All Activity

Anyone know how many got picked up for UPT last year? I know the statistic they published probably didn't include the late add-ons. Top of my nugget I know 4 people who weren't even alternates, but got picked up a month or so later. I'm assuming number has to be at least above 100. Just curious.

Maybe when you decimate the heads, the guys with the guns are going to be calling the shots and the suits you're negotiating with have no say in what happens.

Reminds me when I was in SOS and we had the ANG/Reserve briefing. They were going on about how involved they were augmenting the AD force during the Iraq/AFG steady state. They asked , "Isn't that great?" I guess maybe if they're trying to get those points for retirement or whatever. But, no, I think utilizing these forces like their AD is hiding real manpower issues, and abusing the folks who signed up for a "less strenuous" but longer reward commitment. Happy for feedback, but that shit bugged the fuck outta me.

As many times as the admin wants to keep raking in the profits from online betting platforms.

Sorry but I’m not going to re-litigate every foreign policy intervention in modern history in your requested format.. I doubt anyone here wants that anyway. But in general I think just wars are defensive ones. Politicians know this is how most people feel which is probably why every nonsense offensive intervention is sold to the public by invoking “WMDs” or “preventing the spread of communism” or some other “Imminent threat.” Also it’s funny you say I’d make a better politician than soldier because I’m generally anti-war. AFAIK it was our military senior leaders advising Trump against moves on Kharg island while Lindsey Graham was pleasuring himself to the thought of another Iwo Jima. If you think our politicians are against wars, I genuinely don’t know who you’re talking about. But this is the Iran thread and I’m talking about this war, the lies that got us into it, and the chaotic mess our president continues to exacerbate with his nonsense statements and nonexistent strategy. I noticed the strait is closed again.. so when oil spikes and the Dow takes a dump tomorrow will we be admitting the victory declaration was slightly premature? I wonder how many more strait of Hormuz Open-Closed-Open-Closed cycles will need to happen before we realize that Iran isn’t quite as decimated as we’d like to believe and the president is just wishcasting foreign policy by tweet

Got intrigued enough to fact check it. Sadly wrong, although still entertaining. Al Gore: Mar 31 1948 Hillary Clinton: Oct 26 1947 John Kerry: Dec 11 1943 Bill Clinton: Aug 19 1946

Apr 17: “Iran has agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again. It will no longer be used as a weapon against the World!” Apr 19: “I hope they take it <a deal> because, if they don’t, the US is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!” Fellas, that’s it. You heard it. No more Mr Nice Guy. This shit is so incredibly embarrassing and stupid.

Your comment actually does bring up an interesting point even despite your framing of internal government fracturing in Iran as an unmitigated win. Who is in charge in Iran right now? Are we even negotiating with the right people? If we agree to something will it be followed? Some of us kooks against more middle eastern regime change boondoggles actually warned about this.. when you create a power vacuum, often the most radical elements fill the void. Gee where have I heard this story before

Matt Lohmeier’s story. “Call sign Courage” https://callsigncourage.com

First time here! Looking to retake the AFOQT here in a month or so, and then fingers crossed 🤞

Hey ya'll, long time. Its good to see the site is still up and running. I have a trip coming up, and am really excited as it is my first time out the door. However, with me still trying to fly raptors for my home squadron, It made me curious. what are some do's and don'ts? My supervisor who is also trying to fly raptors told me that the pilots like to take us out sometimes and I really don't want to mess anything up. Although I have built somewhat of a rapport the last couple years, I want to connect with the guys even further without hindering what I already have. I'm sure I am overthinking this, but was just wondering if any of you fighter or heavy guys could share your 2 cents. I appreciate the help as always gents! -vvikz

First time applicant as well! and Yes. Hopefully I'm able to submit a package this year. Been a busy year.

