Jump to content

congressman

Registered User
  • Posts

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by congressman

  1. On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2020 at 11:16 PM, LJDRVR said:

    My reading of the current AUMF is that it covers individuals and groups responsible for the 9/11 attacks and "associated forces." So I'm curious: my non-lawyer (moron pilot) reading of the language in the authorization seems to not pass muster for us attacking anything Iranian. I'm sure there are rooms of lawyers that have crafted obtuse opinions justifying this crap, but I can't see for the life of me how it isn't a violation of the warpowers act. Hopefully somebody who flunked out of law school before they went to UPT can explain it to me.

    Not saying this guy doesn't totally deserve what he got, but if the Iranians got off a rocket attack that purposefully targeted and killed the Chairman of the JCS, it would be an act of war, right?

    Inherent right to defend legally positioned troops.  By AUMF, UN, and SOFA law

    • Like 1
  2. 12 hours ago, Danny Noonin said:

    What do you mean by some “preferred to pocket the extra money”?

     

    Are you implying that you think you can get a room at less than the government rate and legally claim the full rate (not actual cost) and pocket the difference? Because that’s what it looks like you’re implying.

     

     

    Uh.  No.  But it doesn’t have the free managers special at the embassy or free Hilton breakfast, so pocket extra money there, buy breakfast at trump with your own money.  We both know the rules.  Thanks for playing tho

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  3. Just now, go_cubbies22 said:

    I know him from my first ops assignment.  Great guy, heard he was a great SQ/CC as well, both at home station and deployed.  Overall, I don’t know if there is more to the story though.  I will PM you his Air Force email this morning.  Appreciate you willing to look into it.

    Thanks man. Appreciate the input

  4. On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 3:06 PM, Lawman said:

     

    Remind me which administration bombed their surrogate in Syria twice plus killed a bunch of their merc’s, actually got NATO to agree to not be an empty shell of an organization with a pretty blue flag and pay up, approved arms sales of munitions to include anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, shuttered the Russian consulate in Seattle, and has their diplomat to the U.N. pretty much daily taking them to task for stuff.

     

    I could have sworn that all happened in the last 18 months.

     

    But you’re right, that picture couldn’t reflect Obama. He was after all willing to be much more flexible in how he got f’d By Russia. 

    Also multiple rounds of sanctions despite the left repeating that "he hasn't implemented the sanctions congress passed" (He has.)  

    But, Obama said "knock it off" to putin once so he wins.  

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  5. 10 hours ago, Napoleon_Tanerite said:

      I finally got the "tone it down" from my boss who got the standard passive aggressive words from someone else to pass along to me.

    "Hey there Major.  I don't care about your morale patch, I mean I'm cool I have even drank a beer before, I'm  a bro.  But I know the Wing commander does that silly stiff, so may wanna just take it off for a bit. I know I know..." LTC Everyoneever

    • Like 1
    • Haha 2
  6. 14 hours ago, HU&W said:

    I'm loving some of the ideas being presented by individual congressmen to limit the power and increase the transparency of government.  One in particular that's caught my attention is being pushed by Mia Love from Utah.  It involves setting rules that all legislation be single subject, with clear titles, effectively preventing sneaky riders.  Do you see any potential of a caucus forming around such an idea, or is the current paradigm too deeply entrenched in the culture of both sides of the aisle?

    I like it, though legislating is messy so not sure how feasible.  Like watching sausage being made

  7. 15 hours ago, 11F said:

    Thanks so much for this opportunity and insight. Your desire to slash the civilian behemoth within the DoD fires me up! I'll be watching that one.

    If sequestration is rolled back as you expect and military spending increases, where will we get some savings? It can't just come from DoD civilians. What social programs will get cut? What would you cut? Any prognostication from you on this issue would be a good read.

    The cuts to BAH down to 95% feel like a break in faith and I would appreciate it if this would get repealed.

    As some of the bros and I approach 20 years of service and we look at what would keep us in the 11F ranks, here was one proposal: pay one year of the ARP bonus for every year the pilot will stay on AD. This would be a year to year bonus contract so as to not make us feel like we are locked into something that is crazy long term, but would pay for the experience we bring. This won't keep everyone, but anecdotally, it will keep those who love serving their country, but are simply too enticed by the airline pay.

    I grew up an Illinoisan in what is now the 13th district, and I appreciate who you represent and how you represent them. I wonder as the population of IL continues to dwindle if there will be fewer districts after the 2020 census? There are fewer and fewer reasons for my family members to stay.

    Thanks again.

    I think we really have to talk about entitlement reform.  Im not optomistic it will happen but it needs to for us younger types.  Tax reform will help grow the economy too which is the best way to close budget gaps.  In a hurry so that is a quick response.

