Leaderboard

Don't confuse the base with the city. Doha isn't terrible, while Clovis is. There is a TON of stuff to do in Doha and a lot of fun to be had there. The reason that undisclosed location sucks so bad is 100% the fault of the Americans and their asine policies. All indications point to that base not going anywhere... ever. I have heard MANY different senior leaders express the desire to make it "The Ramstein of the middle east". With that said, I think we need as many spouses there as possible, because as this thread highlights, the "normalcy" of having spouses there runs counter to the idiocy of that base, and may actually go a long way to get the place changed for the better.

Why was LeBron James one of the best in the NBA straight out of high school when there were guys that had played or sat the bench in the league for years?

So they're sending dependents to a base where you still get CZTE? Do the kids get to go to the SF Squadron and put on battle rattle and hold an M-4 to show all their friends what they got to do on their deployment? Will your wife get chiefed at 3 am if she goes to the bathroom without a reflective belt on? Will she get an Article 15 if she lets another spouse have one of her 3 drinks per day? This raises so many questions that will require at least twelve more chiefs, seven more execs and five more directors of staff out there to solve.

/rant on I can't speak for other countries, so here's the view from where I sit, overseas: There is an undercurrent I've sensed from Washington lately...Maybe it's just me? "We owe $XXXXXX-bazillion 'USD' to other countries...so let's just devalue (via your preferred means - dollar printing, buying our own debt, both at the same time, etc.) our USD! w00t! Problem solved!" And...it's catching on - at least over here in Japan. (They've learned soooo many lessons from us!) The Bank of Japan is busy doing...well, that. Just watch what happens anytime the USD/Yen rate gets down near 75. So, it's not like the good ol' U-S-of-A is operating in a vacuum in this argument. Japan is devaluing the Yen, China is presumably (help, anyone more knowledgeable about China?) still screwing around with the value of the Renminbi, etc. (I'm waaay out of my depth to comment on Europe.) In any event - from what I can see...I believe it's called "Competitive devaluation"? I don't think the U.S. should OWE any country anything that can't be settled at the end of the month. And it SHOULD be settled at the end of the month, every month. (This doesn't mean we shouldn't have allies. We just shouldn't owe a lot of money to...say...a large Communist country that has has an excellent chance of being this generation's "new USSR", and has a name ending in "-hina", for example.) Looking at our average households, I don't see fiscal responsibility happening anytime soon...but it should be our goal. Stop owing other countries money. Because you know they're going to come knocking at the worst time. (Full disclosure: #1 - I wish the USD was tied to something...ANYTHING. Gold. Moon dust. Whatever. Something we just can't make up more of 'from thin air'. The idea that we can devalue or revalue <though that never happens, does it?> the USD invariably winds up as a punishment for fiscally conservative folks. You know...the kind who join the military, because they want a safe, stable country, and presumably a safe, stable currency. Nice to have people operate within their means, including the U.S. Govt. #2 - I'm not implying I have all, most, or even some of the answers. This is just my two cents. #3 - Damn, this Chu-Hi is good. Those who've been here, Korea, or China know what I'm talking about. ) /rant off

I just threw up a little. Champ already said it, but it bears repeating. I like the active duty less and less each day.

Like I said before, I think we are a less risky investment now, relatively speaking, based on the fact others are more risky (i.e. the EU). However, let's not kid ourselves. The rate is deceptively low for another important reason. Since 2009, the Federal Reserve has been printing money to buy treasury bills and bonds at unprecedented rates, to the tune of over $2.3 trillion (see today's article: http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-08-30/ben-bernanke-speech-jackson-hole/57470268/1). Unfortunately, it is difficult to translate this approach to entities outside the government, which obviously has the ability to print its own money. The closest example I can come up with is comparing this to a Fortune 500 company. This would be like Coca-Cola purchasing its products off the shelves of convenient stores in order to keep its sales abnormally high. In the long run, it is not sustainable. It is a ploy to prevent us from sliding back further into another recession, but at what cost to the future? Sure, debt is cheaper today, deceptively cheaper as I've pointed out. Does that mean we should continue to finance projects, proposals, and policies with debt in the hopes of bailing ourselves out of a hole we dug for ourselves in the first place? I think it is a very risky proposition. In fact, isn't this also similar to financing a second home in order to turn a profit on your investment since financing is easier to obtain? That didn't work out so well in 2007 and 2008 for some Californians buying homes in Vegas and Phoenix. If we fund projects today that are not sustainable in the long term because of the costs required to maintain them and the potential for costs to increase, should we continue to go into debt because its cheaper or easier to obtain financing now versus later? That's assuming heavy risk for a very low return in my opinion. I don't believe it is sustainable either.

Got this from a buddy at Macdill.

It is. His 0,1,1,1 still applies.

Sort of like a Strike Eagle.

Currently, they are saying past 2020. You've got plenty of time: the last U-2 pilot hasn't graduated high school yet.