Again, this has already been addressed and answered so now we're just replaying the same song. Prices spike during conflict - we know this. The point is that things are trending in the right direction. Not getting worse. You're ignoring that. They still have ballistic missiles? Ok, why aren't they using them then? Why aren't they fighting with everything they've got to stop us from collapsing their economy and regime? If they're so strong, they'd be striking back - that they're not is the tell. If they thought they had a shot militarily, they'd be taking it. They're calling "uncle" is what it is. But you're ignoring that. The mullahs rule Iran? Says you. Currently it seems to me that there is a split developing between elements of the IRGC and the foreign ministry - as evidenced by Iranian authorities saying the straight is open, whilst elements of their "military" fire on ships. Seems like some sort of fracture may be presently developing internally. But what do I know? I'm only reading the news. You're ignoring that. What is the alternative history you'd like to have seen play out? You won't articulate it. You will reference past agreements which weren't working (October 7th anyone?), but point at it as if it were succeeding. You ignore that. By my calculus, we're knocking down foreign policy dominoes one after another. You clearly believe in the Obama/Jake Sullivan-style approach to foreign policy. I don't. That approach was never feasible and has been fully discredited. I get it. You don't like this war. Strange considering it's gone quite well given previous estimates as to how "difficult" an Iranian conflict would be. Do you not see them as our adversary? Do you not see the utility and sometimes necessary use of military force? That's what it seems like to me. You strike me as someone who'd rather be a politician than a soldier. What about this: what conflicts in the past, which we have engaged in did you agree or disagree with? You can put a simple +/- if you think our participation was good or bad on the whole. I just don't think you believe in just war. Bosnia? Desert Storm? Iraq II? Afghanistan? Libya? Korea? Somalia? You don't even need to do that. Just give a little expository about any modern conflict you think we were justified in our intervention. See, I'm beginning to suspect that you just don't believe in war as a means to an end. You're ignoring too many positives for it to be anything except that. That we have a current one going on is just the latest thing you get to come onto the internet and vent your butt hurt about.

I'm not very optimistic either. However, I do think slowly releasing funds, or as ClearedHot_AI states, "leverage" after conditions are met and continue to be met, is very different than dumping off pallets of hundreds. If we're gonna do that let's just pay them in pennies, released from high altitude. We're discontuing them anyways...

Most definitely a no dibs on goats and sheep.

Kind of like the “Maryland father”

I use AI to clean up my spelling errors...YMMV

If you’re gonna use AI, at least remove the Em-Dashes 😂 Have the robots taken over the old guy accounts?

I bet if you ask Obama, he would probably say he intended to accomplish the same goal by using money. How or where it comes from doesn't make this time different. It didn't work last time, I bet it won't work this time.

I recommended a slight change to the deal since some in Iran want to fuck around some more. Subtract our expenses so far from the $20B. Edit: I say the families of those killed by Iran get a nice fat check. Iran's gonna need a bigger pile of money.

The biggest contributor to that is our total force size. For the guys that weren't born yet: during Desert Storm we had at least one ANG fighter unit in just about every state. In the subsequent no-fly zone patrols, guard units did 30 day deployments and the part timers swapped out half way through. Our CAF is a little over 1/3 the size it was then. Now most ANG units that aren't on the coasts can't even train with other squadrons on a normal basis because they're too far apart for normal training.

As someone with a TS (who retired 6 years ago) and used to have some fun upper clearances: open source usually had around 80% of what we had total Intel for. I do not buy the Intel is completely different from open source game. Also strait is closed again 😅

Despite the sniping from the trolls I think there’s a difference between writing a check and unlocking leverage—and too many people are blurring that line when it comes to Iran. In 2016, the Barack Obama administration transferred roughly $1.7B to Iran. That wasn’t foreign aid—it was the settlement of a decades-old legal dispute over pre-1979 funds, including $400M that was literally delivered in cash because sanctions had cut Iran off from the global banking system. It looked bad. Optically, strategically it handed the regime a win with minimal immediate pressure tied to behavior. What’s being discussed now is fundamentally different. We’re not talking about pallets of cash showing up overnight. We’re talking about controlled, conditional access to Iranian funds—money that is already theirs, but frozen—and releasing it in phases tied to compliance, outcomes, and leverage. That distinction matters. I am not in favor of flooding Iran with cash they can redirect to proxy groups or destabilizing activities. That’s reckless. Economic power isn’t just about denial, it’s about calibration. If you only ever tighten the vise, eventually you lose the ability to trade relief for behavior. And then your only remaining tools are escalation or stalemate. The goal isn’t to “help Iran.” The goal is to shape outcomes in a way that serves U.S. interests and regional stability.

I made a comment about giving Iran money last time in relation to our letting them sell their sanctiined oil this time. I'm still against both of those actions At face value, I'm completely against allowing them access to $20 billion in frozen assets. However, if they agree to allow the IAEA come in and remove all of their nuclear material, and oversee the dismantling of their nuclear program, I think there's a case to be made for allowing them access to some or all of these funds. The release of funds wouldn't start until those actions occurred, and would be spread out over a period of say 10 years upon continued IAEA inspection access and "good behavior". I unfortunately doubt this will happen.