Politics

[Dirtdart]

And there you go......agitating "Murphy's Law" into the equation.

I would argue that Murphy does not apply to this situation but more like an irrefutable law of Newton.

 

[Ridge Runner]

I really don’t get the obsession with the grammar mistakes everyone is getting exited about. Usually easy to spot non-English speaker or English as second language errors.

What do they say about stones and glass houses? My favorite examples for those from the US and who speak English as primary or only language who routinely slaughter the language and grammar where common errors become acceptable. Could be called the “Ah shucks, just don’t know no better” bubba excuse.

Three common ones, among many, that make me cringe-

Incorrect use of “then” and “than” within a sentence

Incorrectly using “could care less” instead of “couldn’t care less”

Mis-pronunciation of “etcetera” with something like “ekcetera” or “exetera”

I am willing to admit back in my college days, after my initial military service, I could easily fill asylums with English professors.

I still can. Probably better than before due to traumatic brain injury (TBI).

 

[Ridge Runner]

I would argue that Murphy does not apply to this situation but more like an irrefutable law of Newton.

Newton: Action - Reaction?
Murphy: Hold my beer. I am about to really screw this up.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Luigi wants to be a martyr

The Maryland native graduated top of his high school class and went on to major in computer science at University of Pennsylvania

Mangione read this year Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski’s “Industrial Society and its Future”, which he rated four out of five stars

Mangione graduated as Valedictorian of the private, all-boys Gilman School in 2016, according to the Baltimore school’s website.

Was arrested and had the rather unique firearm still on his person. Not real smart.

Rumor has it that in addition to being Valedictorian of his class, Luigi was also voted most likely to become a mob hitman.

 

[Newboomer]

I really don’t get the obsession with the grammar mistakes everyone is getting exited about. Usually easy to spot non-English speaker or English as second language errors.

What do they say about stones and glass houses? My favorite examples for those from the US and who speak English as primary or only language who routinely slaughter the language and grammar where common errors become acceptable. Could be called the “Ah shucks, just don’t know no better” bubba excuse.

Three common ones, among many, that make me cringe-

I really don’t get the obsession with the grammar mistakes everyone is getting exited about. Usually easy to spot non-English speaker or English as second language errors.

What do they say about stones and glass houses? My favorite examples for those from the US and who speak English as primary or only language who routinely slaughter the language and grammar where common errors become acceptable. Could be called the “Ah shucks, just don’t know no better” bubba excuse.

Three common ones, among many, that make me cringe-

Incorrect use of “then” and “than” within a sentence

Incorrectly using “could care less” instead of “couldn’t care less”

Mis-pronunciation of “etcetera” with something like “ekcetera” or “exetera”

Using an apostrophe in a plural context: the owner's did xx instead of the owners did xx. An apostrophe indicates possession.
Incorrect use of “then” and “than” within a sentence

Incorrectly using “could care less” instead of “couldn’t care less”

Mis-pronunciation of “etcetera” with something like “ekcetera” or “exetera”

 

[CoElkHunter]

I really don’t get the obsession with the grammar mistakes everyone is getting exited about. Usually easy to spot non-English speaker or English as second language errors.

What do they say about stones and glass houses? My favorite examples for those from the US and who speak English as primary or only language who routinely slaughter the language and grammar where common errors become acceptable. Could be called the “Ah shucks, just don’t know no better” bubba excuse.

Three common ones, among many, that make me cringe-

Incorrect use of “then” and “than” within a sentence

Incorrectly using “could care less” instead of “couldn’t care less”

Mis-pronunciation of “etcetera” with something like “ekcetera” or “exetera”

Waiting for our resident grammar correction guru @sestoppelman to chime in. Although maybe he's taking a brake? LOL

 

[CoElkHunter]

Can I aks you a question?

Know.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

I don't often actually say anything, but that doesn't mean I don't want to... every. single. time.

 

[Brent in Az]

Waiting for our resident grammar correction guru @sestoppelman to chime in. Although maybe he's taking a brake? LOL

You spelled break wrong......

 

[Hunt anything]

Damn, I thought I was finished with English 101 back in the fall of 1982! From many of my post y’all can probably tell I skated by with a solid C-.

 

[barryk]

Prescient = to know beforehand,, apparent knowledge of things before they happen, foreknowledge

l like it when you guys define this stuff so I don't have to look it up! As a former Jarhead, I do better with pictures.

 

[gbflyer]

Yesterday I couldn’t even spell English Major. Today I are one.

 

[Corey0372]

I am and I have some experience in how it works. I suppose I look at it as a policy issue. The Pentagon has no military assistance policy - rules aplenty - but no policy. Obviously a combatant commander will have a voice in military assistance decisions, often an important one, but It acts at the behest of the administration. So does the CIA for that matter, though the CIA has acted under a mission order construct to a far greater degree than DOD. I should add much of what CIA provides may also come from DOD though through separate funding lines.

Okay I guess I'm confused as to what you're referring to as policy.

This is a link to USSOCOM Directive 525-19.....

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/127e-directive/d892427fa1bd632e/full.pdf

Under Section 1 Paragraph 1 it states,

"This directive establishes policies and procedures for requesting, approving, implementing, accounting for and reporting the use of authority formerly known as 1208 authority , now contained in Title 10 U.S. Code ( U.S.C) Chapter 3 Section 127e Support of Special Operations to Combat Terrorism ;hereafter in this document referred to as 127e authority or simply 127e ."

