Jump to content

sherpa

Community Member
  • Posts

    3,371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sherpa

  1. 7 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

    Ok.  Then it needs to go back to it's mandate of only working outside the borders.  

     

     

     

    There are adjustments that could be made, and I'm not sure how much is done inside the borders.

    But......The inability of the FBI, internal, and CIA, external, to be able to coordinate is exactly what led to 9/11.

    The redesign of the intel universe in the US was absolutely necessary with a changing threat.

    • Like (+1) 1
  2. i hope your meeting went well.

    Providing a history of Sects or Transportation, in no way, addresses the failure of this one.

    He is a fool who has wasted time and money doing stupid non productive woke crap.

    Everybody in the industry knows this.

    Typical Biden appointee who fills the gay box, but is useless to the American taxpayer and the industry he serves.

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Agree 2
  3. The man is reviled in the FAA and airline industry.

    Idiotic appointees who didn't survive basic Congressional hearings.

    But..To his credit, he did use taxpayer dollars to eliminate anything "male" in the vernacular of various agencies, so we have that.

    Total waste.

    • Agree 3
  4. I'd rather make news than get news.

     

    In the OP, CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin is a tried and true NYC liberal.

    No issues with that, but I'm a Squawk Box watcher every day, from 6-7, then Today Show for ten minutes as the Mrs. joins me, then back to CNBC once Al Roker starts his weather histrionics or they do anything entertainment industry related, which I have zero interest in.

     

    First selection on the laptop every AM is google news, and I avoid known biased sites. No Fox. No MSNBC. No CNN.

    For accurate middle east and specifically day to day Navy operations, I watch Ward Carroll on Youtube.

    Extremely well informed, honest and not the usual knucklehead that you see on networks.

     

  5. 6 minutes ago, 4th&long said:

     

     Prices going up sucks. but get stock out suffer a serious injury. Have a major health issue or death in your family.

     

    I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to convey, but that's another issue.

     

    Retirees, or people on fixed income might have a different view re inflation of the past couple years.

    I don't blame any politician for all of it, but they all share in the blame for crazy fiscal policy.

     

     

     

    • Like (+1) 1
  6. 51 minutes ago, Justice said:

    That wasn’t the Quran. That’s the Bible. Surprised you don’t know that. 

     

    According to Netanyahu the Gazans are amalekites. This explains why they’re killing men, women, infants and livestock 

     

    So he did nothing regarding this view from 96-99, and nothing since 2022, until the barbaric, sub human attacks of Oct 7?

     

    Sure.

     

    Netanyahu agrees with 90% of the population of Israel, which is that Hamas need be eliminated.

    Not the civilian Panestinians.......Hamas, and he is correct.

     

    • Agree 2
  7. 20 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

     An interesting thing about this 20 year "mission" is it was started by an idiot President and ended by an idiot President. 

     

     

    It wasn't started by any president.

    It was started by a terrorist industry led by a lunatic, whom they were harboring, and who was exporting its murder.

    The regime was offered an option to give him and his training industry up, and they refused.

     

    We didn't "start" it.

  8. 4 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

    Excuses.  The terms negotiated by the previous administration were conditional based on the Taliban's adherence to the conditions at the time of the withdrawal.  As they were not in compliance execution of the withdrawal in any form should not have occurred.  But the administration was in a rush so they proceeded with Biden's "plan", even disregarding the input from military commanders.  

     

     

     

    This is exactly true, and I have pointed it out here, more than once.

    The Trump plan had an out, if noncompliance.

    It was not used. 

    • Thank you (+1) 1
  9. The 2500 troops could have been used for any purpose.

    A proposal was submitted by JCS and SecDef to have such a contingent remain in order to support an orderly withdrawal.

    The President rejected that, and later denied, in spite of testimony from those two appointees, that such an option was presented.

     

    On a tactical note, rules of engagement are promulgated to operators from Washington.

    Specific weapons free decisions are made by individuals or on scene commanders, if time permits, based on the situation.

     

    • Like (+1) 3
    • Thank you (+1) 1
  10. Couldn't disagree more.

    Complete blame deserves to be on the Biden Administration.

    Bagram could have been easily defended with 2500 US troops with their defenses, against the street thugs.

    Didn't happen, and that is on the Administration.

    • Like (+1) 2
    • Thank you (+1) 1
  11. 4 minutes ago, daz28 said:

    You think the president has operational control over the troops??  LOL  Try again. 

     

    You are dead wrong.

    Of course he has operational control if he so chooses.

    See Operation Eagle Claw, the Carter thing,  and Rolling Thunder, ( as well as other Viet Nam failures) as evidence.

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Thank you (+1) 1
  12. 30 minutes ago, daz28 said:

    Sounds more like a GQP hearing blows up in their face once again: 

     

    "I was the overall commander and I and I alone bear full military responsibility for what happened at Abbey Gate," said former Retired Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., who served as commander of U.S. Central Command from 2019 to 2022, during a congressional hearing.  For those who watch Fox, and love to misinterpret everything, that means it was an OPERATIONAL failure.  

