Negatory

One data point: heavy pilots including KC-135 and C-17 drivers regularly fly the F-16, T-38, and even the A-10 without any instructors during TPS. To answer your question, yes, they do. Turns out having an afterburner or flying fighters from a pure “flight” perspective isn’t that hard. In fact, most modern fighters are arguably easier to fly than many heavy airplanes. Employing tactically, now that’s a whole other story…

It’s a nuanced medical question that makes people uncomfortable, because it turns out the Hippocratic oath doesn’t cover everything when it comes to ethics. There are already numerous papers written right now on culpability of patients in prioritization of care and how to apply that to caring for a population. You don’t have to actively deny care for anyone - that would be against the core values of medicine - but prioritizing someone lower is standard practice in medical triage. Also, severity is not the only variable taken into account during triage. Turns out there’s no universal standard, and it comes down to specific hospital/doctor standard operating procedures. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2020/04/29/should-culpability-or-negligence-of-the-patient-affect-triage-decisions-a-question-the-state-needs-to-answer-for-healthcare-professionals/

You’ve been unable to actually engage the core of the issue: when resources get to a point of NOT ALLOWING EVERYONE TO BE CARED FOR, you can’t just provide help “where help is needed” like you said. Be pragmatic and actually address a world where there are limited resources. Or live in la la land where hospitals being filled up by unvaccinated folks - who chose to not do anything to prevent that outcome - has totally no negative effect on other people or society.

@dogfish78 welcome back! See my previous post that you couldn’t figure out a response for and probably start your argument there (you responded to every other thread on this website, though, it seems).

Its not playing dirty to point out that the medical and scientific leadership in America’s health systems - who Fauci represents - actually have been relatively resolute, steadfast, and adaptive to new scientific information in their policies and approaches. Also, @HeloDudetry again, those journalistic articles are no representation of scientific consensus. Just because you can find news articles about “medical professionals” who think HQC and Ivermectin are effective doesn’t mean that’s a consensus among science. By your logic, this persons opinion matters as much as the CDC and Fauci: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53579773.amp Also, last point, but the articles that you posted literally never said that anyone didn’t think that protests were bad when it comes to COVID. They all acknowledged that the groups would increase everyone’s risk. They just personally thought that racial justice was worth the cost: ”Risking coronavirus pales in comparison to all the other ways we can die,” says Dr. Dorothy Charles, a family medicine resident at the University of Illinois College of Medicine and an organizer at the racial-justice group White Coats for Black Lives. “Addressing the root causes [of racial inequality] is more imperative at this point than staying at home.””

For your counterpoint, please show me an example of when Fauci directly disregarded agreed upon scientific evidence as was understood at the time for his own political gain. You’re going to have a tough time, even though you wish you wouldn’t.

Your argument incorrectly categorizes everyone in medicine into the same bucket, from the whackos pushing crystal healing to the PhDs at the CDC. No matter what, “they” are the “medical professionals.” The truth is the folks that were saying that protests for BLM were not super spreader events - purely because it fit the liberal political agenda - do not represent the wide body of science. Pretty sure there are very few papers out there that would corroborate MSNBCs claims that protests are no big deal. Remember when Fauci bought off on the liberal agenda and said that the BLM protests were okay? Oh, right. He didn’t. He said “avoid crowds of any type.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/509961-jim-jordan-presses-fauci-on-protests-covid-19%3famp You provided an absurd overgeneralization that wasn’t related to the discussion at hand, I provided an absurd point back. Trying to discredit scientists by cherry-picking idiots that went on CNN for political gain is disingenuous. For the record, I am equally as disgusted by how liberal media - not scientists - treated the BLM protests in regards to COVID as I am by the current conservative media is in regards to the vaccine.

Remember when there were tons of headlines and news stories about democrats regularly dying from the vaccine, because they were incorrectly and wrongly convinced it was safe by a disingenuous disinformation campaign? … Wait, did I mix up how that went down?

