Comments by "Colonel K" (@Paladin1873) on "Ryan McBeth" channel.

  1. Before he posted this apology, the internet trolls were calling Ryan McBeth a shill for the government and military-industrial complex. In response to them I defended Ryan and said if he made a mistake, he would own up to it. Now that he has, these same trolls are doubling down on Ryan. There's even talk of a lawsuit. Good luck with that. I doubt Ryan, despite his alleged ties to the deep pockets of the deep state, has more than few shekels to his name. Hell, the man can rarely afford to shave. :body-green-covering-eyes:
    2
  2. Nice touch of psychological warfare, my friend.
    2
  3. Spot on, Ryan. I think we will dial back some in NATO, but not leave. This is a pressure tactic to get Europe to man up while we refocus more on the Asian Rim. I hope it works. Leaving NATO would be a disaster, just as abandoning Afghanistan was. It sends all the wrong signals to the CRINK (China/Russia/Iran/North Korea).
    2
  4. I don't recall ever calling tech support and speaking with a white guy.
    2
  5. My wife used to live next to a Haitian camp in south Florida. It was a place of filth, disease, drugs, and crime. It lacked any sanitation and the Haitians abused the animals, using some of them for religious slaughter. What's happening in Springfield is taking place in greater or lesser degrees in communities all across America. Here in Montana Hispanic gang symbols are appearing on buildings and power poles. Only a naive fool would disassociate the problem from illegal immigration. Whether the eating of cats and dogs is true or just a convenient bit of distracting hyperbole, the real cultural and economic problems of Springfield resonate everywhere. It is not a simple anomaly, and if the federal government does not reverse the flow of immigration, God only knows what a frustrated public may eventually resort to. And, yes, there are always political bad faith actors trying to profit from the fear and hate that is building. There is nothing new in this. It's good that Ryan pointed out some of them, but we are reaching a point where fewer and fewer people care about such facts. They would rather know why any of these people are still in our country and why more of them are arriving everyday. I can see the new clarion call becoming "Yaqui go home!"
    2
  6. When I worked logistics command & control for Katrina, the internet rumors we had to squelch sometimes bordered on the ludicrous. My favorite was the email about an old alligator named Moe who was swimming around the flooded areas of New Orleans, gobbling up the elderly because he had learned they were easy prey. Some people will believe anything.
    2
  7. Damn, this self-censoring to avoid cancelling is really getting out of hand.
    1
  8. I call in an A-10 (I'm Air Force). 🙂
    1
  9. Ryan didn't go far enough back in history to explain the roots of the conflict, but I understand why.
    1
  10.  @spaceman9599  This is why Ryan didn't go deep into the history of this region. There's always somebody ready to make snide comments.
    1
  11.  @SianaGearz  That would be hard to do because the background story goes back thousands of years. Ryan only focused on the past century, not the conditions prior to then. In essence, when the British conquered Palestine during WWI, they ended up controlling a small portion of the Ottoman Empire (an ally of Germany in WWI). What followed essentially boiled down to the British government parceling out land it did not own. As with so many former colonial possessions, the mess they created still percolates today.
    1
  12. Elementary, Watson.
    1
  13. The Falling Down Parasols are the best infantry brigade on the planet? I know some Clucking Chickens and 82nd Speed Bumps who would disagree with that claim. But, hey, I'm Air Force, so I just came here to watch the hired help in-fight.
    1
  14. Reminds me of the book code.
    1
  15.  @SirAntoniousBlock  No, I do not, though the people there remind me of Canaanites.
    1
  16. You got to know when to sing, too.
    1
  17. The Air Force NCO corp does not use specialist ranks. We expect every Airman to be both technically proficient and able to assume a greater leadership role as they move up in rank. What makes the Army different?
    1
  18. The only flaw I see in Ryan's plan is that Hamas came to power by the popular will of the people. Do the majority of Gaza residents still support Hamas? Does a significant minority still support Hamas? Where is the political opposition to Hamas and how broad is it?
    1
  19. Ryan, you covered the topic beautifully and succinctly.
    1
  20. His number was up.
    1
  21. As my Daddy used to say, don't confuse me with the facts.
    1
  22. And when even one of the cameras is offline or knocked out, Snuffy will again have to pop his head through the hatch to regain situational awareness. Then there are issues of depth perception and video fidelity.
