HeloDude

Sounds more like an opinion.

It would only get about 1/2 of the country's attention because only about 50% pay income taxes.

Cadets are kicked out of ROTC all the time--I remember a few getting kicked out years ago when I went through that fine, outstanding program...the kool-aid was delicious! Unless something has changed, cadets are briefed on day 1 that they have to report any civil involvements and such involvements could jeopardize their scholarships as well as being able to continue with the program and earn a commission. This dude screwed up and got caught. I'm sure the military will be just fine without him. Next subject...

Wasn't 10-15 years ago, now was it. I was well aware of President Kennedy's speech, so I convientily went back as far as the mid 50's as the first person in space didn't happen until 1961. In 1989, George Bush Sr talked about putting a man on Mars by 2019...we'll see if that happens, it's already been 23 years. https://www.space.com/11751-nasa-american-presidential-visions-space-exploration.html

Agreed...but, to honor Neil Armstrong and the like, it's an interesting question: What do folks think will be the next 'First Man on the Moon' event? First man on Mars? AIDS vaccine? Some other achievement/discovery?

Agreed...but what's funny (actually sad) is that even now there is a large segment of the population that believes there are limitations on advancement due to the rich, banks, far right wing extremists, blah blah blah. To me, having a President, who happens to be black, is not a far reach these days to the majority of the country--there have black politicians in every aspect (except President up until recently), black 4 Star Generals, black CEO's, etc. The percentage of people who vote purely on skin color is extremely low...and you can't fix stupid. I'm not saying it's not important to highlight the first time it happened, but again, it was (and will be again) bound to happen...same with a woman. Now having someone walk on the moon, I don't think many people were saying 10-15 years prior that it was 'bound to happen'. A woman will get elected President someday I'm sure in my lifetime, and it won't take anything special to make it happen--it will just happen when it happens. To put a man on Mars, that will take some work and enginuity.

Definitely agree on this one (if it were to happen)--just because they're all Muslim countries, doesn't mean they're all the same/like each other. Not to mention the whole Shia vs Suni and Arab vs Persian aspect. For the record, to me, this part of the thread (Israel attacking Iran's nuclear capabilities) is worth an interesting discussion, but what I find troubling is that there are some on here wanting us to get into a conflict with Iran which I think is completely idiotic. We all love our jobs and want to do the mission at hand, but who wants to get involved in another shithole country where the majority of the people are too lazy to fight for themselves and, quite frankly, don't really care much for the US? I'm all about buying their oil...and that's about it.

I still don't see it happening, but that's just me--there will just be too much pressure on Israel to NOT strike. 1981 was different: Iraq hit was much closer, it didn't take place 'too' long after all the other Mideast Wars against Israel in which they destroyed everybody, peace with Egypt had recently occurred, and Iraq was already involved in a war with Iran. Today, Egypt is ran by Islamist extremists and is considered by many to be unstable, Iran is much further than Iraq, recent wars in Iraq and Afganistan isn't helping the international community being supportive of any new wars, our administration (and I believe a Romney one as well) doesn't want more instability in the Middle East and thus behind closed doors will urge Israel to not attack, etc. Again, all just my opinion. How many Army Soldiers and Marines do you actually know? They have had it pretty bad during the wars...overall, much worse than the other services. From someone who volunteered and served on a 365 in Iraq (and also volunteered to go to Afganistan, though that won't happen), I'm not all about 'wanting to go to war with Iran'...do you not see the massive shit storm the last 10 years have been? I'm all about doing the mission man, but I'm not all about going to war when you don't have to. In the meantime, I look forward to when our Army and Marine brothern (and our AF operators who are taking it in the ass as well) can go back to mostly just 'flying around the flagpole' while preparing for the next major war.

Thanks for the history lesson dude <sarcasm>...I still don't see it happening. But, for sake of the argument, let's say that it does happen--would Iran just sit there and take it? Situation is much different than in the early 80's.