Some of it actually is, though. The sooner we all recognize this, the better we will be able to come together as a team to combat it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/jul/16/us-politics-live-covid-coronavirus-wildfires-biden-latest https://www.reuters.com/world/china/russia-china-sow-disinformation-undermine-trust-western-vaccines-eu-report-says-2021-04-28/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/chinese-spam-network-aims-to-discredit-u-s-covid-vaccine-and-response-report-finds/

It’s hilarious how the antivax folks have been convinced they need to be against experimental vaccines politically (although that experiment just ended)… and instead put their faith in highly experimental unvetted glove save treatments. It’s pure dissension that is bred by social media and a combination of malicious and incompetent actors. If you’re in this camp, ask yourself if you think 2 years ago you would have been anti science? Would 2 year ago you have turned down an American made vaccine developed to combat a global pandemic that killed 650k Americans? The answer is probably no. So why is it happening? Bad actors are playing with you and the preying on the weaknesses of a “free society” when it comes to disinformation. Dogfish78 is an example of someone who, at best, is a victim to those disinformation efforts. At worst, he’s actively and intentionally trying to propagate them. At first, posts of people being hurt by disinformation made me scratch my head, now they just make me sad. Below is just a small sample of the last couple of weeks. A reminder that, statistically, had they been vaccinated, all of these Americans would have lived. https://www.rawstory.com/vaccine-hesitancy-2654291616/ https://news.yahoo.com/texas-anti-mask-freedom-rally-045722778.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/anti-vaxxer-dies-of-covid-days-after-saying-theres-nothing-to-be-afraid-of/

Ivermectin, huh? We’ve already been through this with hydroxychloriquine. In case you’re wondering, yes, there were passionate “physicians” touting hydroxychloriquine in congressional hearings last year as well. People like you are convinced the government is covering up a treatment in a giant conspiracy. It’s almost funny to even think that the government is capable of that, but I digress. What happened? People took hydroxychloriquine anyways. Brazil prescribed it. Some random doctors went on talk radio to “expose the truth” about this miracle drug. In our case, it made it through the misinformation chain all the way through Fox News up to our previous President. Still with no evidence. A year later, there is now definitive proof that hydroxychloriquine provides no benefit, just as doctors said. Some studies show that it actually is associated with worse outcomes. Turns out being a conspiracy theorist with little actual scientific proof doesn’t work. News coverage and people pushing that treatment silently died out on OAN and Fox, weird, huh? Ivermectin is not a secret conspiracy miracle drug that is being ignored. There is a very low chance that it may be helpful - which hasn’t been proven whatsoever. You want to know what’s been proven via millions of people in large studies to combat the effects of COVID? Vaccines. Yes, natural immunity is a thing as well, I’m not debating that. Realize that doctors and researchers are not all government shills. They are on the range of political spectrums, and, by and large, they want to actually help people. Put a little more trust in your fellow American. Also, your insistence on calling an mRNA vaccine “gene therapy” seriously reduces your credibility. It’s honestly almost impossible to listen past there. It’s a talk radio tactic, just like calling Obama “BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA” every time they said his name from 2008 until now, but it doesn’t make your or their argument any more true. https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210719/covid-19-vaccines-not-gene-therapy https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2PH16N https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/03/17/covid-19-mrna-vaccines-are-not-gene-therapy-as-some-are-claiming/amp/ https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/ Yes, I have already accepted that you think that webmd, Reuters, Forbes, and the NHS are all part of the deep state conspiracy to hide the fact that mRNA vaccines are IN FACT secret government gene therapy.

Not voluntarily.

Maybe we should all stop using anecdotal evidence and instead go off the wide body of data that exists. Anecdotal arguments are just appeals to emotion and are rarely rooted in any scientific evidence.

Spot on.

Ironically, people in science overwhelmingly did not believe or tout that stance. 14 days to flatten the curve was an uninformed political viewpoint only that was shared, to everyone’s detriment, primarily on social media. It’s feel good mumbo jumbo that both political sides got entirely wrong and are now using idiotically. Science didn’t. For proof, I posted this scientific paper back in March 2020 that showed it was impossible, and always will be impossible, to ever “flatten the curve” in a timeline of weeks: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3Jm0O4FAAHk7WfglUHriN3VuzIjrrcg3wY96ZtEK5XcLl5aPTesMbXZR4 Page 8 shows that best case with case isolation and social distancing, Britain would still exceed their surge ICU capacity by nearly 10 times. Page 10 shows that social distancing efforts would only last so long before things blow up in… Dec 2020. ”Flattening the Curve” was never pushed by science. You’re being propagandized. Edit: took out condescending sentence, my b.

