaliatory strike. Of course it's going to be weak bullshit. Bottom line: our enemies don't fear us and so we lose and continue to lose. I've been hoping to kill Iranians since this attack during my third deployment. Fuck Iran, they are a paper tiger and we need to show teeth. All of our supposedly experienced colonels and generals advocate a measured response but we need our boot on their throat or we need to get the fuck out of that AO. Play to win or go home.

You aren't wrong, but I have a particular disdain for Austin due to his decisively harmful meddling in this incident; I was in a position to see up close what a craven political creature he is. Sentiments that have amplified since he became SECDEF and sold us out during the fall of Kabul, where I also witnessed his (and others) deliberate injects which emboldened enemies and hurt friendlies. Regarding the current thing and authorities at his level: there have been many proactive opportunities which he's declined. We need accountability.