Jump to content
Baseops Forums

slackline

Supreme User
  • Content Count

    315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

slackline last won the day on June 19 2018

slackline had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

129 Excellent

About slackline

  • Rank
    Flight Lead

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    lost

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I never said that’s what I would do. If someone goes through the process and walks out the other side, cleared, I have no choice in the matter. I’ve already seen it happen. Once again, I’m talking about the ethical side of this. People on here seem to be rooting for people to escape the consequences of their actions. You seem to never have been in a position of real leadership if you aren’t aware of the fact that there are times when you know someone is guilty of an action, but because of the loophole they found, or an investigating official screwing up somewhere along the process allows that guilty person to escape their consequences. There’s no throwing the book at that person, but I would no longer trust them with anything more important than snack-o. Once again, don’t twist what I’m saying. You say you hope not to work for me. I can tell you that feeling is mutual. I don’t want people working for me who cannot correctly read what is written, but instead choose to infer intent and guidance from their boss. Feel free to twist my words to take this down a rabbit hole we aren’t discussing. DUI is a DUI. Those can be messed up, but it’s more rare that it is messed up than it is that the member is guilty of DUI. One mistake is a horrible way to lead. Allowing people to continue to progress in our AF at a time when getting a DUI is so clearly understood as to be wrong and dangerous... That’s not a mistake. That’s a crime. It doesn’t matter how stupid anyone things the BAC is, or how it’s unfairly low. Unsure how that is still questioned. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  2. Most of you are splitting hairs. I’m not talking about legitimately innocent people. I’m talking about people who committed the crime, found a loophole, and walked because of it. The integrity about the system and the cops and everything else is a straw man argument. If the guy did it, this is a purely ethical question. Does he deserve to be free of consequences? I agree with you that the system has to be free of issues regarding integrity. To the question of a one mistake AF, no it shouldn’t be a one mistake AF. There is however a chasm of difference between a mistake and a crime. Just like there’s a massive difference between hitting a child while DUI and just DUI, but they’re both still crimes. I guess I’m harsh because while I’d be very lenient with legitimate mistakes that were unintended consequences, I will hammer a guy as hard as possible for a DUI. He absolutely can turn his life around, but not in my unit. That is a risk I’m not willing to take. You tell me, is a guy more likely to kill people if he ignores 12 hours bottle to throttle, or if he gets in his car and drives home through a neighborhood while DUI? We’d FEB a guy immediately for that, but you think they should be able to move up the ranks for doing it in a car? I know that is a harsh stance. I’m not like that with many things, but ~10K people die in drunk driving crashes a year. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  3. http:// Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  4. So for everyone saying there are ways to beat this, and how easy it is I’m curious. Are you saying a member should then be reinstated because they got off on a technicality? Maybe I’m misreading the trending comments, but I don’t want any idiot who will drive drunk in the AF. I don’t care if they beat it on a technicality. I would have zero mercy on a dude that hit my kid while DUI. A DUI that doesn’t result in an accident is just somebody being more lucky than they deserve. There is the whole “Integrity First” thing that we should all subscribe to. Again, If I’ve misread the situation, press. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  5. Not for a discussion on here, but go talk to a patch in a vault. You’d be very surprised... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  6. To be clear, I’m not arguing the merits for or against this idea. Fact is, it’s taking hold, and it won’t be going away. Regardless of what AFSOC wanted, there is a solid argument for more highly capable crews in SOCOM, and that was the one shot at relevancy for AF CSAR. They failed to seize the moment because old school though prevailed both on the rotary and fixed sides. If I were a betting man, I wouldn’t put money on AF CSAR being in it for the long haul anymore. At least not how we recognize it today. They need to adapt, accept more mission sets, and realize the AF’s way of doing PR, CSAR, is becoming obsolete in a resource scarce and A2AD environment. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  7. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27998/shot-down-the-usaf-now-wants-to-air-drop-you-an-air-taxi-to-fly-you-out-to-safety https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a27508870/air-taxi-air-force/ Did a quick, non-exhaustive search to no avail. Things like this, plus CAF PR’s inability to sell themselves to AFSOC as a worthwhile platform signify the quickly approaching end to AF CSAR. Not overnight mind you, but it’s coming... Edited to add another link. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  8. Anyone else have less taxes than normal taken out of their bonus check this year? Last one, and I’ll just set it aside for when they come for it, but it was a grand larger this year... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  9. Have the source document or linky? I’d just like to lay eyes on that so I can really be pissed... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  10. But CAA have berets... That means they're warriors... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  11. Nailed it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. RUMINT WARNING: Maybe this was discussed earlier, but reading everything in this place is one currency I haven't tried to chase... I had heard discussion on something about some kind of a loophole not requiring a waiver. A simple matter of legally not being able to extend people past 20 if you give the remainder back. No clue what/if any truth there is to that, but I'd be a fan of it were true. Mine takes me 8 months past 20 as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. That’s understandable, but it’s odd to be pushing a young-ish Capt for DO or SQ/CC. People are speeding, and it usually has snowball effects. Before you know it, master’s degrees will be required even earlier if that crap happens. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  14. Am I misunderstanding you in that young Captains should be getting DO and SQ/CC pushes? Am I taking crazy pills? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  15. Talk to anyone in AFSOC, they have no issues picking anyone up. I'm talking anyone intelligent from O-3s to O-6s who say they will drop what they're doing to go pick up Jack. Talk with anyone at staff and they get offended by the idea that they wouldn't make the pick up. Designated forces could just as easily cover the role as dedicated. CH nailed it when he talked about Stockholm Syndrome. If we're talking about what is best for the mission/USAF IPs, then Rescue belongs in AFSOC. Does it mean we lose some CRH? Yup, but it is an underpowered, undersized, too slow platform anyway. Don't be territorial. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
×
×
  • Create New...