Leaderboard

To whoever was doing acrobatics in the F35 today at 0930 at Hill: Thanks! Was headed in to get my Retirement ID, and it was a great send-off while I waited to walk in. (I know it wasn't about me...but the timing was great.)

Disagree. No I won’t elaborate.

Fundamentally, no, there isn't a difference since the voter isn't physically in a voting booth to vote. Oregon has been using mail-in voting since 1998 and in 2000 was the first state to have 100% mail-in voting for the presidential election. A GOP think tank, the Heritage Foundation data showed as of 2020, Oregon has cast 15,476,519 votes since 2000. During that time 14 fraudulent votes were attempted by mail. Voter fraud could also be considered a convicted felon trying to vote. This is another unsubstantiated claim by Trump trying to rile up his base about a "rampant problem" that doesn't exist. I voted this year in Washington via mail, just like last year. Had no issues. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/02/low-rates-of-fraud-in-vote-by-mail-states-show-the-benefits-outweigh-the-risks/

Sorry, I probably should have also mentioned Songtan Sally moved to Camp Humphreys and will no longer seduce you into a sewer with a red balloon.

You lose track of time. It 0110 past curfew and you're 6 Moscow Mules in at G2's. You try to walk back to your apartment without getting caught but make a mistake detour to EFES kebab for some sleep snacks. As you step out, in front of you is town patrol, walking your direction. You look left, you look right, and in a side alley there is Songton Sally. "Honey... Honey.... Come here....." You have the aircraft:

Based on that logic, 1/4 of our military should be in the desert and that's where we typically have fought our wars in the past several decades. But this isn't a military decision, it's a presidential one based on politics. I agree that we don't need such a large force in Europe, but the same elsewhere. I don't think it's as much of a deterrent as we are led to believe. If Kim Jong-un gets the harebrained idea to cross the DMZ, no number of conventional troops in the south are going to stop that. That bloodbath will occur despite our presence. Our current presence in Europe is not about WWII, it's about a commitment to NATO which was never about preventing the rise of another Nazi Germany. It was about the Soviet threat and while the name may have changed, that threat is still real and even stronger. Countering it conventionally during the Cold War was actually easy as it could be done simply through numbers, but we still haven't figured out how to deal with new informational today and it's hurting our ability to shape and influence that part of the world badly. Plus, none of this is about the overall mission of NATO and EUCOM, it's about Trump putting the screws to Merkel. Not that she doesn't deserve it, but his claim that this is all due to Germany not putting enough of its GDP for defense is ridiculous when the countries that will benefit from this move spend even less. Germany does have a stronger economy, but that is not the point. This is an emotional move by Trump and one that makes no sense. And your point about a "33% manning boost" is moot. You act like the forces in Europe are not doing anything, whereas in fact they train as much if not more than those CONUS. That robbing Peter to pay Paul comparison doesn't increase our investment or capabilities. It may reduce the cost of having forces (it's cheaper to station people in some of the shitty assignments Stateside versus Europe), but it doesn't make us more effective operationally. In fact, I would argue the latter is the case. Russia is kicking our ass informationally the same as China is kicking it economically. COVID has put a bit of a damper on it, but they'll adjust and survive; but I believe much of the chaos in this country is due to the amount of misinformation being pumped into it from abroad. To quote Agent K, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Society in general is gullible and will believe whatever the media (social or otherwise) tell them, and will respond accordingly as they don't know any better. Ever wonder how one dog can control and corral hundreds of sheep? Same analogy. But anyone who thinks this move will somehow improve our influence worldwide is sadly mistaken. It's politics pure and simple, and costly ones at that. I've spent time at SHAPE and Patch, it will cost billions of dollars to accomplish and in the end nothing will change. And I didn't add a 'STS' to that as literally we the taxpayers will be taking it up the ass for this decision...

Well, better trample liberties and call into question the whole system for electorally insignificant fraudulent votes. Then, since the states get to decide - push the narrative of moving the election. Doesn't sound fascist at all. Where I was at in TX, they did electronic voting without paper. That, to me, is highly more susceptible to centralized fraud than mail-in ballots. New place does mail only, I'm cool with it. First thing I did after signing the closing docs was register to vote.

Someone enlighten me. Is there really a difference between mail-in and absentee? Why is one good and the other not?

It's still Korea...

