Leaderboard

OK guys I'm older than dirt, my time we would get article 15's if we got a severe sunburn and was unable to perform your duty. Now someone mutilates their genitals with elective surgery and puts themselves class C for 2 years, how is that possible.? How is this in the best interest of the military, I was always told the interests of the USAF come first before your personal feelings and wants. Gender dysphoria: the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex. Now two words stand out in that, emotional and psychological , those are two words that disqualify anybody for service. So my question would be are these trans gendered troops on duty guilty of fraudulent enlistment ?

Sgt. Robert Brown US Army Nobody has a "right" to serve in the Military. Nobody. What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it. The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short. Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn? Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can't run the required course in the required time? Can't do the required number of pushups? Not really a "morning person" and refuse to get out of bed before noon? All can be reasons for denial. The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability. Did someone just scream "That isn't Fair"? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful. YOU change yourself to meet Military standards. Not the other way around. I say again: You don't change the Military... you must change yourself. The Military doesn't need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars. If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality... Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who's next in line?

So the current rules allow for transgendered people to serve and there are thousands of people serving today. Drops in the bucket compared to the master DoD personnel spreadsheet, but real people leading real lives not fundamentally different than the rest of us. What do they do now? Can they deploy/promote/cross-train? What SQ/CC can explain this new "policy" to Amn. Snuffy? The CINC has made it clear, at least from his perspective, that a certain group of currently serving armed forces members suddenly aren't welcome anymore. As a fellow service member, why is this acceptable? I can understand the arguments that trans people shouldn't be allowed to join in the first place (although I disagree in most cases), but they're already in...what is the rationale for kicking them out now? What changed between last week and today? What new data or analysis is driving this decision? Or are we kicking them out? No one knows and it's exactly the kind of fire-ready-aim shit leadership we all regularly decry. The policy of yes/no to trans people serving aside, can anyone even begin to defend this process? Mostly rhetorical questions...y'all know as well as I do there was no logical process or reason for this sweeping new policy via twitter. I guess we'll all wait and see.

You guys realize that Millenials start with those born in 1981-1982, right? That means there are Chiefs, though young I know a few, and Majors that are Millenials.

In the SARC thread. I can see that there are a bunch of new posts (says 22 new). When I click on the thread, I can't read any posts after nsplayer's 9 hours ago.

Don't be alarmed, these are normal side effects of a transition in gender. We promise, your operational forum capabilities are in no way affected by the change.

Excuse me... that's "Cyber words" now.

I find myself thinking the same thing at times. Problem is, these are going to be the people defending our way of life when we're in nursing homes. The Vietnam guys probably said the same thing about my generation. To be clear, I think the idea of DOD footing the bill for gender reassignment is absurd. But a blanket ban/kicking out people already serving is probably not the right answer. If the President truly trusts his military council, he should let the Pentagon handle the policy announcements and put the keyboard down.

"It Depends"...the selection process is some sort of voodoo magic. As a sitting SQ/CC I had three non-selects picked up for IDE in one year, two were at their second look, and two went on to ASG.

I'm good with no "forward thinking millennials."

Reason #6969 why Trump won: Equating transgender struggles with those of African Americans. Independent of your personal beliefs on whether or not trannys should be allowed to serve, the comparison is a stretch. African Americans are born African American. Despite some very rare genetic disorders, transgender people are born a certain sex... XY or XX. A male can want to be a female, and vice versa, without ever making that information public or doing "gender-reassignment" surgery and therapy/meds--and no one will know. But there is no way for an African American to just forego being AA in favor of being white, or vice versa, despite Dolezal's best efforts to prove otherwise. And yes, I'm guessing the trans ban will focus on classifying being transgender as a mental health issue (i.e. gender dysphoria as RTB stated) negatively affecting one's ability to serve.

3 things: first, every commanders job just got easier, not harder. I'm around a lot of joint GOs, their relief is palpable and so far, anecdotal only, but 100% of the feedback from their subordinates is reliefe. The Army was telling chicks they'd have to shower next to someone with a dick and if they were concerned they were bigots. For goodness sake, there was far more unease about trying to integrate these folks. Second, the initial rollout of the policy allowing trannies caused just as much "how do we do this?" It's inevitable with these socially charged issues that the full details take awhile to come out (pun intended). I understand the viewpoint of "have the full policy ready before releasing" but I'd rather just know the bosses intent now and standby on details. And by the way, no one even knew how the old policy could have been implemented without massive changes to GO1. So, confusion has been the defining characteristic of this issue since Obama forced it on the military. That show is have been a clue to leave it alone. Third, does tranny integration improve mission effectiveness? No. If you want elective surgery when you leave, fine. I'm not the morality police. Be as crazy as you want because freedom! But letting folks transition while on duty by definition takes them out of duty status. And we opened the door to "non-binary" individuals and asexuals and all manner of sexual confusion. Dude I do feel bad for fellow transsexual service members whose future in the service is now closed. On a human level, it's unfortunate for them and I'll show only kindness to any I meet. But this was not good for the mission, and that's where my loyalty is. Shack. The military didn't want this, Obama forced it. Since he ruled by fiat and decree, it can be undone with a single tweet.

