nsplayr

I think this issue gets hand-waived in the overall discussion of sending light attack to Guard MQ-9 units, and that's a mistake. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big proponent of light attack and also having pilots physically fly in aircraft, but bottom-line, the AFSC makeup of an MQ-9 squadron going forward is not conducive to what the AF has typically required for a manned two-seat fighter-type aircraft. 11U pilots, great, no questions asked, front seat for you and have fun raging. 18X pilots...um...back seat? But you're not trained to running a sensor and that kinda seems like a downgrade from PIC but I guess maybe you'll take it? As a former ISR CSO, future MQ-9 pilot, I'm game 100% to ride as the trunk monkey, but not everyone will be. Enlisted SOs...um...well that's a pickle, and that's at least 1/3 of your squadron. The AF has (foolishly) shown little to no appetite for letting scruffy, knuckle-dragging enlisted do what will be required of a light attack back-seater, with the exception being on the AC-130W/J. Hell, they won't even let MQ-9 SOs make IMINT update calls on the radio FFS! I'm a big fan of a fast-track-to-commissioning like you said as a better solution than enlisted pilots of re-creating a Warrant Officer system, but I'm not holding my breath that it will ever happen. Enlisted and Officer MICs...yea...squadron intel for light attack doesn't quite need the bodies that RPA does, guess you'll be finding new jobs and/or not participating in this new mission. While we're at it, I'm also skeptical of the ideas that A) light attack is a good fit for brand new, fresh pilot training graduates because it's "easy," especially if they move to light attack after a shortened syllabus, and B) that creating 300+ new cockpits when we barely have enough pilots to fly our current taskings is a great plan. Same goes if the AF plans to use 12X CSOs in the back seat...creating 750 additional CSOs out of thin air (@ a 2.5/tail manning ratio on 300 tails) would be a SIGNIFICANT challenge given the relatively small total number of CSOs in the AF currently. But what do I know...I just work here 🤷‍♂️

I mean, I'm enjoying the irony here my friend. I'm not a scientist (I just play one on TV!), but in the last year or two we had pretty salient examples all of the things you're asking about: Major flooding in Houston after Hurricane Harvey https://www.texasmonthly.com/energy/climate-change-experts-weigh-houston-flooded-hurricane-harvey/ Category 5 Hurricane Maria was arguably the second-deadliest natural disaster to ever hit the US. 2017 was the second-costliest hurricane season for the US ever. There was a viral video of an emaciated polar bear making the rounds online. One data point, polar bears aren't in as much trouble as other species, yadda yadda, but here's your hard-hitting video https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/starving-polar-bear-video-climate-change-spd/ Here's NASA's data on temperature changes. Take it for what you will, but I know the new NASA administrator and he's a Trump-appointee who is very conservative politically. Not that data gives a shit about politics, but feel free to call him up if you think the data is skewed. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ I'm not a fan of climate change hyperventilation, but it's much worse to dismiss the problem. What exactly is the downside of accelerating the switch to renewable, US-based energy sources that don't pollute as much? We still extract plenty of fossil fuels but there is clearly room for both. What is the downside to leading the world in clean technology? What is the downside to energy efficiency measures and reducing waste? I really don't understand why this issue is often argued from the standard left/right points of view... It's like Pascal's Wager. The downside of getting it wrong (i.e. climate change is #fakenews and NBD) is huge, while the cost of taking action, even if you don't believe the data and experts, is much lower.

I mean, the world took action via the Montreal Protocol in 1987 that banned the CFCs that were harming the ozone layer, and we're seeing the problem begin to subside. That's why the worst predictions didn't come true - the world got together and took action. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/ozone-layer-mend-thanks-chemical-ban

I am a Nashville guy as well and we do occasionally hire off the street but you have to rush the unit, i.e. come to drill weekend via a pre-coordinated visit with our pilot recruiting officer. Badmouthing the Herk is not a good opening statement anywhere, let alone in Nashville. From talking to a good buddy of mine and hearing his experience, Memphis is only hiring (or strongly preferring) current & qualified C-17 IPs. If age is the biggest factor then HerkBum is correct that RPA is a good option although if you feel the need for speed and physically being in an airplane obviously it may not be a good fit and that's totally fine.

