sherpa

It is entirely disproportional, as there have been countless staff positions added. As a naval officer providing adversary air combat, I spent a whole lot of time with the other services. The Air Force, in particular has flag rank positions that the Navy staffs with 0-5's and 0-6's, (just below flag). The personnel inflation is ridiculous and a lot of it is pure staff nonsense that was created over the last decade, a lot of it related to DEI stuff. The flag ranks could be cut by 20% and it wouldn't effect fighting capability, recruitment or retention in the least.

Whatever the subject matter, I hope he eliminates at least 20% of these positions. So many one and two star positions that contribute nothing to fighting capability.

I don't know how far down the "star" chain this invited group goes, but if it's three stars and above, they have staffs that are quite capable of handling things. Using individual discreet communication would prevent interaction. My desire is that this is to let them know that one third of the flag group jobs will be eliminated and done by others. There are way too many, especially in the Air Force and Army.

Good Lord. I am not debating anything with you, and I'm not going to be directed by some goof on this site to do homework. What I stand by is that I don't think China will support, militarily, any Russian adventure against NATO in Europe. Maybe verbally, but not militarily. That has nothing to do with you, as I am quite sure you have no idea. Either way, I am not going to do homework that you direct.

Is there something wrong with you? I never said you said anything, in fact I specifically mentioned that it was not a criticism of anyone's view. I stated, quite clearly, that it was an observation. You have a problem. You are confrontational where there is no similar confrontation.

This is not an opinion or a criticism of anyone's views, but it is an observation, and I have some experience in matters military. For China to assist Russia in Europe in any direct military component, they would have to deploy. They have never demonstrated that ability and as I am aware, are not capable yet. I can't see them deploying fighters or ground troops to Europe, and they can't project air power over any distance yet. They have a carrier capability, but they are conventional powered and depend on refueling at sea every week or so. That is a huge vulnerability, and they have never demonstrated any ability to conduct effective carrier operation. So.....Net, I don't see the ability or desire to isolate themselves further from international trade by assisting a Russian aggression against NATO.

I don't need to give it more thought. The issue I commented on was China going to the mat with Russia in a Russian instigated NATO aggression. Russia is desperate for money, so aligning with China is in their interest, but the China potential against Taiwan is a completely different issue.

A sovereign nation does not need approval from Trump to handle its airspace in the manner it desires, and defend itself as it sees fit. NATO does not shoot down airplanes, the individual nation does. I think you are confused, and your views distort reality by linking any and everything to Trump.

This is more of the typical nonsense you post, and your Trump obsession. He, nor we, are in "neck deep," unless we do something. We are not getting into Russian airspace incursions of NATO countries in any military fashion, unless you know something no one else does.

A simple airspace incursion is not an article 4 issue, anymore than an aggressive flyby is. Let's not exaggerate the thing for the simple reason to get Trump into it. I'm so glad you and your ilk are not in charge of anything.

I honestly think there is something wrong with you. The issue is how a sovereign nation handles an incursion into its airspace. Is that not clear? Trump has no standing in determining how they handle that, NATO member or not. You seemingly can't address any situation without brining him up, or puking MAGA into the conversation, but for your edification, how a nation's airspace is handled is determined by that nation, as it should be. You are weird, and clearly obsessed.

This has nothing to do with anything in this subject area. Good luck, but not interested.

No. It is a red herring. The issue is not with the US, so Trump, to use a legal term, has no "standing." Thus a red herring.

This is one of those silly questions that are not relevant. You and a few others do this constantly. Of course he could order them, meaning US military, not to engage, but that has nothing to do with NATO sovereign airspace. Other countries airspace. They do their own thing. To answer your red herring directly, US forces deployed operate under ROE and are not directly connected to the White House in those decisions, although sometimes they are, but rarely. I've been there. Did an intercept and had my missile locked on a hostile combatant and ready to kill it, and was cleared to fire immediately, if certain things happened. They didn't. but the decision to not do it was from the task force commander, not the White House.

This has nothing to do with Trump or the US. Not sure how you came up with that. Flying a combatant or drone into another countries airspace is provocative and impermissible. It needs to be addressed and not allowed.

He's already lost it, he just hasn't acknowledged it. His military is incompetent, corrupt and exposed. His economy is ruined. He's caused the loss of one million victims, and countless desertions to other countries from war fighting aged people. He has gained nothing of any import. Anyway, what I would do re the airspace incursion thing, I would provided evidence of it to the international media, do a song and dance at the useless UN, and issue a well publicized warning that if it happens again, the intruders will be shot down. Then, if they did it again and did not respond to the intercept, I would shoot them down.

I agree. It's almost as if they believe they are rated on belligerent rhetoric, which they are incapable of backing up, so not taken seriously. Of course we've got a guy who does something similar on a lot of occasions. Either way, their military is so degraded and so incompetent at this point that a NATO engagement would be regime suicide. You are missing the point, as usual. The rules of engagement direct that you intercept and escort out of airspace unless there is hostile action. If you don't, and military pilots know this, you will be destroyed. It has nothing to do with the Russians following the ROE.

It's nonsense. If Russia violates airspace, there are rules of engagement. The first it that it gets intercepted. The point being, you don't destroy it as your first response. If it doesn't respond to the intercept, which would be to escort it out, or get it to land, or displays any hostile intent, it can be engaged. The absolute last thing Russia could handle is a military action against NATO. They are hopelessly outmatched. I really doubt China has any interest in being a tag team, military partner with them. I think that thought is silly.

It isn't complicated. I don't believe in invented traditions. Those invented traditions are exactly what Jesus confronted the Pharisees with. So, while I am immensely complimentary about what the Catholic Church has done, ie., charities, hospitals, schools, missions and on, I think the theology is wrong on the periphery. To wit, the office of the Pope, the entire "Mary" thing, the veneration of saints, and the paying for indulgences.

Catholic doctrine is neither Biblical or superior to what is stated in the Bible.

Your premise is incorrect. You can absolutely get an interview and get hired over people more qualified if you fit a targeted demographic. You can then receive more training and get more chances during that training. It has happened. In the military it has resulted in the death of two people that I know of. In the airlines FAA preferential hiring has been going on for years.

It is uninformed ignorance and lunacy to not conclude the DEI factor in pilot and controller hiring in the last few years. When Scott Kirby, CEO of United states that he wants 50% of new hires to be women or "people of color," you would have to be deaf, dumb and stupid to not acknowledge this reality. It goes well back in time though, at least into the 80's.

We've got to get this cornerback thing fixed. On the TD to Waddle, Tre was well into the end zone defending I don't know what. Any high schooler could have made that pitch and catch. He is going to be targeted over and over.

Nope. You posted the exact same thing there as you did here a couple years ago, and I noticed it. I never go there except when the Bills play them, becasue that site is really funny. Unless close DNA causes you to post the same thing, you are he.

I figured out a couple of years ago you were "Bills Fan in Peace" on the Dolphins forum.