Leaderboard

That's the full length version of the 5 part documentary Vice has been running on IS over the past week. It is an absolute must-watch, and will probably change your opinion of IS. They're like nothing we have seen. This is not some disorganized band of shitheads. I don't think the word "terrorist" applies to them anymore. They are a rogue state at this point. A few 500lb bombs and some MREs will do nothing to even slow them down. We're going to have to decide if we want to fully engage with them (total war) or stay out of it. Half measures will do nothing.

The endless blinking continues!!

This thread is useless without stories about said capt america.

I think this applies to ~95%, if not more, of our foreign policy over the past several years

Not that I ever had a rough landing, but if I did then I am sure the gusty winds were responsible. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

If it's only money then send some my way....

She sucks, but does she suck as much as current elected "leadership?"

It's funny that finance only knows the parts of the JFTR that will fuck you over. Anything in your advantage is like voodoo to them.

Thats about what I figured.... Anybody in the room who doesnt see your view point obviously isnt as smart as you... thats exactly how your opinion comes off in these threads. Like every action is a narrative and your the guy that can see through it all. You repeatedly make comments along the lines of us being Mercenaries or unwilling accomplices to the global capitalist Machine of the 1% or something of that nature... So why the hell are you still here after you've seen the truth from the inside. Do you think that your service is the inside route to convince everybody that what we are doing is wrong? If your so bound and determined if there is some sort of moral high ground that you need to stand up on to challenge this status quo what are you doing wasting your time here? You make the statement like its somehow our job to stand up to the leadership to challenge the civil authority.... Thats the kind of shit you see in backward ass South American countries where the Military decides "F this guy we know better." A thorough understanding of the constitution would let you understand that just about everybody with the exception of Ron Paul understands that an Authorization to use Force (which was given for our little romp in Iraq) carries the same standing as a Declaration of War, the title is just more politically palatable in todays day and age. No different than its the Department of Defense but we have a hell of a lot of Offensive Firepower when it used to be the War Department. Words change, meanings are the same. What are we supposed to do the day that the people in charge tell you drop that weapon on XXX, not fly? Go on camera in your uniform like those asshats on Facebook and let yourself become a tool in another nation/force/regimes propaganda? Its the military, we are the ultimate force behind the political will of our nation. We are not beholden to ourselves and our decisions on how we should be doing things beyond executing a policy. If thats your attitude your in the same boat as Caesar. Your voice in the discussion is your vote, not your uniform. And your moral objection to a nation acting within its interests is just terrifyingly short sighted. Nationalism is not a goal I would support, but to be so naive to think that if we just take some sort of moral high ground and "let it be" that everything will work out is ridiculous. Stalin didnt respond to concessions he claimed half of Europe and would have taken all of it if we hadnt had tanks in the way. Putin has effectively annexed a chunk of Ukraine and the show isnt over while we have said its not our problem. What does that tell Lithuania or Finland when our national interest is to just wish real hard that everybody understands being nice to one another is the right thing to do. National prestige, power, influence, whatever you want to call it does not exist in a vacuum. Just because we vote ourselves out of the game doesnt mean we win because everybody else will keep playing. Do you think we should just show the world that we are out of the game? Should we have let Kuwait be annexed because hey bro not my problem? Do you think China is just going to stop trying to become the big player in Asia if we tell everybody over there "we are out guys, handle your business."

In all honesty, anyone who says this neither has the clearance or need-to-know to even be informed on exactly what the Lightning does bring to the table, nor the knowledge/experience to understand what that stuff it has means to the missions Lightning will be tasked with accomplishing. There are a lot of things that are not so great about the Lightning. To cast those deficiencies into believing that it is not worthy of replacing the Viper and Hog is just ignorant. To even think that the legacy platforms are even remotely equipped to deal with the threats of the next 20-30 years that Lightning and Raptor will have to deal with it just ludicrous. With that kind of logic, let's go dig out the A-1s and O-2s from the boneyard so we can really go to town in the CAS world. Let's park all of those F-16CJs and whip out the F-4Gs, let's junk the Growlers and get the Spark Varks flying again. These are ALL aircraft where people cried that the world was going to end because the aircraft replacing them wasn't as capable as the aircraft being replaced...and guess what: somehow we've managed to just squeak by with those under-capable "replacement" MDSs. In a double-digit-SAM and Flanker world, the Viper, Hog, Eagle, and Hornet are just not going to cut it with the margin that we need to ensure that we will win with the least amount of flag-draped caskets.

What would you expect when the AF often uses blues as a punishment? You don't send a kid to time out in their room and then wonder why they don't enjoy being in their room alone.

No, that's pretty reasonable.

Hopefully Michael Bay

I was a little confused on that as well. I think the term you're looking for is "doubling". Definitely best to get that worked out before some Fud thinks you're rocking FA at "his" shootin' range and calls the Federales...

A mega fuck ton...seriously. Yep, its way over budget, way late and has been terribly managed. It will get annihilated in a BFM engagement against an enemy who has some clue about BFM execution (from a pure Em standpoint anyways). There are downfalls, but it's what we have to work with. Despite some of the downfalls, it still has some amazing capability (coming up in the next 3 years or so) that blows the majority of current fighter capability out of the water, minus the ol' Em diagram of course.

If I were a betting man I would say is was sycophantic pickle-polishing middle management types who are not the general but are close enough to think that they will go far in life by making everything perfect for said general. Unfortunately, these are the kind of knobs who DO go far in the AF-- hence the reason this thread is pushing 100 pages.

It takes a truly brave man to put his raw self in such stark public relief. I hope he is able to find peace and that his courage can bring peace to others.

Damn allergies.

I'm not exactly sure if your post was in response my direct questions I asked you...because if it was, you didn't answer any of my questions. Or should I just assume your belief is that the military should always do whatever the President wants, no questions asked...and that the military should never step in and stop something from occurring in the US (ie Japanese interment camps) if the President doesn't order the military to do so? If so, then I'll ask again: Why then doesn't the federal government change the military officer's oath to reflect only Article 2, Section 2 of The Constitution and we all take an oath to the obey all orders that comes from the office of the Presidency? It wouldn't be too far from what other militaries do...correct me if I'm wrong, but British offers take an oath of loyalty to the crown, right? Believe it or not, my questions have nothing to do with our current President. I could have raised these questions with any other administration over the last 100-200 years--these are foundational questions. So yes, I most certainly can separate personal views from reality (for example, I recently said in another thread that I believe the federal income tax to be theft and I very much dislike it, however, it is very Constitutional so I would never say so otherwise). So to relate this all to this current thread disucssion--as for the President attacking Iraq right now, well, if we can assume that the Iraq War Authorization from 2002 is still valid (I'm pretty sure it still is?), then Constitutionally I have no problems with the President doing so, regardless of my personal opinion of whether it's a good or bad idea (I would like to see Congress actually 'declaring war', but I suppose the war authorization act was essentially the same thing). Do I have a problem with the President purposely not enforcing immigration laws via executive order even though the law requires it, yes, I have a problem with this because I believe it goes against Article 2, Section 3. Sorry to disappoint you, Prozac, but for me, this specific issue has nothing to do with politics because I could have raised the same issues 8 years ago...and unfortunately will probably be able to raise in 3, 11, 19 years. Oh, and just in case you're wondering, I'm also against the NSA stealing my emails without a warrant from a Judge, thank you Bush administration for giving us the horrible 'Patriot Act'.