My Guard RPA unit has people rushing all the time and is a very favorable place to be IMHO. If your life goals are to fly high and go fast, yea, it's not a good fit, but go and actually talk to the people doing the mission in the units you're interested in and get some truth data for yourself. PM if you're in or willing to travel to TN and want to visit for a UTA sometime. For background, I'm a similar age to you, flew on AD for 7+ years and was part of another Guard unit previously; Guard MQ-9 is by far the best deal for me and my family at this stage of our lives and I don't see any shortage of opportunities ahead of me.

Since we're speculating from the peanut gallery...how about Occam's Razor: he did the crime as described. Anyone who tried to cheat at SOS and volunteered for AFPAK Hands should get their head checked anyways.

WOW...1 SOW/CC who is being publically cheered by CSAF doesn’t make BG? WTF is up with that??

Minor point, but Fed tax receipts data only goes through 2017 Q4 as far as I’ve seen and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law in Dec of 2017, won’t be super notice let for workers until tax season 2019 for the CY2018. The only real thing you could potentially see so far is when Q1 data from the Fed comes out if receipts are higher or lower than Q4 of 2017 since withholdings for most workers have been adjusted and businesses would have paid their first quarter of taxes at the new rates. Like you mentioned however, it’s gonna hard to break out that signal one way or the other among the noise of the ebbs and flows of normal short-term economic expansion and contraction and also the long-term economic growth that has continued for many years now with only one quarter of data. Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Tennessee at one point included the Air Medal (meritorious) as one of the military plates that qualified for free lifetime registration and exemption from emissions testing. That ends up being about $100 per year for life. Word was the legislature quickly did a 180 once they saw the data on just how many Tennesseans has an Air Medal on their records (3x flying wings in the state ANG) i.e. lost revenue for the state! I simultaneously think it’s unwarranted for a relatively easy-to-come-by medal, while also knowing I would have absolutely gotten one had I lived in TN when that window of opportunity was open. Something about the duality of man... I agree with the general sentiment that the military appreciation oftentimes feels or should feel embarrassing for service members. People would much rather give you 10% off and unfurl an enourmas flag before kickoff if it means they don’t have to take your place on the front lines someday.

AAFMAA was significantly cheaper for much more coverage for me as an average dude, non-smoker in decent shape. YMMV.

Phew! Glad those two things were entirely separate. I thought we might be dealing with an R. Kelly-type situation here...

Sarcasm detector function check needed.

My employer's 401(k) works the same way...they match per pay period so you have to actually contribute each pay period, i.e. don't max out early. From what I understand that is pretty common, is it not? Overall - recommend this get moved to one of the BRS or other retirement threads.

I don’t agree that we could have gotten a substantially better deal but it’s a hypothetical that we’ll never be able to answer. The deal is what it is and we have to go forward. They had a fairly rapid breakout capability in 2015, but post-JCPOA its been 3 years, we’ve increased that breakout time, gained inspections and BL they don’t have the bomb. To me, that’s a win. I’m if you think we can unilaterally rip to the deal, turn back the clock to pre-JCPOA, apply new sanctions, and actually achieve a better outcome that doesn’t involve a costly war...call me skeptical. The link below is basically where I am re: missiles and other bad behavior. It would be great to address and we should try, but the lack of those issues in the JCPOA and the sunsets that were included doesn’t mean it wasn’t a step on the right direction. We negotiated breakout time up from < 1 year to > 10 years when it was signed without needing a war and while preserving our leverage on nukes after the sunsets run out and on other issues throughout. https://www.mei.edu/content/article/limit-irans-missiles-sure-first-come-plan

I would agree that the fewer nuclear armed countries, the better. I'd disagree that helping the Saudis or Israelis strike is a good plan...not sure we need another regional/proxy war in the Middle East now or ever. I'm really interested to see if anyone can articulate a strategy for improving the situation re: Iran nukes/missiles/shennanigans that doesn't involve war. Obviously yea, just invade, regime chance and all those problems stop; but now you have all new and more costly problems. I'm not here to argue that JCPOA was perfect or even addresses all the pertinent issues, but I don't have a good feel for what a different strategy would be now other than war. If you were President Trump and wanted a better outcome, can you get there without strikes? CH's plan I guess is one...snap back sanctions and push internal discontent to overthrow the regime...