Under Section 1 Paragraph 2 it states,

"These policies and procedures apply to all USSOF wherever assigned, when support is provided to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individual under 127e. Henceforth in this document and for the purpose of brevity unless otherwise specified, the term surrogate forces refers to any foreign regular forces irregular forces, groups or individuals that are enabled under 127e for the purpose of supporting USSOF operations."


Section 1 Paragraph 5 is titled "Policies" and contains 5 subparagraphs.


In reference to the LA Times article posted you stated....

The Pentagon doesn't arm anyone anywhere other than the armed forces of the United States.

That's inaccurate. Under 127e programs (formerly 1208) using title 10 funds, the Pentagon can arm surrogate forces, and as far as I understand the word policy the DOD does have policy dictating how those operations are to be conducted.

As far as the LA Times headline,

In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA​

This completely makes sense when you consider that the arming of anti-Assad forces was initially carried out clandestinely by the CIA under Operation Timber Sycamore (most likely under title 50 covert action authorities). Many of these groups would eventually join up with ISIS. Fast forward a couple of years and you do in fact have groups armed and equipped by 127e programs engaging in hostilities with forces previously armed by the CIA.

 

[Tanks]

CA recently instituted a minimum wage for fast food workers, $20/hr currently and will go up each year. Bunch of pizza companies laid off drivers and discontinued delivery off-loading that to DoorDash etc..

Well, noticed something else today, at Taco Bell, this morning. Starting hours went from 7 to 8AM. More importantly person taking my order at the drive through was an AI, not a real person. Less people working there now and less hours. A loosing proposition for some, I'd say.

 

[Corey0372]

A loosing proposition for some, I'd say.

You got that rite!

 

[Hunt anything]

You got that rite!

That’s pretty much what many level headed people said would happen. I would think those same people are scratching their heads wondering why companies would do this. A novel idea to those people, companies have to make money or they will have to shut down and nobody wins when that happens.

 

[cwpayton]

Waiting for our resident grammar correction guru @sestoppelman to chime in. Although maybe he's taking a brake? LOL

I think we all need to hit the BREAKS on this , maybe take a deep as breath as possible exhale slightly, focus and squeeze. besides I use to care but now I could care less, if I tried harder. PARAGRAPH.
On a serious thought I double down on HEGSETH, seems as though 100 or more SF vets are marching to D.C. in his support, hope they stay clear of the federal buildings!
now IM taking a brake, and try to understand this 7 way collision in Syria.

 

[Newboomer]

CA recently instituted a minimum wage for fast food workers, $20/hr currently and will go up each year. Bunch of pizza companies laid off drivers and discontinued delivery off-loading that to DoorDash etc..

Well, noticed something else today, at Taco Bell, this morning. Starting hours went from 7 to 8AM. More importantly person taking my order at the drive through was an AI, not a real person. Less people working there now and less hours. A loosing proposition for some, I'd say.

A "loosing" proposition? Better tighten it up to a "losing" proposition.

 

[Red Leg]

Okay I guess I'm confused as to what you're referring to as policy.

This is a link to USSOCOM Directive 525-19.....

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/127e-directive/d892427fa1bd632e/full.pdf

Under Section 1 Paragraph 1 it states,

"This directive establishes policies and procedures for requesting, approving, implementing, accounting for and reporting the use of authority formerly known as 1208 authority , now contained in Title 10 U.S. Code ( U.S.C) Chapter 3 Section 127e Support of Special Operations to Combat Terrorism ;hereafter in this document referred to as 127e authority or simply 127e ."

Under Section 1 Paragraph 2 it states,

"These policies and procedures apply to all USSOF wherever assigned, when support is provided to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individual under 127e. Henceforth in this document and for the purpose of brevity unless otherwise specified, the term surrogate forces refers to any foreign regular forces irregular forces, groups or individuals that are enabled under 127e for the purpose of supporting USSOF operations."


Section 1 Paragraph 5 is titled "Policies" and contains 5 subparagraphs.


In reference to the LA Times article posted you stated....


That's inaccurate. Under 127e programs (formerly 1208) using title 10 funds, the Pentagon can arm surrogate forces, and as far as I understand the word policy the DOD does have policy dictating how those operations are to be conducted.

As far as the LA Times headline,

In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA​

This completely makes sense when you consider that the arming of anti-Assad forces was initially carried out clandestinely by the CIA under Operation Timber Sycamore (most likely under title 50 covert action authorities). Many of these groups would eventually join up with ISIS. Fast forward a couple of years and you do in fact have groups armed and equipped by 127e programs engaging in hostilities with forces previously armed by the CIA.

You and I are talking past each other. The US military - SOF or conventional - can not decide on its own to arm anyone. Period. To remind, I commanded USASAC. I am very familiar with how money is allocated for security assistance and under what guidance. Yes, I know SOF is separate, but the rules are essentially the same. It may well be that the Pentagon (SOF) was directed to arm one party in Syria, and the CIA armed another group. However, this was not a decision by the Pentagon, the US Army, or SOF. Both efforts would have been decisions by the executive branch hopefully in close consultation with the Combatant Commander in CENTCOM. Was it possible that one hand was not entirely certain what the other was doing? Sure. Or could conditions have changed between the decisions? Absolutely. But neither the SECDEF, nor any Combatant Commander, nor CG USSOCOM can make an independent decision to arm a third party without a civilian executive directive or concurrence. In this case, the funding almost certainly would have gone through SOF channels rather than Army to avoid public interest.

 

[Ridge Runner]

You spelled break wrong......

Brakes spelled correctly. Just used the rong wurd break.