sherpa

I'm willing to abide by signed treaties. Yep. Otherwise, what's the point of them?

Of course. If we, (not me by the way), weren't willing to sign the NATO agreement we shouldn't have. We did as did about 30 other countries. You do not strike me as a guy who has any knowledge of this stuff, but for the class, let me post Article 5: " The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." My view is that we abide by that agreement. My view is that we not send our troops into a death sentence. The Ukraine has separatists who want to be Russian. Those separatists should have been allowed to be part of their motherland without tying the rest of the world up in the dispute. This should have been worked out years ago.

No. I'm not "writing off the Ukraine." It is up to Ukraine to not write off Ukraine. It would depend on where NATO drew the line, and that would depend, most importantly, on Ukraine resistance to the Russians and their support of NATO. Those are unknowns, and we have been bitten twice. The thought of Joe Biden, who has never done anything, and his political team, leading this makes me think of the catastrophe of Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara in Vietnam. What I am saying is that you have suggested nothing approaching reality, display no evidence of understanding, and I didn't even mention ground troops in my missive. It would take tens of thousands. Air power has made the battlefield easy and a done deal for our ground troops in Desert Storm and the second Gulf War. The ground guys went at full speed with no resistance. That wouldn't happen against the Russians. Tell you what. Send me your email and I'll send you copies of my logbook and a Kitty Hawk cruise book which identifies me and has pics. Frankly, I don't give a rat's what you believe.

Cowardly? Your answer is that you'd somehow involve the US Air Force and you think that is a valid response? There is no military solution that the US could apply. It would be absolutely crazy to commit US forces to that area under these circumstances. Suicide, and would undoubtedly result in a massive compromise of our abilities. Here's what it would take, and this is not a complete list. The entire US Air Force in Europe, including F-35's, F-22's. Where do we base them? Where do we base the Command and Control assets, ie., AWACS. If we don't base them in the Ukraine, which we would never do, we would need massive tanker assets to support them. We would need takers in the Ukraine even if we did base them there. F-35's and F-22's are stealth. That stealth is completely lost if you strap external fuel tanks on them, thus the need for a massive tanker support force. Naval Air would require incredibly long missions, probably six hour and needing to tank three times per sortie. The Russians have very capable air defense. We would certainly lose a number of aircraft, requiring a significant search and rescue capability, We would need huge electronic jamming and countermeasure assets to combat the air defense system. This is, after all, right on their border. I could go on and on, but I doubt you have any background in any of this that would cause you to think differently. As far as the "coward" thing, I flew hundreds of sorties off the USS Kitty Hawk, and most of that in the South China Sea, which you mentioned earlier as Biden's "new" bold deployment. Over three hundred landings on carriers. You questioning my level of "coward" isn't going to bother me. You want a solution? Get NATO to draw a line in the sand regarding Putin's westward expansion. It would take four months to set up for a proper chance of success, but a unified NATO could do it. Understand though, depending on how resolute he is, and I doubt he would go that far, it would be WWIII. '

Great solution. Involve the "USAF in this somehow." I don't think you have any idea of what would be involved here, but I'm pretty sure what you seem to think, but not elucidate, would start WWIII, and I'm quite certain you don't have a bit of knowledge of capability or realistic strategy.

Good Lord. Biden isn't doing anything different re the South China Sea that hasn't been going on since the 40's. It's simply that people like you either don't know it, or grasp the rhetoric the administration spews out and think its "something." And ya....The UN was conceived as an international body that prevents aggression. All of its other offices/missions were created after that, are ancillary, and are primarily jobs programs "service" renders. Total failure, with the one single exception of being the most dense spy population on US soil. For the third time, what is your military proposal?

China being "upset" is a non event. We have been operating in the South China Sea forever. Regarding the UN, I brought it up to point out another example of it's historical uselessness in fulfilling its primary goal. You are the one who threw the red herring UNICEF into it. Humanitarian offices have nothing to do with this. The Security Council does. Again, what do you propose that the US and/or NATO do, militarily, to solve this?

No. On and on for decades. It's Seventh Fleet's main area of operation. We have had a carrier permanently based in Japan since Oct 1973 to handle this area, and other west coast based carriers augment it. Been going on since the end of WWII. That bit of reality aside, I have no idea what you think would be a good idea re US military response to this, knowing the reality of the situation. The only thing I have seen you post that suggested anything was a deployment of two squadrons to Ukraine territory, which is an insane idea. UNICEF and other corrupt aid functions of the UN have nothing to do with this. They got this thing called the Security Council. They had their usual debate meeting yesterday and did nothing in the face of blind aggression------again.

US carrier battle groups have been operating in the South China Sea since the 40's.

