FourFans

Come on dude. You can do better. Two things can be true at the same time. I want Ukraine to win, and I want our border secure. Different pots of money. Hell, our southern border simply requires the current executive to admit he was wrong and reverse his own actions. Likewise, Ukraine doesn't require us to kneecap our own capabilities. We can have both. Not everyone opposed to a LOT of the current admin's decisions are just binary about that decision. Maybe narrow down the brush a bit.

What ever happened to the US's stance of "If you start a fight with me, I'll finish it" ??? Seriously. Now it's "please don't start a fight...please please please please...ok fine I have enough dead Americans now and my populace is rather pissed...I'll strike something NEAR you, please don't hurt me" This weak dick foreign policy needs to go.

Went through your struggle and came out the other end with a successful heritage room/conference room/squadron gathering area that just happened to have a 20 foot bar in it. The AFIs that I referenced nearly a couple decades ago are probably well past gone. My recommendation is to get your Sq/CC to direct you to draw up plans for a squadron renovation 'in the event' of fallout money. We did it for just over $150k in Japan in 2007...so account for inflation or something. Long story short is get your plans together down to the tee and have your Sq/CC "Direct" you to have it ready. The key here is that he needs to get the go-ahead from CE, preferably via a one-on-one conversation with the CE/CC. If you do it right, the wing doesn't find out 'til you invite the Leadership to help christen your new heritage room...which seals the deal on their blessing of it. Your squadron CC should have got a slush fund that should cover drafting of renovation plans. When fall-out money comes, he's just renovating his own building and it should be too late for someone to say no. Whether you contract out the work to real contractors or to squadron members with renovation skill entirely depends skills available to you. I recommend contracting out to construction contractors. Pro Tip: It's not a kegerator, it's a cabinet refrigerator.

Rarely has a face been in such desperate need of a baseball bat.

But don't worry, the DEI departments are safe.

Nothing says 'get out of my house' quite like the sound of a shotgun chambering slug.

Weird. Very similar to saying there is no problem at the southern border, and then saying that there is. Trend? Let's just pray that we don't have four more years of this feckless dolt while the world continues to melt down.

Indeed...unfortunately it certainly falls into two adjacent categories: 'WTF' and 'things Biff googles' ...and here we are in this thread...

...and all of which are coal powered.

FIFY

Here's the problem with having 25K. In theory you'll put it in a HYSA and let it sit. But you won't. Having 25K at that age and leaving it alone is very tough.

With 'leaders' like this, who needs enemies... Oh wait...now we have enemies too...

Truth

Reads: "I pay strippers with cash"

That, we agree on for certain. Our only proper option is to not take part in that game. But that's a moral decision, now isn't it? P.S. I understand who you're talking about, but I wouldn't call them 'our betters'. I'd agree with "those who are in power"

Please feel free to explain how, if Morality is made up, America has no moral leg to stand on. If America makes up it's own morality, how does any sort of international opinion matter? Your logical and (made up) Reason are kinda breaking down. Kinda sad, because I'm beginning to think that you and I share a lot of views in common.

How so? Again, simply stating an opinion doesn't make it true.

So Desert Shield, Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, Haiti, Northern and Southern Watch...those didn't happen. Cool. Very factual of you.

You do understand that simply stating something is wrong doesn't make your statement true, right? That's how the left argues. You're arguing the prove of a negative event...which is impossible. Also, simply calling his analogy BS doesn't mean he's wrong. You haven't provided a shred of factual data or logical deduction to support your claims. (this is me presenting evidence, because you seem to completely ignore when people do that): Those of us who've actually been downrange and seen and experienced the cost of our modern fights have at least a shadow of a leg to stand on in our arguments. I've see and experienced the cost of our fight. I've lived in countries that doesn't have our freedoms. The cost we've paid has been dear, and entirely worth it. If we hadn't fought in Vietnam, Korea, Saudi, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other war that you argue we shouldn't have, it stands to reason that the US would not have the stranglehold it does on world economic, political, and military power. People who've never left America say we don't have that stranglehold. Those who've paid attention when the live abroad can't even begin to present a logical argument against US dominance, it's THAT powerful (that's a logical argument based on factual observations). Reason tells us that the US wouldn't have that dominance if we hadn't engaged internationally of the past 80 years. The facts of the matter are that our dominance can be directly traced to our engagement worldwide. Yes it's dangerous, but history tells us that engaging is risky, but not engaging is often much more risky. "Wait and see" tactics have often proven disastrous in international politics. Moreover, ethics and morality dictate that we have a responsibility to engage in places where the strong are wrongly preying on the weak. What is it that you've experienced or what facts do you present to support your claim that the US should have been completely isolationist?