  8. 5 minutes ago, ImNotARobot said:

    Keep up the good work bro. Unless I'm mixed up, I saw you speak at a Laughlin UPT graduation where my unit had a couple Lts graduating last year. You're uniquely qualified to help our various causes from your pulpit. Don't let these bastards keep promoting each other...it's a cancer that's eating our organization from the inside out. 

    https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/mileygate-commander-promotion-letter

    I was stationed with/flew with/went to college with one of these guys that got wrongly burned in this fiasco. He's a great dude, and is still dealing with the after effects while Hastings is jockeying for his own promotion. I realize many things are probably out of your control, even at your level. 

    Keep on keeping on my friend. 

    Yep that was me.  I have the propeller they gave me hanging in my office. 

    • Upvote 1
  9. 16 minutes ago, VigilanteNav said:

    As an ANG C-130H nav, there are definitely training events that could be reduced/eliminated from a pilot's current readiness requirements to allow them to maintain a fully mission ready status with less days required at their unit (given the current real world ops requirements).  Additionally, it would be an outright boon to morale and retention to eliminate the Afghan Air Advisor mission (or contract it out if it will continue).  If not entirely familiar with this, let me know and I can elaborate.  It could decimate the instructor force in the ANG the longer it goes. Guys will go to the desert for 60 or 120 days with their units but there are not many who will go for 180 to fly as Afghan Air Force crew members.         

    Interesting.  Ya the broader requirements issue is important, and lets see if addressed with new leadership.  From my position the question can be asked.

  10. 29 minutes ago, 189Herk said:

    Is there any accountability for who adds what to the NDAA?  For example, a small line was added in the Senate Armed Services committee to their version of the bill that has had some negative effect on ANG AGRs...how would I track where that came from?

    That depends.  If it was added as an amendment its an issue of public record, if it was in the base bill that maybe harder to track down, whether it was a senator or military input.

    If you have specifics DM me and ill see what I can find.  For those wondering why I have all this time, I can assure you this is a busy job, but the first couple weeks committees aren't formed yet and all attention is on the senate.

  11. 1 hour ago, Prozac said:

    Is anyone in congress talking about the incessant use of the military as a foreign policy tool in recent decades?  There are a great many potential problems with this practice, many of which are no longer hypothetical.  We are using up an aging fleet at rates that were never anticipated and we cannot hope to recapitalize in a timely manner, even if the military budget is greatly increased (I have my doubts whether Increased defense spending is really in the cards).  Perhaps more ominously, we are doing the same with personnel. Most of the operators in recent conflicts whether they be spec ops, aircrew, maintainers, etc, are simply burnt out and taking their experience elsewhere.  Yet the only plan seems to be to continue to attempt to squeeze water out of the rock.  How about the monetary cost of these conflicts? I'm a big proponent of a strong military, but the fact is we have spent an astonishing amount of money with very little to show for it.  It amazes me that we've laid out the cash we have while actually shrinking personnel and aging the fleet. I don't care if you lean left or right, everyone in this country ought to be demanding more accountability when it comes to military spending. Don't expect me to support increased military budgets without telling me EXACTLY how that money will be spent.  So, what's the plan?  Throwing money at the problem is not sufficient. I expect my elected officials and my military leadership to work together to come up with a sustainable defense strategy. Forgive me if I have little confidence in either group to deliver. 

    Understood.  we are in a new era in the world where everyone is super connected and the world is smaller, and challenges are different a greater.  In a cold war construct, it was easier.  In Low intensity and irregular warfare we are burning our fleet and people.  I think personally America is uniquely positioned to keep some world order (not in a new age govt conspiracy meaning) but its gonna take new thinking.  Do we need F-16s burning their hours flying holes in the sky and doing Gods work dropping bombs, or could a AT-6 do the job cheaper while we save the F-16s for the war on Russia or china?  We need to expand the number of people in the ranks and shrink the civilian force, so that rotations are less often.  WE NEED TO BURN REFLECTIVE BELTS TOO.

    What it looks like ultimately will be up to the Commander in Chief and us here, but I think we need to reevaluate our equipment and personnel priorities daily.

    Unfortunately with ass hats willing to blow up kids in a school or café, I think this war will continue for our lifetimes.  Military strength can also make war less likely as it strengthens diplomacy.

    Just my opinion.

    • Upvote 1
  12. 10 hours ago, WTFAF said:

     


    You're right and I see it all the time. Guess I should apologize for being a dick. Sorry, and thanks for making the effort to engage and listen to our perceived issues and ground truths.

     

    No worries man.  I've done the same in the past ha

    • Upvote 2
×
×
  • Create New...