What a ing moron. Everyone should have seen the email by now stating that all lap dances are to be booked in DTS on the initial authorization... Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

Great discussion going on here. Let me add an alternative perspective. They said it wasn't possible to arm RQ-1 with Hellfires. Fortunately others in USG disagreed. They said you shouldn't arm UAVs and employ lethal fires without a fighter pilot in the seat that understood CAS and fires, so only fighter pilots should fly UAVs. They said only pilots had the airmanship required to fly UAVs. They said unless you went to pilot training and learned about airspace, radio calls and instruments, you couldn't and shouldn't fly UAVs. They said a fighter pilot was too valuable to fly UAVs, that it was easy, and only the worst pilots should fly them. They picked the pilots they didn't want in their squadrons to go to UAVs. They decided that we should fly RPAs from remote locations, despite the fact you could fly remote split operations from anywhere in the world, including in major metropolitan areas where families would be happy to live. They realized there was nothing unmanned about these UAVs and changed the name to Remotely Piloted Aircraft. They killed UCAV development because they think a pilot must be in the seat, even when the pilot is the limiting factor in the aircraft. They think the next generation bomber should be manned. They decided the only way to keep pilots flying RPAs relevant was to create a companion aircraft program so RPA pilots could fly real aircraft and stay in touch with real flying, but this was not feasible because flying RPAs is not an easy part time job and there is no time. They thought it would be ok assure pilots they would go fly RPAs, then return to the cockpit, with no intention of changing the manning or accessions to actually honor that promise. They told us that 18Xs could not fly RPAs. They told us it would take years to figure out how to train non-pilots how to fly RPAs. They told us nobody would volunteer to fly RPAs. They told us the bonus for RPA pilots should be less than the bonus for real pilots. They decided that RPAs were easy and marginalized the employment of lethal weapons in combat. They actually think the RPA pilot guides the AGM-114 or GBU-49/12 to the target. They denigrated the RPA mission and those who conducted the mission, regardless of how much the joint force and civilian leadership value RPAs. They think enlisted airmen cannot fly RPAs, despite direct evidence of outstanding Army enlisted and warrant officer performance. They did not think auto takeoff and landing was a valuable capability worthy of investment, and preferred to crash aircraft during takeoffs and landings due to pilot error and insufficient training at a staggering rate, while the Army successfully employs auto takeoff and landing with a near perfect mishap prevention rate. They decided that the phrase "permissive ISR" would be used to discredit RPAs by pushing the narrative that they were not able to operate in denied airspace, while avoiding the same conversation with mobility, tankers, C2, and satellites. They forgot that we may have missions when manned aircraft will not be allowed to fly and that RPAs may be the only access we have to non-permissive environments. They developed the phrase "Pred Porn" to delegitimize the FMV value to Ground Force Commanders, Joint Force Commanders and Senior Civilian Leaders. They do not understand how RPAs integrate multi-source intelligence to accomplish national level objectives. They decided "Combat Time" for RPAs employing lethal fires in close proximity to friendly forces was not combat, but orbiting a combat support aircraft near a combat zone, with no threat of enemy fire or additional danger, was worthy of "Combat Time". They decided combat support aircrew were eligible for Air Medals, while in no immediate danger from enemy threats, while RPA crews conducting actual combat missions were only eligible for Aerial Achievement Medals. They failed to recognize that there may be situations where manned aircraft may be denied access to airspace, not only because of the threat, but because of political considerations and the risk of being shot down in denied area. They think a pilot who practices killing people but never performs this skill in combat is more of a warrior than those who actually kill people. They decided to not fund RPAs, after reducing the number of CAPs in the first few years, they planned to go to zero CAPs so they could commit the money to other priorities. They decided to keep the RPA crew ratio below a sustainable level, crushing OPSTEMPO, morale and sustainability. They let RPA crewmembers separate early to meet short term manpower reduction goals, before their commitment was up, even from squadrons where the pilot and sensors were undermanned in that unit. They decided to not invest in RPA technology, stating and I no shit quote "every dollar we spend on MQ-9s is a dollar we can't spend on F-35". They are telling us they can't fix the current RPA crew shortage. They are telling us they don't know how to improve morale. They are telling us RPAs are not important to our nation's defense. They think pilots with no RPA experience are qualified to command RPA squadrons, groups and wings. They use the phrase CT/COIN to marginalize the current fight and emphasize the importance of near peer competitor threats. And they will continue to recommend we stop flying RPAs so we can invest in more important weapon systems and more important missions. When will we stop letting them make these bad decisions and give this bad advice? When have they lost enough trust and confidence of our joint partners and civilian leaders? When will we realize that "they" are actually the problem and that we should not value their recommended solutions? It is time to get ISR out of ACC, to let ACC focus on what they value and what they are the best in the world at, and most importantly, stop ing up RPAs.