Buy it, read it, do it. (The physical book, not the audio book) The metacog works.

True. We definitely had more hulls. I'd be curious to see the relative cost of those hulls vs gdp and adjusted for inflation. Granted crashing an F-4 in 1965 was in real dollars cheaper than crashing an F-22 today, but by how much? A straight inflation calculator says a 2.4M F-4 in 1965 would be equivalent to 23M today, but there's a lot more in a proper calculation of value then that. What's more, I would argue that our pilots are lower density and much more high value add today than they were in 1965. For example when I moved to the C-130J, it was clear you couldn't have a timid CP who got beat up by the FE for a year before getting value out of him. We had to train CPs to think like ACs and mission commanders from day one. I've heard the same about wingmen in the F-22 and F-35. High value add from day one, and that learning curve will only get steeper with net-centric warfare being what it is. Either way, I stand by the argument that we've shrunk from risk inappropriately and that it is actively hurting our nation defense. My gut tells me it's the result of spineless leadership, but that's entirely opinion.

Not a poke in the eye, this statement just got me thinking. When did we start looking at flying in the weather and pushing it hard in training as a bad thing? It's the military. We're supposed to be able to deliver anytime, anywhere, in any conditions. In my last 5 years before retiring last year, I saw anything that even approached that attitude as being reviled. In a different world (think Cold War...which we're in again...) this crew MIGHT (depending on what actually happened) have been commended for bringing the jet all the way back and mostly in tact despite what appears to have been an airborne fire. Instead, the default now is 'who's to blame' and 'why did we take so much risk'. The military culture used to embrace risk takers. Go look up documentaries of how the British SAS/SOE used to train their operatives. Death was normal and expected. Hell dudes in the USAF in the 50's used to routinely crash jets. Not abhorant, just expected and normal risk. Save your life, save the jet if you can. Get yelled at. Go do it again tomorrow. Do difficult and dangerous things specifically because doing those things makes you better. Now...not so much. Observation, not critique.

@Dogs-N-Guns, I think you're in the sweet spot. Well done! I wouldn't change a thing if I were you. For the benefit of those following and making their own decisions. This math... ...is highly incorrect. I don't know of many legacy carriers that schedule that way, and the ONLY way you have a long commute is if you're Anchorage based. I know because I'm Anchorage based. My commute is about 20 hours long. In the cargo world...that isn't currently hiring...the ANC commuters tend to aim for 12-14 day blocks of time away with about a day prior commute followed by home within 24 of the trip being done. It doesn't always work out that way, but I probably have one of the longest commutes in the community (NW Florida to ANC...even dudes living in Europe have a shorter commute), I'm only 2 years at my company, and I still manage only one commute a month (normally). It'll only get better. I'll let some legacy guy explain their commute, but the math quoted above is not representative of what the airline guys do. Most of the Delta dudes I know where I live have about a 2-3 hour commute to work and are home the same day their trip ends. It's not bad at all.

Along with the rest of the post...in all sincerity, we throw a lot of shit around here when in reality we were all highly motivated, highly excitable teenagers who wanted to go do cool shit and serve our country. Turning 40 only helps us lose sight of that perspective. Thank you for doing what you're doing in AFMC. I've heard that can be a dodgy place to be in leadership. I've also heard things like "if you can dream it, we've figured out how to do it" Yeah, AFMC does some really cool shit. But I digress I'm no academy apologist. USAFA is currently ALL KINDS of fucked up. But the idea it represents to America's young bright and shining warriors hasn't faded a bit. The warrior mentality will always be attracted to hardship and challenge. It's the job of we sage warriors to make sure the institutions don't drift. Thankfully, that impulse is not provided in the realm of internet discussion forums. We gain a lot of perspective as we get older with one bold exception: We often fail to remember what the world looked like when we were 18 and making life impacting decisions. That insight should inform our vision as we get older. Elite institutions should always be upheld regardless of how imperfect we find out that they are (and always were) as we gain the perspective of age. America's youth should always be challenged to do difficult things for the fact that difficulty cultivates character, and in real eye-gouging, life altering combat, character is critically important. Designing those preparatory challenges and environments is what being old is all about. Sadly the vast majority of our sages have decided that retirement and golf is more important. Regardless, I stand by the fact that elite American institutions still do push that button quite well, and I'll continue to challenge the vision of those who see those institutions as worthless.

Anyone want to give an over/under on how many years before @Biff_T moves?