So (to the original poster), do you really see us getting 'drawn' into a war with Iran? Short of Iran attacking Israel, I don't see much that would make us get into a real 'war' with Iran (unless they attack one our bases in the region, and I just don't see that happening). I think that a majority of this country has learned the lesson from Iraq, at least for the next several years. As for Iran getting nukes, nothing will be done about it from the US. Iran will just be another country that has them, along with Pakistan and North Korea. By the way--who really wants to go to war with Iran?

I remember a while back reading on here that some of your guys had a SCAR17--just wanted to see if there are any updates on your opinions? Specifically how the stock is holding up and if you're using any after market items? Also, does anybody have a Krebs AK? I've been researching both the SCAR and Krebs (specifically in 5.45) a lot recently and will probably be purchasing at least one of them in the nex couple of months (and yes, I know they're quite different firearms, hence the two separate questions).

How about: What is the lowest you have flown (outside of the terminal area)?

Agree with M2, however, I'm very confident that we won't see any changes coming out of Congress any time in the near future concerning any 'further' restrictions on gun laws, ammo sales, etc...though our President has shown us multiple times that he doesn't believe he needs Congress in order to change/not enforce laws. Even then, he doesn't have the cojones to take on the 2nd Amendment...at least not directly, which is what does worry me at times--example highlighted by the fact that the southern border states' FFL's have to report purchases of 2 or more long guns purchased by the same person in less than 5 days of non-bolt action and greater than a .22 caliber. As for the states, liberal states like CA, NY, MA will use this tragedy to further restrict gun rights, and conservative states like ID, TX, LA and the like, will not change anything. I would further bet that the modate type states such as OH, WI, and yes, CO, will not make any changes either as polls show that Americans favor less/no additional restrictions on firearms compared to more restrictions...plus, those that do favor more regs make up more of the population in the left states where they already have strict laws and less in the moderate and conservative states. This all being said, like M2 and others on here, I'm always buying more ammo, whether I need it or not. As for firearms, my arsenal is not nearly as big as M2's...but if I see a gun I really want at a good price, then I buy it. Moral of the story: If you believe in the 2nd Amendment and choose to live in states like CA, NY, and MA by choice, then I think you should reconsider your values and/or move.

Dude, I know you're just trying to discuss the non 'hero'/another realistic side of the argument, but if everyone thinks and acted the way you have described (not taking a shot if you are carrying because of situation, not charging the shooter, etc) then this douchebag has just given a sound tactical plan to any other psycho who desires pulling off the same assault. Fortunately, I don't believe this--people need to charge even when they're not prepared/equipped to do so. I'm mixing apples and oranges here--but a bunch of good dudes stormed the beaches of Normandy even though the beaches probably didn't look very appealing to the guys on the first wave.

I'll take the bait--what you said is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard/read. You are trying to compare deadly assault with self defense? I truly hope you're not 'SOF'.

Head shot--not saying that someone would have been able/had an opportunity to take the shot, but you never know. Also, when you shoot someone with armor plates, the bullets don't just 'bounce off'...it changes the dynamics of the shooter and the situation.

I will bet you a year's worth of flight pay that nothing will happen, as nothing should happen. Sure some on the left will sponsor bills to put more restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights, but it won't go anywhere in Congress. Now this might help speed-up the anti gun legislation in places like California, but those states were trying to pass more anti-gun legislation before the incident.

True....but, if it was ever going to happen on the active duty side these days, I think this is the best opportunity if there ever was one. RWQC is only 3 months long...probably close to the same amount of time as IFF. FAIP's have to go somewhere and they're not 'owned' by any community.

Actually, fighter pilots do say this.

Amen Brother!

Irrelevant man...a commander can be fired for any reason under the blanket waiver 'the XX/CC has lost confidence in XX/CC to lead' or something to that affect. By the way, this wasn't the first issue this Sq CC had...there were other examples in the past (some more recent) with the squadron that caused upper level leadership to want a change.

FIFY

I too watched the 'Hatfields and McCoys' series this weekend. I thought it was done extremely well, and if you research the feud, the movie seems to closely follow the true story. Refreshing to see some quality stuff on tv.

Army SOAR, 160th

Oh this was in the works for a while...