I hear your points here, but #1 is immensely overshadowed by #3. We did return frozen assets, but they pale in comparison to the money they're making by selling oil. I didn't love the optics of literally shipping they money, but that was a relatively small concession as part of the overall deal. #2 is like saying that the deal didn't stop Iran from making peanut butter sandwiches. I mean, that's true, but that's not what the deal was about! The deal was about stopping them from making nuclear weapons, not limiting their ballistic missile programs. If we are able to negotiate limits to their ballistic missile programs under the current administration, that would be great & we should try. Not that you don't already know this, but #3 isn't a bug, it's a feature. This was the big concession that Iran wanted in order to make the rest of the deal palatable to them. Kindergarten explanation: stop nuke development and allow IAEA inspections, and we'll let you sell oil again. If we don't give them #3 we have no deal and this is all moot, so I'm not sure how you could have possibly negotiated otherwise. Isn't the whole purpose of diplomacy w/ hostile countries working toward a return to normal, peaceful relations? This deal was a step in that direction...we can't expect for them to agree to IAEA inspections while still living under a harsh sanctions regime if those were the two primary things being discussed. Lifting the sanctions was our leverage, it was the thing that they wanted that bought us the things we wanted. I could see arguing that it wasn't worth it, that we didn't negotiate well and what we gave up was more than what we got; if so then cool, understood. I will throw my hat in with Mattis and say it's an imperfect arms control agreement that could be improved but overall all sides seem to be complying with its terms. So if I'm paraphrasing you correctly, you'd like to go back to pre-JCPOA sanctions and give that some more time for an internal revolution against the mullahs? What's the plan if/when they start working toward a bomb again with no inspections? Are we confident we can detect all such activity and calculate their breakout time with any precision relying solely on intel penetrating their operations? To me it just seems like a setup for war, and given the past comments from high-ranking admin officials (especially Pompeo & Bolton) it seems like that's maybe their objective in the first place.

I curious for any Iran hawks out there, what do you envision is the plan you’d rather pursue? I’m assuming decertify the JCPOA on 12 May...then what? Credit where credit’s due...DPRK’s recent peace overtures should be viewed very skeptically, but they are also promising. Much better to be negotiating peace and denuclearization, even warily, rather than threatening war IMHO. My view is that it’s mostly the same for Iran. They’re not a good regime and are involved in lots of other nefarious stuff (kinda like DPRK). But I’d rather enforce/amend/negotiate over the JCPOA rather than threaten war if that is indeed step 2 from above. In general I’m in the “do something” camp re: foreign policy without exactly being a hawk, and to me negotiating the JCPOA and now enforcing it while checking Iran’s bad behavior elsewhere is the something I’m a fan of doing. Honest question, not looking for a cookie-cutter left/right blackhole debate

Man, that sucks dude. I have no idea why they let me through their vetting process but I guess it's a good heads up for next year if they decide to turn it off.

I did, yea...have has both CSR (converted from a CSP) and Ink Business card for several years. IDK, try again with a different person maybe? I was surprised they waived mine since my active orders were short-term but hey, I'll take it!

+1 to above Chase recently waived/refunded the annual fees on several cards that I have, including chase sapphire reserve. If you’re AD or on active orders in the Guard call them up.

Over 6,900 hours in the C-130. Nice.

