Leaderboard

I swear some of the airmen in the MSG have to be deaf and blind as it is.... Doubt we will see much difference in job performance.

What kills me about MX playing stats games is that those stats should help highlight things like under-manning and acquisitions problems. Guess it's better to hide the problems and kick the can down the road.

Part of the problem is we operators need to do a better job educating the support folks. Granted you'll find a lot who could care less but still. Back when I was a young captain and the squadron EWO (insert nav joke here), I took some of the defense avionics troops into the sim so they could kinda see how we use the stuff (would have loved to get them a flight, but crew chiefs should go first and not enough flights to go around). They were really jazzed about it and the senior guy was a MSgt who told me he'd been working on the B-1 for 15 years and this was the first time a crewdawg had taken him into the sim to explain how we use the equipment he worked on. Did the same thing for the radar maintainers and got the same response.

Or dental school, med school, oil rig work. Jesus Christ, it's amazing how much the nav mentality abounds amongst public workers.

There is clearly a 'War Against the Deaf' when it comes to the Air Force. I'm very glad to see these proposed changes, you know, because of equality and fairness.

So, we are cutting people currently on duty...and we're opening the entry requirements to people who are 39 years old and deaf people. Does anyone else feel like we are sending a mixed message here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zl-Yw19utQ

Sadly, this...

If they'll sit in finance and fix my DTS/PCS voucher/DITY promptly via email, I say bring em on. But I agree, it's more social experiment on a captive populace by the California Democrat than a realistic future.

Irreverent--free people with liberty should never be forced by the government to do a certain task. But to answer your question more directly, the Wars would have turned out the way they would have turned out (not necessarily the same way they 'did' in fact turn out). If such a war is so unpopular that you cannot get enough volunteers to sign up for service, or cannot raise sufficient funds via taxes to properly incentivize enough people to volunteer (or fund the logistics for that matter), then do the American people really want to engage in the war? And if a follow up question would be something to the effect of: What if the mainland US was invaded and the volunteer military wasn't large enough to fight off the attack? My answer would be: Is the country, as it currently is, worth having/saving if enough able volunteers will not choose to voluntarily fight to save what we have? My answer to that question would be no. The people is what has made our country great...when the people become more and more 'less great' (as I believe we have been seeing for many decades), then it's no surprise that the country becomes less great. It happened to Rome.

Part of it is our culture, we allow people to get away with shit too much, and pretty soon all our support staff acts like they work at the dmv.

Many countries that have had conscription (national service) have given up the practice (the UK abolished theirs in 1960, as did Australia in 1972; and France "suspended" theirs in 2001 as did Germany in 2011). Note that not all involved military service, my German cousin served as a firefighter for several years in lieu of joining the Army. William F. Buckley wrote an interesting book (more like a long essay) on national service titled 'Gratitude' in which he advocated national service as a prerequisite to receiving government aid (e.g. student loans, college grants, etc.) or other benefits. Thus, it isn't mandatory but somewhat "highly encouraged!" Buckley offered this idea nearly 25 years ago, and while society has changed during that time (we were able to support two MRCs without needing military conscription, and are in the midst of a drawdown of the services), I still see the benefits of such a program. Perhaps not to the extent that Buckley proposed, but something that would work these days... Cheers! M2

Got it... you think it would have just worked out. I suppose Britain just needed better recruiting posters? Considering they could barely hold together while we dithered on joining the war (with most Americans supporting conscription), you'll pardon my skepticism. The history doesn't support it. The UK, Russia and US, the countries most responsible for winning the war, all relied on conscription, and in the case of the US and UK, conscription efforts were increased when voluntary means didn't raise enough manpower. An elite unit of volunteers is not enough. You don't win wars with Navy SEALs .

The income tax is theft, regardless of the 16th Amendment. The FairTax is not, and would be much better for the country.

Sorry, I don't care how "good for the country" it theoretically is. It's not Liberty to force anyone in a free society into mandatory compulsory service for anything. Ever. Yes, that includes the abominable draft. I cannot think of ANY reason, at any time, for a free citizen to be compelled to perform service in the name of government, under threat of punishment or imprisonment.

We are officially a jobs program. National employment, not defense. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

What are these mythical nav creatures you speak of