sherpa

If Russia decides to employ nuclear weapons, the entire situation changes. The only reason that strategy has ever been considered since WWII is when the threat to the very existence of a regime is threatened. (See Israel. 1973 Yom Kippur war and the "Third Temple.") Russian isn't under that threat, and escalating this when there are "outs," seems really irrational and perhaps regime suicidal. I'm not sure what the use of a hypersonic missile would do for them. They don't need to. They surely wouldn't need that to do what they want vis a vis Ukrainian defenses. If they were to use one, if they really even have that capability, it would make sense to use it against a serious threat, like a US Navy ship, and I don't see them ready to take that step unless things got worse. To me, it's just chest thumping, as is pandemic in their culture and gov controlled media. Still, $33 billion request from the Biden Admin seems too high to pay. This thing has got to wind down in the next month.

Another of you idiotic assumptions. I run a commercial vineyard here. My wife and I babysit one of our grandchildren, and their dog, every day, eight-four, and take care of our other one all the time. I serve on the local vol fire department board of directors and am on our church's planning council. I advise on my three kids retirement accounts and run my three grandkids college funds. I regularly communicate with friends from my Navy and airline days. And to boot, I take time out to laugh at your nonsense. I am hardly lonely.

Are you intentionally trying to make a fool of yourself? Do you know what was in that bill that had nothing to do with energy or "building." It was the "coal barons of West Virginia." Hopefully you don't operate heavy machinery.

Congrats. Well played. I didn't think of that, but quite a coincidence.

I'm going to give you a little background since you repeatedly make the claim that it was Bush that made up the Iraq thing. The airplane that crashed into the Pentagon was American 75. I flew that trip, Dulles to LA for the two years prior to 9/11. I knew the people on that flight well, all of them. I had skin in the game. I was offered a job as a check airman on the 757/767 in January of that year, and being extremely bored with flying that trip, and wanting to get back to international, I took it. As a check airman, you have to "deadhead" all over the system, all over the world, to catch up with people who need to get checks/training etc. In so doing, you almost always deadhead in the cockpit, since the company wants to save money, and as you're "riding" you may as well get the check out on the captain you are flying with on the way to your real assignment. Since I live in VA, I would almost always deadhead out of DC. During that post 9/11 time a good number of guys were getting furloughed, and since a number of them were relatively senior military reserve officers, 05-06, they went to the Pentagon. I would often fly with guys who were really well informed on what the intel was regarding Saddam. As ex military and a fighter guy, they were honest with me and I asked them often about the level of confidence that Iraq was in possession of WMD. It was a nonstop conversation for months. The town I live in now hosts the NGIC. The National Ground Intelligence Center. I worked with a number of them as an elections officer in our town, and on various boards at my church. I asked them the same thing. They all believed it. The intel that was going to the White House from our Intel services was that there was WMD there. The Bush Admin oversold it, as admins must do when convincing a country to go to war, but there is no doubt what the conclusion was from intel sources. Bush has been held accountable for this, but there is no chance in hell that anyone is ever going to convince me, based on what I know and who I talked to at the time that he invented this. You don't strike me as an individual who has any depth of knowledge of any of this or anything else you post on,, so it certainly isn't going to be you. You have called me a "coward," "liar," "idiot," and one other thing that I can't think of as I prepare for dinner, but you have absolutely no chance of convincing me of anything, because you are simply unaware. By the way, as you are so unaware, there were other reasons why it made sense to end the Saddam regime that you are not aware of, but had nothing to do with the ultimate choice, just as you are unaware of the other reasons why your proposal to put two squadrons in the Ukraine as a deterrent is equally ignorant. You seem to have some idea that you know what you're talking about, and you really don't. Pasta Puttanesca calls.

I am not "pulled" by anybody in politics. Nothing to do with the Republican Party. Simply common sense and the sane thing to do. When you end pipelines, make it so that one person who you appoint has to personally approve over 4000 drilling permits, forbid extracting energy from Federal lands and create a genuine hostile environment to energy producers, you lose the right to whine and blame some murdering scumbag from Russia, a known adversary since the 40's. Nothing political about that observation. Your boy is simply stupid, and getting stupider by the day, almost ready to join hi VP and Speaker of the House.

You really have no idea regarding the energy industry. You really prefer being held hostage to a punk like Putin rather than allowing the developing of cleaner burning energy sources that are readily available in the US and Canada. By the way, the issue of being held hostage is not an exaggeration. Energy supply has been weaponized by suppliers for decades, but the end is nearer than they admit because newer technologies are rapidly coming to market at very competitive rates.. You should be resolved to learning about this instead of being so gravitationally pulled to the support Dems at all cost idiotic posture.