This sums up my point perfectly as only the fine scholars at Duffle Blog can. The whole article is f-ing savage! https://www.duffelblog.com/2018/04/colonel-gave-reenlistment-oath-dinosaur-puppet-forced-retire-rank-jeffrey-sinclair/ “In my estimation, allowing your subordinate to reenlist with a sock puppet is approximately half as bad as forcing your subordinate to perform oral sex and then threatening to kill her,” said Haston, as he attempted to wipe a mustard stain off of his uniform. “We aim to promote good leadership, which is exemplified by actions such as destroying morale within your organization by levying draconian punishments for minor infractions for the sake of political expediency, kowtowing to the whims of social media vigilantes suffering from Outraged Veteran Syndrome, and maintaining a body fat percentage under 45%.” Duffle Blog, while also hoping this will blow over soon so we can get back to quietly killing bad guys without making headline news...

This is true in general...all three admin have taken an EXTREMELY broad view of the powers of the President under Article II, the 2001 AUMF, and the Cartman Doctrine (I do what I want!). Congress has shown little to no appetite to intervene or check the President, which is what the Constitution calls for. This is also true, and I appreciate people who have been a little more consistent saying they either oppose all military actions not authorized by Congress or side more with the executive's ability to conduct the strikes regardless of who that executive is. I may disagree with the effectiveness of certain actions vs others, but I'm usually on the side saying that the President can take action pretty broadly while holding a parallel though in my mind that Congress doing its Constitutional duty and act like they're a co-equal branch of government. This I disagree with re: Syria. It's widely understood that the 2001 AUMF and especially Article II aren't bound by geography, but more by group and/or purpose and/or duration. Striking AQ in Afghanistan (purpose of 2001 AUMF) was extended to include AQ and AQ-affiliated groups all around the globe. That 2001 AUMF authority was then somewhat tenuous extended then to ISIS and wherever ISIS operated. I don't necessarily agree that those legal gymnastics pass the smell test, but at least IMHO Bush, Obama and now Trump have wide authority to order strikes on AQ and ISIS without strict geographic limits based on what WH lawyers have cooked up over the last 15+ years. Attacking the Syrian government led by Assad is a whole different animal, and not fundamentally different than attacking any other sovereign country. As you correctly point out, Obama was on much shakier legal ground to order the operations against the Gaddafi regime in Libya and I think Trump is in the same boat ordering strikes against Assad in Syria. Not that I'm specifically opposed; both of those guys are total assholes and I think we should have and should be doing more to stop them from massacring their own people, but it would be much better for Congress to vote on a new AUMF for the worldwide right against AQ & ISIS and give specific authorizations for state-on-state fights like Libya and Syria.

FWIW the 118th OG is a flying unit all day every day and twice on Sundays Negative ghostrider. 16 years of service and a PA/customs & courtesies fuck-up means you should be shown the door? Crashing airplanes negligently, getting others injured/killed, losing your weapon, etc. will all get you stars on your shoulder from what I've seen (no shit), but something like this means you get the boot no questions asked? I agree with pawnman above - this is an ass-chewing punishment, not a lose-your-retirement punishment. I know the internet outrage machine is turned up to 11 and it's a nice neat narrative that, "Haha, look at those POGs in the ANG with their fucking sock puppets!" and I cringed and face-palmed too, especially because this was right down the street from where our guys are sitting and taking the fight to the enemy, but zoom out a little bit and realize we've all made mistakes that would probably severely embarrass the Air Force. Luckily for most of us there weren't any cameras around.

I guess I'm saying not all players in this game have been consistent in their advice, Paul Ryan included. Both of us seem to be a little more consistent in calling for action in both cases (2013 and 2018). I also appreciate folks, like Helo above, who are consistent in opposition. The typical political hypocrisy bothers me more than either consistent position, with allowances for situations being different over time. And that being said, I don't totally disagree with Ryan's advice in 2013...limited strikes that show basically "this is the best we can do" that ultimately don't provide a deterrent aren't necessarily worthwhile and can even be harmful in that they demonstrate the limits of our political will compared to actors like Assad that are clearly willing to go all the way in order to stay in power.