Smokin

The biggest contributor to that is our total force size. For the guys that weren't born yet: during Desert Storm we had at least one ANG fighter unit in just about every state. In the subsequent no-fly zone patrols, guard units did 30 day deployments and the part timers swapped out half way through. Our CAF is a little over 1/3 the size it was then. Now most ANG units that aren't on the coasts can't even train with other squadrons on a normal basis because they're too far apart for normal training.

Too early to tell. IF money is transferred/released and if those figures are accurate, than it's not as bad as last time as last time was $50 billion. Still not good though. Also, they will likely need to spend a fair amount of that rebuilding all the stuff we blew up. Not trying to make it sound like it's good because it's not. But, in the big picture, it isn't as bad as last time. Hopefully the release of those funds would be contingent on the transfer of the uranium. If that were the case, that would be far better.

Why did the Afghan take his sheep towards the edge of the cliff? So they would push back harder.

The US has not been good at the money/cost side of warfare since Vietnam. We outproduced Germany in WWII in part by making something that is 80% as good as the German equivalent for half the price and then making 4x as many. When we had Cold War defense budgets, we could get away with making a bunch of the most advanced (expensive) weapon we could find, but hopefully this is a bit of a wake up call for our acquisition side (probably should have occurred in the 2005 time frame).

Too bad the US doesn't have an option for "six months hard labor". There are still a lot of ditches that need to be dug and potholes that need filling.

1000%. This is the absolute most un-American thing that is somehow enshrined in American law. I totally get and would support a similar concept IF it were after appropriate due process and the person found guilty, much like what happens to people's trucks and guns after they get caught AND convicted of poaching. But to put the burden of proof on the citizen is completely upside-down and the fact that it hasn't been struck down only proves how far removed the Supreme Court is from actually reading the Constitution and doing it's job. With the qualified immunity removal in some states, legislators that passed that need pass a law to hold themselves to the same standard. If they pass a law that would would meet a similar threshold of 'obviously illegal' (like Colorado's ban on verbal only counseling to help a teenager wondering if they should actually be the other gender that got struck down 8-1), they need to be tried and convicted of violating their constituents' rights. A good starting point would be an identical punishment to what a law abiding citizen would have gotten under their unconstitutional law.

Aren't two threads entirely dedicated to people either bitching or cheering about Trump enough? Talking overall national security policy and such regarding Iran is one thing, but this thread has gone entirely off the rails.

If someone posts a slide with direct comparisons of gas prices under Biden and Trump that factually disproves the implied claim and I call it out, somehow that means I'm claiming that Trump is doing 5D chess? Both the spikes and the averages were higher under Biden than Trump. I said nothing defending or advocating Trump or his policies, I simply called out an objectively incorrect argument. I 100% agree that Trump is far from being a conservative, but that's hardly the point of this thread.

Gas prices are currently around $4/gal nation-wide, which is the peak under Trump's second term. Gas prices peaked at over $5/gal under Biden. Biden's total term average was $3.45 according to your slide. Trumps second term average is $3.06 His first term was $2.57. So please tell me again how gas prices under Trump are so bad?

I figured this was basic to learning to drive, sirens or not. I don't start after a stop sign, red light, or even go through a green light without a quick check that the crossing traffic is actually stopped. They might be at fault if I don't look and have an accident, but it's my kids in the vehicle. Going through a red light or anything else unusual would only make it that much more important.

An Israeli website is saying that he was knocked unconscious during the landing (makes sense if he had to do a PLF in rough rocky terrain), which would help explain the initial delay in contact which likely complicated things greatly. Lucky he didn't break a leg instead. Same website also claims that he evaded for around a dozen miles and ended up climbing a 7K ridge to get away from Iranian forces. That's a great reminder for dudes to keep in shape. You never know when your or your loved ones' survival might depend on it. New fighter pilot PFT; 12 mile evasion ending in a 7k climb with no warning. Ready set go!

Additionally, I would assume that Trump was advised and approved of the targeting. I don't see how one President could unilaterally limit another President with an EO given they hold the same office.

Well, if you're being paid to wear a chicken suit...

When the Italians give us military advice, we'd better listen. I mean its not like they've lost every war they've ever fought in the last 1500+ years.... oh wait, they have.

Agreed. The phrasing of the War Powers Act is pretty vague and I think that was intentional. While obviously not the same thing, when a contract is written vaguely, the wiggle room is generally interpreted more liberally towards the party that did not write the contract, or so my lawyer told me. Since Congress wrote the War Powers Act and did so in vague language, it seems reasonable for the Executive to be able to use all the wiggle room Congress seems to have intentionally given. As far as Constitutional questions, the modern Federal government has gone so far beyond the Constitution that it can't even be seen in the rear view mirror. It would be comical to suddenly draw a WAY more restrictive line when it comes to the Commander-in-Chief employing the military. Individual officers must be able to recognize and not obey illegal orders. Extending that same responsibility to the entire war seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. If the President ordered the invasion of Bermuda because he said he wants a better vacation home, that would be different, but this is a war on a country that has directly caused American deaths. An officer saying that's illegal because it's been XX days and therefore in his mind should have Congressional approval seems absurd.