The New Green Deal is going to be part of November's waiving "goodbye" to a number of Dems.

Maybe I need to make this more specific. Nobody is supporting he Russian invasion of the Ukraine, or what they have done since. That is the issue.

Maybe I am unaware of your other communication channels, but I have never seen anyone offer anything that supports Putin.

You seem to think you know a lot of what other's think.

Just stupid. It sure as hell wasn't to support any Ukraine invasion.

It seems to me that the single most effective way to prove you should not be taken seriously, and your views should be disregarded, is to suggest that anyone of any Congressional stature supports Putin. It is a self proclamation of gross political idiocy.

Then perhaps you might consider ceasing challenges if you're not going to offer solutions. You've got tons of "do this" without any "how." Just a thought.

Nothing in this post addresses my challenge to you, which was how and where do we do what you seemingly want to do. Expressing disdain to Putin and the culture is not a strategy for efficacy. It is merely an opinion shared by all. I don't "know" Russians, but I have been to Moscow a few times and have a view. That's why I've only been there a few times. Hate the place, but that doesn't provide a realistic strategy on how to handle it without triggering WWIII. And I'm having a great day.

Very strange post, and I hesitate to quote it. Still, I have never seen a post of yours that talks about specifics regarding how to do what you want, and what the cost would be. As background, I think comparing Putin to Hitler vis a vis territorial acquisition is absurd.

Who in their right mind gives a rat's about John Bolton. The single worst Trump appointee, and there were many. Some people have a "to do" list. Bolton has always had a "to invade" list and it is very long. The guy has never met a country he didn't want to go to war with, and I for one, have no interest in any of his speculations.

That may be true, but the reality is that there are many other considerations. Where do we "annihilate the Russian forces in a matter of weeks," and it wouldn't be "days." How do we get our forces to this battle? How do we house them, feed them, supply them? Make no mistake, there would be huge losses in such a conflict, and it if ever got nuclear, well, use your imagination. While you are not one who has done so, a few here who have recommended direct US involvement don't seem to have ever considered the how and where, and it is much more complicated than the uniformed view that you simply sterilize the airspace. Anyone who suggest that has never operated a tactical airplane under a significant SAM umbrella, which is what the Ukraine is.

It is just contrails from an airplane whose course is perpendicular to the person recording it.

I cannot imagine any scenario other than life threatening that would justify blowing a slide on an airplane, then running around on the ramp. Not excusable in any reasonable judgement. She is about to find out how unreasonable and expensive her actions were. American Eagle, (not American Airlines by the way), will seek some kind of financial settlement which she will no doubt not pay.

Waiting, or at least not using the direct military option worked pretty well against this same adversary during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

They can certainly do that now, and decide for themselves. The issue with the now defunct proposal was that the gov would manage the list. Given the significant screw ups with the no fly list instituted after 9/11, which they put together and included some airline employees and politicians, there is little appetite to give them another bite at the apple.

It isn't that simple. The Russians have a lot of very capable military equipment. Their weapons are first tier in almost every area. Intel only gets you so far. You have little information on their command and control and how they integrate forces until you see those in action, and that has been pathetic. The problem is that incompetence cannot be assumed. There have always been hints of it. For example, when the then Soviets shot down KAL 007 in 1983, we had the audio of the entire operation from monitoring assets. I remember listening to the translation within a few days and was shocked at how incompetent it sounded. Absolutely nothing like our integration. Of course they lied about the entire thing, but that's the way that country has always done things. Still, their "stuff," always stolen from our designs, is first rate in almost every area, carrier aviation being the one true exception. They have no professional enlisted group, unlike our NCO personnel. They clearly do not train for damage control. Because of money constraints, their pilots fly way less than ours do, to the point of really not being able to be mission effective. It seems they have very few precision guided munitions. No ground to air coordination. Nonetheless, you can't assume incapability.

That is the way it is done by all companies. The regulation states that they must be armed at that point, so they are armed either prior to the push back or during.

The rest of your post is correct, but tis is not. Closing a door does not arm the slide. The slide must be armed (and disarmed on arrival), intentionally. Your comments on the calls that flight attendants make are true, but the slides are not armed until they do that. There are many times that the doors are closed and the doors not armed, ie if the bridge is still hooked up and there is a delay.