GKinnear

However, Biden's removal of the Houthis from the Foreign Terror Organization list meant previous authorizations against terror groups like AQ and ISIS couldn't be utilized...every strike was a "self defense" strike. Which honestly, was a weak legal argument to me (Kinesiology major from a small land grant college...so caveat emptor) since we could always just remove ourselves from the Houthi-controlled territory instead of striking them. The Houthis are a client of Iran, and the Biden admin was very soft on Iran, so anything more would run against his administration's intent. Biden didn't know or care to direct a deliberate campaign to neutralize a non-internationally recognized group from using weapons of war against the only democratically government in the Middle East, nor did he know or care enough to use appropriate force to remove the threat to US, Israeli, and others flagged vessels moving international shipment through one of the 7 global strategic chokepoints. And everything @Clark Griswold stated. So no....Biden did not bomb the Houthis in any meaningful way. The current Trump 2.0 admin is the only admin since forever to deliberately order military action against the Houthis specifically. This isn't rocket surgery...

Wrong: Obama took it to AQAP (which was in gang war with the Houthis) Wrong: Biden took steps to remove the Houthis from the target list (removed from the Terror list) Right: Saudis bombed the Houthis. Too bad we're not playing baseball, otherwise, your .333 batting average might be impressive.

Got it...my high-order opener may have been a bit much...it's just sleepy San Angelo rarely gets attention. I still think the "intel nerd furry" theory may end up being the right one, too.

Tracking the resemblance...just nothing popping up on the ol' googleizer as far as DEI or other toxic leadership controversies go. I've never been stationed there, just grew up there, and the old man hasn't sent me any local news reporting on it either...I'll wait and see if there's something over the next few days to bubbles up.

What the absolute fuck...why is San Angelo (Goodfellow AFB) the model for toxic Wing Commanders? Seems like a lot of Intel nerd trainees are mad they can't wear their furry suits like the Keesler kids do. It can't be the fire dawgs...they kind of behavior is handled internally for course correction. Granted, GAFB had a fairly well-known Sq/CC and DO toxic combo, but that was in the '08 (?) timeframe.

And now you've got Big Blue letting fighters and heavies record and post on social media their highway ops... The circle is now complete, and there's no such thing as "authorized" morale... Last comment...The Highway Men are highly recommended for drunk music listening when surfing BO.net...

Hey man...@Karl Hungus has a name...better put some R-E-S-P-E-C-T on it!

It's not Friday...but today is the day for the 80th Anniversary of the greatest picture ever taken...even if it's Marines

Yeah, used to keep tabs on the r/AirForce subreddit...stopped after I realized the same. It skews younger and shoe-clerk heavy. A few Commanders (allegedly) post there, but not a lot operational depth regardless. Their bitching about The Knife & Fat Tony would have been the same regardless of who the Commander was. A few good memes, but overall a waste of time She has 8 Air Medals...which is 8 more than CQ had. I haven't served with her, but that seems like an improvement over someone who couldn't even hit the 75% threshold and took the AAM as a consolation prize.

Wonder who they're talking about? 😅

Luckily, as you alluded, we don't use the national popular vote to determine the President...and looking at the electoral vote from the states, there was a clear majority (58%) in favor of Trump as #47. I also think you need to define who thought the election was an upset. Several polls have been exposed as heavily biasing to Democratic voters and didn't reflect reality.

Here's where we disagree in the math...the next years DoD Topline is adjusted from the baseline budget ($850B), not the adjusted after top-down guidance ($782B). Wash, rinse, and repeat for the next four years. The actual FYDP re-prioritization (not reduction as it's been publicized in media) comes out to....8%. Again, not a math guy...just a knuckle-dragging pilot who's a Kinesiology major from a small land-grant college in West Texas.

Well, maybe Sullivan did, but I don't recall where you or anyone on BO did...that's my point. From a policy standpoint, it's not a departure from previous admins and no one cared enough to bitch about it. It seems like it's a blatantly political opposition now. And again, the house vig stays in the house...the Iron Dome EO I posted earlier is a FY26 add and those funds are coming from somewhere. Can Congress add it in later as a specific appropriation for the out year, yes. Will it happen is a different question, even with a uni-party in control of 2/3 of the Federal Gov. For now, I choose to believe Congress will and we'll see the out-years adjust accordingly if they do. I'm also not a math guy and your WashPost is behind a firewall...but your 40% statement might need to have the work shown. Seems like your assumptions have inflation continuing upwards...that may be true, maybe not. I'm not concerned about the GDP percentage...I'm more concerned about the total Fed Gov spending as a percentage of GDP. Seems we're running about ~10% higher our 1980s peak, and 15% higher than 1950-1975. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Federal_state_local_percent_of_gdp.webp We need to bring it all down since I believe our debt is a bigger existential threat than Taiwan or Ukraine. I can back a robust deterrence strategy to maintain the International Rules-Based Order (which seems to breathing its last breath, unfortunately)...but I can't see the threat in either at this point that justify the continued waste of resources. I don't like wasted taxes from my own government...I hate it when it seems another government is wasting my tax dollars. But that's just me. As far as your comment about not giving up because it's hard...same can be applied to reigning in spending.

He's not directing a 30% cut...everything beyond the next POM (FY26 in this case) is an "out year" that sees massive changes when that year turns out to be the next one up. There's always an inflation adjustment to bump up the number...which by the way, the Biden Admin was using a baseline of 1.5% inflation when it was higher than that in reality, so getting an effective reduction in Defense spending power is a fine tradition across all political parties. Also...it's a reduction that flows up to SecDef to fund top-down guidance in the DOD. During the Biden and Lloyd years, a 2% POM reduction was standard. The only thing different here is the amount, but no one complained then. What's the big change to Defense priorities that POTUS mentioned in the first week of his 2nd First 100 Days? Homeland defense ain't going to pay for itself. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-directs-the-building-of-the-iron-dome-missile-defense-shield-for-america/

More US Hockey excellence...maybe we need a hockey thread to go along with football and the field fairys thread