    1
  23. LMBHO! Brutal, but funny.
    1
  24. Bring back semaphore and heliographs.
    1
  25. Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting There was funky China men from funky Chinatown
    1
  26.  @CharlesHallESP  I get the impression you don't see what the big deal is. Ryan touched on it, but a little understanding of the unique role of the Guard requires a bit more historical context. Long before the National Guard existed, each state had its own militia. It was how our nation fought for its independence and most of the wars until WWI. But the Guard is different, and while it is derived from the militia concept, it has not replaced it. Both the Army and Air Force National Guards differ from the militia in two unique distinctions. Firstly, the vast majority of funding for the Guard is federal money even when conducting only state missions. By contrast, state militias are funded entirely from state coffers or by volunteers. Because the Guard has subsumed many of the militia duties, few states today are willing to provide sufficient money for their militias to perform even the most rudimentary functions. Secondly, during WWI federal law was reinterpreted and subsequently changed to allow the Guard, when federalized, to serve outside the territorial boundaries of the United States. Militias do not. A legal battle has been brewing for the past year over how much control over the Guard the federal government is allowed to have and how much control belongs to the states. It has long been codified in law that when federalized, the Guard operates exclusively as an arm of the Department of Defense. At all other times it is a state asset. A new wrinkle in command oversight arose earlier this year when the President, through the offices of the Secretary of Defense and affected service chiefs, decided unilaterally to relocate Air Guard assets to Space Command without the participation and approval of the states affected. This not only upset the governors and the affected Guardsmen, but it appears to be a violation of existing law. If this decision is allowed to stand, what would prevent the federal government from moving any or all Guard assets from a state, reassign them to another state, turn them into Reserve or active arm organizations, or eliminate them altogether? it is very much a big deal and the reason why the governors of all 50 states and five U.S. territories wrote to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and President Joe Biden, challenging the unilateral movement of Air Guard assets to Space Force. Read more at: https://www.stripes.com/branches/space_force/2024-05-07/air-space-force-national-guard-governors-troops-13783950.html Source - Stars and Stripes
    1
  27.  @afcgeo882  Perhaps not, but a Guard units federal mission can be changed, deleted, or transferred elsewhere and assigned to a Guard unit in another state, the Reserves, or the active duty force. At least that is what DoD is attempting to do with some space related AFSCs. They want them transferred from the Air Guard to Space Force, which currently has no Guard units. Affected Guardsmen are being offered the opportunity to transfer to Space Force, which may require them to another state if commuting is impractical. From what I've read, 70% of the Guardsmen contacted have said no.
    1
  28.  @PavewayJDAM  It was tried by Governor Dukakis in the 1980s and failed. To ensure it didn't happen again, Congress clarified the law, making it illegal for a governor to attempt such a move. Even without a law, the US Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of all US forces. You can argue this does not apply to state militias, but the Guard is not the same thing as a militia. It is funded and equipped by the US government, not the state government. 80% of its budget comes the federal government and it is a part of the DoD. If war or a national emergency breaks out, it would be insane to allow each state and territorial governor and their legislatures to decide whether or not their Guard units would participate.
    1
  29.  @CharlesHallESP  I posted a rather long reply to your comment but it appears to have been deleted. Did you see it?
    1
  30.  @afcgeo882  I'll quote from the 29 April edition of the Idaho Capital Sun. "Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed on to a letter Monday alongside 47 other state governors, as well as five territories and commonwealths, opposing the Biden administration’s move to incorporate Air National Guard service members into the Space Force. The letter from the National Governors’ Association, addressed to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, is written in opposition to a legislative proposal submitted by the Department of Defense to the Senate Armed Services Committee that would transfer some Air National Guard personnel and equipment currently being used on space missions to the Space Force. "The Defense Department proposal would require Congress to override existing law requiring that governors approve changes to National Guard units, through Title 10 and 32 of the U.S. Code, that outlines gubernatorial authority over their states’ National Guard."
    1
  31.  @afcgeo882  My point is if the federal government can defund a Guard unit and withdraw its equipment, it essentially ceases to exist. This is supposed to happen only with the concurrence of the state government, but that is not what has been proposed with regard to Air Guard space specialists.