Here is what I posted to a post from Prozac in a different thread on the topic regarding our national interest in the Pacific vs Europe: Noone here has forgotten the whole lesson about US involvement in European instability. However, that lesson is receiving heavy scrutiny now because of its cost. And it should receive scrutiny. There are no "natural laws" or "rules" in geo-politics. We should always be adjusting our thought. First off, I'm skeptical anytime mentions US foreign policy and "track record" or "history" in the same sentence. 200 years isn't history. Its a sneeze. China has seen continuous governance under a unified identify for over 3000 years. Sink that in a for a bit because its a bit amazing to think about. Sure they've had overthrows and invasions that took power, but they always remained predominantly identified as a single people (disregarding discussions of sub cultures like the Han, im talking specifically, how long has there been a "place identified as China"). So building trend data off of two events that happened only 20 years apart probably isn't prudent global planning on our part. Second, saying that a secure "Europe" is better for American prosperity is a bit dishonest. Europe is a geographical feature that says nothing about where the global balance of power lies. Pre-WW2, many of those powers happened to be conjugated in Europe. Today? Not a single European player (outside maybe France in the UK as notable exceptions) has global influence. The center of power has shifted dramatically from Western Europe to the Pacific. The top 6 military power centers in the world on the Global Firepower Index all have borders on the Pacific Ocean. (8 if you count Britain and France's Pacific holdings) 6/12 of the largest economies are on the Pacific, including the Top 3, the US, China and Japan. The problem with the above philosophy is it puts WAY too much importance on how much influence Europe has on the world order in modern terms. Third, we tend to have a lens that puts too much emphasis on the WW's as what happened in Western Europe. We forget, that they were global wars, and especially in WW2, most of the fighting did not take place in Western Europe. I promise you the Chinese don't frame their historic perceptions of WW2 as something that mainly occurred in Europe. As our #1 adversary, that should be something that we take important note of. Fourth, having the basic premise that a continent cant organize their shit so we have to occupy and pacify them for our own successful aims just doesn't sound like a good long term strategy. We invest 320K DoD personnel in Europe. That is literally 1/4 of our entire military, on one foreign continent. The largest military in Western Europe is the US military. Think about that for a minute, and then think about what your squadron could do with a 33% manning boost? To quote your terms, why are we spending "on peace and prosperity in Europe" when we should be spending on Peace and Prosperity in the United States, the largest threat to which, is in Asia. I totally understand and hear your point of view. But I find it outdated and irrelevant with what is actually going on in the world right now. I think there is a growing crowd of skeptics that question if Europe is "worth" our investment

I haven't received anything from them. It's only been about 10 days, so it'll probably take a little longer.

Please elaborate... Russia is more of a threat to us militarily than China. Economically, it's the other way around; but force presence is contingent on the military threat...

Having been stationed both in Europe and Asia, I would have to completely disagree from the point of view of the people being stationed overseas that Asia would be better. For national security, maybe, although Russia isn't the Russia Hillary would have had you believe with the reset button. And if the Korean War heats up again, the last thing we need is more people there to get slimed on day 1.

OK, it's lederhosen and not a dirndl, but it's still a great pic!

Well, I made my opinion on this clear in another thread. But my thoughts are "bye Felicia" (to Germany). Of all the countries we partner with and I've worked with I've felt the Germans are the most abusive to our generosity. Here is an example: https://www.stripes.com/news/europe/harassed-by-german-tax-offices-more-us-military-families-face-financial-threats-1.638976

You mean the movie Pearl Harbor, right? I agree, I'm still traumatized.

OK, I know this has to be someone from here... 🤣🤣🤣

Haha, forgot to add /s at the end. Bad attempt at a joke.

Lol, AFSOC has tried to claim it's better than Hurby? That's rich. I spent 3 years there (Palace Chased to avoid spending indefinitely longer), left 6 years ago and haven't missed it since.

...and yet the USAF still contends retention isn't affected by basing choices or lack thereof. *Laughs in AF 1288*

You mean they wouldn’t enjoy the stench of cow @ss when the winds were from the wrong direction?

Are you trying to say 6-9 jack and cokes affect my geography skills? Well I guess South East Asia is where the war will be. After everyone on the peninsula is dead.

Well for one, I didn’t join the South East Asia Military. The flying sucks. It isolates people from their families, it’s an ordeal to move there, especially with pets, and isn’t like American culture. Germany was an awesome assignment, but much more American. I feel bad for the dudes on AD if/when they can DM and trap you between moody and Korea. The AF needs to clue into the fact people don’t want to live in the middle of nowhere/10,000 miles away from their family members. If we can put fighters in one of the largest cities in America (Phoenix), then clearly they don’t need to be in tons of shit holes like Moody, Shaw, cannon, etc.

Probably similar reasons to disliking Germany but love Cannon