I would bet that contacts have already been made to acquire some. Ever wonder what the CIA was doing in Benghazi prior to the embassy attack?

I don't think you are interpreting what he said correctly. Putin is very shrewd and savvy, and he knows how to play the game. What h also is is a mischief maker trying to forge a legacy as time runs out, and he has never gotten over the gross failure of the insanely incompetent regime he worked for.

Thank goodness for the strength and resolve of the UN to prevent these situations.

It was completely predictable? To who? Not to the US Ambassador to Kuwait who, being the senior diplomat in the region authored a State Dept. Communique direct to Saddam stating that any invasion of Kuwait would be responded to by the US. This occurred the day after the famous Saddam/April Glaspie meeting. The same guy who stayed in the US Embassy in Kuwait under siege during the brief Iraqi occupation. A career Middle East diplomat with extensive Arab world contacts. He said that, regarding the 2003 expulsion of the regime, the aftermath was completely unpredictable, which is why I didn't want it to happen. Maybe you knew more about the situation than he did. You are doing what disingenuous scoundrels do. You are using hindsight to claim knowledge held before hand. You had no knowledge of what would happen, nor did anyone else who is honest.

Pointing out the historical record is hardly "rewriting history." You repeatedly fail to acknowledge that history. Nothing happened between the Feb 1991 ceasefire and 2003? There were no ceasefire violations? Operation Southern Watch encountered no offensive activities? There were no UN resolutions? There were no intel briefings from US intel sources to Congressional Intel Committees ultimately resulting in overwhelming support? There's sure a lot of evidence of this "invented" history. Of course the Bush Administration reached a point where they thought a forced removal of the Saddam regime was necessary. Of course they interpreted the wmd evidence in the most threatening way. I wasn't in support of an invasion, but I absolutely know that the year round babysitting of this guy at tremendous cost was not going to be a permanent solution. The cure may have been worse, but the military operation was stunningly successful and what happened after is the cause of a whole lot of bad people getting involved in a totally failed nation.

That the US was being "driven" into war in 2003. You state this over and over and over. The claim is like stating that the Roosevelt administration was driving us into war on Dec 8 1941. In short, you ignorantly avoid mentioning the attempts at preventing war for the ten years or so after the Saddam regime signed the cease fire agreement, Completely ignore the many, many UN resolutions violated or ignored. Completely ignore the many warnings in the preceding years. It's like you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of what preceded 2003, when the clock was running out and the options were getting limited to deal with this. You also ignore the unanimity of the intel findings in the US and other countries services, and joint Congressional approval of the actions that followed. Splained enough?

You continue to pound this specious argument, while seemingly totally ignorant or dismissive of what happened for ten years prior to that. Either way, there is absolutely no way the US gets into a shooting war with Russia over this. In the zero probability of that, Biden is the worst possible option as a leader.

Not exercised at all. I really don't care. Not very bright? Thirty-two years in that industry. Twenty seven as a captain, ten of those as a check airman, certifying other captains and first officers on the 757, 767 and 777 around the world for our company. Ya. I really care how a guy on a message board who proposed sending " two US squadrons of fighters/interceptors," to the Ukraine is judging my "brightness."

I am not interested, let alone "exercised." Delta did this. It's not "the airlines," per your claim. Frankly, it is idiotic to restrict people from ever flying because of some mask issue, and would tie up countless, non productive hours and expense of litigation. It's simply crazy. No fly lists exist for serious issues. No problem there. Honestly, based on what you post here, and the the evidence of your depth of understanding of things, I would restrict you from sitting in an emergency exit isle.

Why do you continue to suggest what people are saying without reading what they said? I said what I said and nothing more. I am not familiar with each airline, but I know that the one I worked for has a revenue protection list that prohibits reservations from proven offenders. I doubt that it is shared, nor should it be. If some offense rises to the level of criminal complaint, each airline can determine how it wants to deal with it.

Not saying that at all. Recent passenger behavior resulting in schedule interruptions is an issue, but most of it is covid related. The issue is handled by processes already in place, ie., removal and in more egregious instances, prosecution. We don't need a national policy to have some centralized list of folks who do stupid things, probably only once. Each airline can decide for itself, as they already do.

Yes. Tired of looking for the flag indication on every decent play. Tired of having the sport so determined by injuries. Tired of having player demonstrations at the end of normal plays. Getting tired of players basically saying "I won't play here anymore."

Bad idea. Here's a little inside information. Airlines have their own internal "no fly" lists. They are called revenue protection lists and are populated by known bad actors and certified frauds. No need to go beyond that.

Getting stronger in the offensive line is not going to come cheap this year, not that it ever does. Cincinnati and Miami have the exact same priority, and will be in the bidding. I doubt average talents are going to take pay cuts.

Basta.