Unfortunately, I think you’re probably right. Visual depiction of COVID discourse over the next week:

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine Hopefully this means something to skeptics.

This is the sad part. I agree with you 100%. It’s just a question of how much money, time, and national effort is it worth it to stop it? Where is it on the priority list? It’s easy to argue that it hasn’t been worth the opportunity cost. I bet America will be attacked again in the next decade. Probably smaller scale attacks within the next year or two even. But we need to keep our wits about us and not have overly emotional responses. That, from a grand strategy perspective, is how we manage this. Easier said than done, especially when 90% of America has been relatively unaware of and uninvested in what we have been doing in the Middle East. They have been conditioned to think that we can throw only a few resources - almost imperceptible to them - at the problem and make it go away. But we can no longer make these problems just “out of sight out of mind” for the average American by just spending our treasure. Time for America to do some soul searching and figure out what they want - and they is not just the Joint Chiefs, the Combatant Commanders, the SecDEF - it’s the average American taxpayer. No one wants to pay more taxes. No one wants to reduce domestic freedoms. No one wants terrorist attacks in America. No one wants to go to war. No one wants soldiers to die. Until we actually embrace the options as a nation and come to a common sight picture, we aren’t accomplishing anything other than option 1: 1) A gradual decline internationally, but one in which the average person doesn’t think about terrorism very much as we ignore the Russia/China competition (what we have been doing the last 20 years) 2) A situation where we as Americans basically double the military budget and manpower so we can stay in the Middle East while still fighting China/Russia (which actually isn’t as unrealistic as some people may initially think - our military spending to GDP ratio is actually pretty low compared to history, e.g. a third of what it was in Korea), at the cost of significantly increase taxes and reduced standard of living 3) One where we prioritize grand strategic competition at the cost of increased domestic terror attacks. Taxes don’t increase much, but explosions on and nearby America probably do. This or #2 are my vote. 4) Some combination, potentially including reduction of domestic freedoms to deal with the inability to increase spending - this is the least likely in my opinion The average American has to be invested in this or it has to stop, is the blunt truth. My pragmatic worldview is that the mil and Civ sectors have been so disjointed that we have made bad policy with no one really at the wheel to check whether we are giving the nation what it actually wants. I would offer that we are not, especially in regards to China/Russia. This is a step towards righting that. If we really want, we can go take Kabul again next year. But we really have to want it among all of our priorities. I’m telling you one thing. I don’t want to go back ever again and hear an O-6, O-8, or O-9 tell me “We aren’t sure what victory looks like, just keep doing what you’re doing.” I heard that half a dozen times at the CAOC, and it’s sickening.

History is something. I guess I’d describe it as eerie. Chaplain G. H. Gleig, British Army, 1843 after returning from fighting in Afghanistan for the previous 3 years, had this to say: “A war begun for no wise purpose, carried on with a strange mixture of rashness and timidity, brought to a close after suffering and disaster, without much glory attached either to the government which directed, or the great body of troops which waged it. Not one benefit, political or military, was acquired with this war.” A mere 30 years later, Britain thought about going back. One of the army soldiers who had been taken hostage during hostilities wrote an article to the British papers urging caution: “A new generation has arisen which, instead of profiting from the solemn lessons of the past, is willing and eager to embroil us in the affairs of that turbulent and unhappy country ... The disaster of Retreat from Kabul should stand forever a warning to the Statesmen of the future not to repeat the policies that bore such bitter fruit in 1839-42.”

Yes, don’t burn leave this month just to burn it. https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2021SAF/07_July/DAF Guidance on SLA for FY21.pdf?ver=oCfPgPI-qRj-iHEzmpSxPg%3d%3d