    1
  32.  @afcgeo882  Regarding your first point, you are conflating different organizations. The militia referred to the US Constitution and early federal law is not the same thing as the National Guard. The latter organization was at first an attempt to align training and equipment of state militias with those of the active duty army, but as more laws were passed it became a separate entity. States still had the option to retain their state militias, but this dual status was rarely used because of the added cost to the state and the duplication of many missions. It has largely faded into obscurity but still remains on the books and some such units still exist and drill. The National Guard differs from traditional militia units in a critical way. It can be federalized and deployed outside of the US and its territories. It is a popular myth that the states fund their own Guard units. Over 80% of Guard funding and all of its equipment is provided by the federal government when in state service. When activated, 100% of funding comes from the federal government. The National Guard Bureau is very much a part of the Department of Defense. I don't know where you are getting your information, but I served over six years at the Pentagon managing active duty, Reserve, and Guard assets for the USAF, so I know of what I speak.
    1
  33.  @afcgeo882  I am tired of explaining how the active duty forces and Reserves (Reserve and Guard) work - and yes, the Guard is a reserve organization despite your vehement denials. All you want to do is complain and argue even when people are basically agreeing with you.
    1
  34.  @afcgeo882  You are wrong on all accounts.
    1
  35. Helluva story; helluva drill instructor.
    1
  36. AI is a relatively recent form of deception. Similar misinformation attempts have been around forever. For example, after 911 I spent part of my time at the Pentagon debunking internet lore such as video of snipers in Afghanistan blowing the arms off Taliban militants (in reality varmint hunters shooting lizards off rock escarpments), an image of a giant alligator that had eaten dozens of nursing home patients during the Katrina flooding of New Orleans (actually a crocodile killed somewhere in Africa), and so forth. The result of my well intentioned efforts was I became flooded with seemingly plausible emails forwarded to me from other personnel who wanted to know if their contents were legitimate. I fear Ryan may suffer a similar fate.
    1
  37. The pike was good enough for my ancestors, so it's good enough for me.
    1
  38.  @gregjohnson2073  😅
    1
  39. I'd rather these designers create a functional phaser. I might even settle for a bullet firing pistol that looks like a phaser. 🙂
    1
  40. Unless the government has already budgeted for such flightselsewhere, it probably is more efficient to use military assets.
    1
  41. The tanks that fought in the Korean War were all WWII surplus on both sides.
    1
  42. The title of this video calls it a Plan, but it's a Directive, and that's a huge difference. I first heard about it ten days ago when a friend of mine sent me a video link about changes to DoD Directive 5240.1 and asked for my opinion because I been a staff officer at the Pentagon. The rumor has been spreading like wildfire that a very recent change to DoD Directive 5240.01, DOD INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENCE-RELATED ACTIVITIES AND DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE COMPONENT ASSISTANCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER CIVIL AUTHORITIES, now authorizes the military to use lethal force against the citizenry. As is the case with most such videos and articles, I find the devil is in the details. The problem here is the details appear to be missing or are at least sparse. For example, at the 5:40 time mark the content creator of the video I watched read the applicable paragraph from the DoDD, but he failed to read the last line of this paragraph (DoDD 5240.01, 3.3.a.(2)(c)) which states "Such use of force must be in accordance with DoDD 5210.56, potentially further restricted based on the specifics of the requested support." I downloaded and read 5240.1 and 5210.56. The latter deals with the arming and use of force by DoD personnel and contractors, to include private arms, for official duty and self-protection. From my reading it appears these provisions only apply to government property, so any use of force outside of government property (aside from self-protection) would seem to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. At the very least it makes for a confusing mess, so I passed it along to several legal beagles for their review and comment. They agreed it appears to be a bit vague and therefore open to some wild misinterpretation, but it does not rise to the levels of concern which have been portrayed in so many video, articles, and commentaries.
    1
  43. Will it allow you to show Israel launching pork bellies at Iran?
    1
  44. So the top cop in Australia is female. That's all you need to know. I'm only being truthy. 😉
    1
  45. Never air the dirty laundry in front of the cameras.
    1
  46. Thank you YT for making all intelligible conversation impossible.
    1
  47. Dammit, Ryan, I just bought one of those large COSTCO chocolate almond jars, and thanks to your review of Lumen I'll have to stop nibbling from it if I want to lose those ten pounds I've been promising myself for the past year.
    1
  48. Hey, I was in Kuwait. It was in 2006, but it counts!
    1
  49. Now tell us how Iran, Russia, and China will spin the Iranian attack on Israel.
    1
  50. Excellent inductive reasoning.
    1