     

    The generals were all over the place, saying it was too slow and too late, but also saying that we should have kept 2,500 troops there, while also admitting that would have been a, "significant risk on U.S. forces. But is worth that risk."  Also saying that the takeover by the Taliban wouldn't have been "as swift" if we would have kept those 2,500 troops there under "moderate to significant risk'.  So iow, keep some forces there, in imminent danger, because it would have taken longer for the Taliban to take over.  Brilliant general, brilliant. 

     

    It was not an operational failure, it was a strategic failure that was ordered from Washington.

    2500 troops positioned at Bagram would have likely prevented the debacle.

    2500 is not a small number in this context.

    Instead, the Washington decision resulted in the  disastrous embarrassment.

    • Agree 1
  13. 20 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

    Sherpa, Tiberius: I think both of you make some good contributions to this board.

    Let's maybe try to keep the insults limited to our pre-existing insult comics?

     

    I insulted no one.

    I am simply not going to respond to him, absent some compelling reason.

    It is that simple, and I'd be pleased to be banned if that is untenable.

    • Like (+1) 1
  14. 3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

    The question here is Chinese investment in Mexico to produce cars there.

     

    There is a game theoretic approach that is at least defensible. In other words, we threaten (and Trump is the Threatener in Chief) tariffs/trade restrictions with the ultimate goal of reaching a deal that the U.S. and China can both live with. So I get that.

    But let's not lose sight of the goal: the furtherance of free and fair trade, not some kind of Fortress America.

     

     

    I only comment as an individual who has been involved in investment markets for decades and has been to China many times, so my views are empirical, and anecdotal.

    Others may have differing views.

     

    China is a country run on a targeted economic competition.

    They pay no attention to any environmental issues. No child labor issues. No slave type working conditions.

    They impose heavy tariffs on imported goods, thus denying US products fair exposure in their markets.

     

    They routinely allow and support violation of patents and intellectual property rights.

    Go to the Silk Market in Beijing. You will see vendor after vendor on many floors selling products with US company logos on them at prices far below what is reasonable. Totally unenforced.

     

    I was talking to a guy who was the Chief Operating Officer; the actual production guy, on a flight there.

    Silicon Valley company.

    He relayed to me his experience.

    His company had come up with leading edge solar panel technology and wanted to have these produced in China.

    The Chinese gov made them submit the technology to them in some convoluted effort to determine if the production would be "safe."

     

    They complied. Within months, a Chinese production facility was built and up and running using their exact technology and producing an identical product.

    Completely stolen.

    That's what happens when the gov is behind the fraud.

    I won't even get into the abuses of the industry I was involved in.

     

    Massive bribery is required to get various things done there.

     

    No reasonable, objective and accurate financial reports.

     

    I could go on and on, but failing to see that gov as a gross violator on international trade issues is an incredibly foolish posture, and ultimately a serious threat to US and western, law abiding trade and labor.

     

    • Thank you (+1) 2
  15. 3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

    Ah, so you support the Trump tariffs because it will do exactly what for US labor? You say we are at a disavantage, but we are kicking their ass. Their economy isn't anywhere near as good as ours and it never will be as long as they suppress free speech and ideas.

     

    Why do you support the Trump tariff idea? What will it supposidly accomplish?

     

    You have no idea.

    Absolutely none, but I don't have an interest responding to you.

    Sorry, that's just the way it is.

    • Like (+1) 1
  16. 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

    The UAW is for it. 
    I am against hiking tariffs regardless of whether they are proposed by the left or the right. Any economist would agree. 

     

    Have you ever been to China or have any familiarity with what goes on?

    I could give many examples, just based on my limited experiences.

    Are you familiar with environmental, labor, or any other production regulations differences that ultimately impact cost of production?

    Are you familiar with the gross disregard for patent laws or intellectual property that is simply stolen from US manufacturing with no payment?

    Are you familiar with governmental requirements for US product production in China?

     

    It is ridiculous to state that any economist would agree, not that it should matter.

     

    China is a government entity designed to succeed, not to be fair.

    A good deal of that strategy involves putting US industry and labor at a massive disadvantage.

    This extends to service industries that serve China as well.

     

    The only way to compete fairly is to insist on fair competition.

    China doesn't, and many other countries don't in various industries,

    These protections grossly disadvantage US labor, and it is reasonable and necessary to acknowledge that and respond.

    • Thank you (+1) 2
  17. Anybody who doesn't understand the need to enforce tariffs on countries that deliberately put US products and services at a distinct disadvantage in their domestic markets has no idea of what goes on.

    Trade is best when on a level field.

    To deny that is job market suicide.

    • Like (+1) 2
    • Disagree 1
×
×
  • Create New...