The 2312 number is contentious. It doesn't include contractors or combat related suicides (which are almost 10 times the number of casualties), but for the sake of argument we'll go with 2312. I could be convinced that those numbers of casualties are worth it, if that was it. But in addition to those deaths, do you also think it was worth the $2,260,000,000,000 dollars and twenty lost years of military modernization in reference to actual peer power competitors i.e. China/Russia? https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/military/killed https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/27/donald-trump/did-us-spend-6-trillion-middle-east-wars/ The PLA alone has already caught up, in unclassified reports, in Ships, Missiles, and Air Defenses, among more. In many Rand studies, we have lost significant ground in dozens of areas that we had a significant advantage in only 20 years ago. https://www.rand.org/paf/projects/us-china-scorecard.html https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB9800/RB9858z1/RAND_RB9858z1.pdf For reference, with $2.26T, we could have bought an entire new additional fighter platform fleet analogous to the F-35 from cradle to grave, lasting until 2070 (including development/test/operations/sustainment). https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2021-06-01/The-F-35-Joint-Strike-Fighter-the-costliest-weapon-system-in-US-military-history-now-faces-pushback-in-Congress-1618847.html You could have bought over 17 entire carrier battle groups + air wings + personnel and operated them literally every day for 50 years. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA575866.pdf You could have modernized to actually fight against the IADS, the J-20, chinese satellites, the cyber threats, anti-ship missiles, etc. We could have technologies that are relevant to peer competition. We could have replaced the E-3, the A-10, the B-52, the F-16, the EC-130, the RC-135, the AC-130, the MQ-9, the B-1, etc. The army could have upgraded the patriot. The marines and army could have developed modernized fires systems. You could have modernized our outdated nuclear triad. We could have developed hypersonics on parity with our competitors. https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-hypersonic-missiles-methods-and-motives/ But instead we decided to try to wipe out an ideology that killed 3000 American civilians. And it didn't just stop with Afghanistan - it brought us to Iraq and Syria. I have to admit, some of those sorties seemed deeply satisfying to me, at first. It felt like I was making a difference. But every year that I was there, I realized more and more that we were getting nothing done. One poignant example was fencing in to fight a faction that, only a few years ago, I was defending. That wasn't just a single event, either. If that's not an operational/strategic miscalculation, I don't know what is. I can agree with some folks on here that want to point out that we were successful tactically and operationally. Some really smart tacticians/operations commanders did a good job of fighting a conventional war against an unconventional combatant. But to say we had any clear strategic or grand strategy victories in the middle east is a huge stretch. FFS, we let Russia invade Crimea, and we pretended like it didn't happen. In the end in the middle east, we didn't just give away the 7000+ uniformed deaths, the 8000+ contractor deaths, and the 30000+ military suicides after coming back home. We gave away an unfathomable amount of money, our advantage in the future fight, and a huge portion of our strategic influence. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/military/killed

Fair enough, I’m conflating the whole Middle East to Afghanistan. My bad. You’re right that Trump supported the withdrawal from Afghanistan more than Obama. I guess I didn’t see it as pertinent to my original argument that the DFP goes back to Bush/Cheney giving Obama and Trump a no win situation either way. I don’t think that, on the whole, Trump significantly more stabilized the Middle East as a whole compared to Obama/Bush, especially when it comes to things like conflict with Iran. I agree with your premise that Obama and Bush fucked it. I just also think Trump did nothing helpful. I currently think Biden is doing, more or less, the right thing by giving up. Backing it up, the right move was to fiercely crush the taliban cities, with pretty liberal ROE, then gtfo. When there is inevitably another terrorist attack in the next couple years, Biden better be ready to slay some people cheaply and send a message, all while avoiding war. I doubt he will be, but that’s where I’m at.

I get the sentiment, but not ever asking questions just because I am deployed to Afghanistan and you shouldn’t be disrespectful to me isn’t productive for the nation. See why it was seen as unpatriotic to even question the Iraq war in 2003.

Address your point if you have one. Your response which only added Obama to my Bush opinion and conveniently not bringing up anything about Trump shows your bias. I also will contend that Republican leaning bias is worse in this specific issue, as numerous polls have shown that republicans who opposed action in the Middle East under Obama actually supported it under Trump. Democrats - relatively unchanged. I have dozens of these polls if you’d really like to go down this route. Go with bias.

I’m comfortable with my worldview. Obama actually withdrew from Iraq, even with almost unilateral republican opposition in case you don’t remember. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/21/obama-us-troops-withdrawal-iraq https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gop-presidential-field-unified-in-opposition-to-iraq-withdrawal/2011/10/21/gIQAp03o4L_story.html I don’t actually fault him as much as you do, either, when it comes to the troop buildup. Especially when the whole military and Congress said the only option we had to end things was one more plus up or offensive. Edit: this is why I largely don’t blame Trump at all, either, for how the Middle East went during his presidency.