nsplayr

Speaking of Mustache March, looks like this former Lex Luthor-bald actor/politician and current crazy person has gotten a premature start of Novemburly.

Well said. P.S. - piddle packs FTW. If you sh*t on my plane you're off the team.

You're guessing wrong. This can't be adequately discussed here so I'll just stop. The point of the article I think was positive, that we're leveraging some relatively high-speed women in a limited role that allows us as a whole to take the fight to the enemy more effectively. Everything else here is just chaff that need not be rehashed again. From the Army's official website on the program (emphasis added): So everything about "fighting your way in" to a hot objective is moot within the intended scope of the program. Yea sh*t happens as Rainman so bluntly stated but CST members are not "operators" and seem to receive about enough advanced training to adequately defend themselves if sh*t actually does hit the fan unexpectedly. All of which is not entirely new but it's good that the idea is being expanded/normalized.

Huh? Yea, exactly.

Eh...I am willing to give them a pass since they said "Women Special Operators." If you are in ops and assigned to USSOCOM, you are a special operator or SOF to me. Special operators conduct special operations, what else would you call it? Being an "Operator" colloquially is obviously very different and I don't think the article implied that they were breaking necks or bear crawling up mountains like the bigfoot-ninjas we have out there. And if it was slightly on the sensational side, it's a headline, that's the idea I guess... Overall, good on these ladies because debriefing/searching the chicks on the objective can be extremely valuable in a situation like this one where the primary target (senior IMU guy) put on a burka in an attempt to escape.

Thanks for posting guys, keep it up and tell the guys further back to come on here and continue posting drop results. P.S. - drop results on a Wed night? What's up with that? Congrats to all.

Already discussed in part here.

IDK, I'm in the "equality crowd" and I don't really want any of our guys (or gals) fighting their way in to a target. Surprise & speed > gun battle. Generally works out better that way anyways WRT actually getting the target. I've heard of this for some time, is this really new or just new on the SF side?

I think so. I agree that in my community we're pretty equal and at HRT we've had several 12XX in the chain of command recently. Have heard this is not the case in AMC primarily. Hell, a lot of former AMC navs who are now in my squadron have recognized that they weren't exactly mission critical to some of their former platforms (i.e. tankers, RC-135, AWACS, etc.) and that's exactly why they came down here.

Can't go wrong with the classic Ruger 10/22.

Sooo...he's an RJ nav? WTF was he talking about half the time...

Obama to announce plans to begin withdrawal of 30,000 troops Wednesday night. Stay tuned. I won't miss the B-huts one bit but then again I think some of us are still gonna be there for a long time. Maybe he had this on his mind...

Most of these are very libertarian views and while I can respect that and see where you're coming from, I don't think that would work either. I firmly believe that the government can and should do things for the benefit of the people beyond the limited scope some of you guys are looking through and that it can be a force to help shape the private sector into productive ventures. For all it's faults (mainly politicizing government employment), I think the Works Progress Administration overall (and the Civilian Conservation Corps in particular) were fairly successful in putting people back to work for public good before WWII fixed that problem more permanently. To Rainman, I obviously haven't thought out the details so perhaps the way I described it wouldn't work based on the points you made. But to me, you have these three problems of unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and unearned benefits in the form of long-term unemployment checks. There has to be a way that you can attack all three of those simultaneously without it being framed as a "big government take over." Although judging by the comments about how FDR was a total failure, that the government should only do defense and a few other very limited tasks, etc., I think that is unavoidable.

Big first story is the 747-8 just landed there a few hours ago. U-S-A, U-S-A!

Either call or check out that Attachment 14 to the AFI. It has an email address where you can write and ask for the most current list. GL in your search.

Here's a story from AF times that mentions language pay and has Mongolian (google skillz). Also try calling the AFSOTC Language Center at 850-884-1697. They do a lot of good work on Hurlburt for SOF guys here who need or want to learn languages for jobs and the people who work there (mostly civilians) are extremely nice, helpful, and it's a low-threat environment. I'm sure they could answer your question with more authority. Edit to add: found the AF Strategic Language List for FY09 (not sure if there is a more current one). It's attached here. Also go here for more info/links/programs that you can shake a stick at. Also see Attachment 14 to AFI36-2605 for official guidance on how to obtain the current list of languages and the formula for determining how much money you get.

There is plenty of support for these kinds of investments outside of politics because they make sense. It's like tying together entitlement reform and job creation, two things we desperately need. Unfortunately there has been political opposition to any new spending even on things that make sense; these kinds of initiatives are the ones that need to grow even if we're cutting discretionary spending on the whole. Using a scalpel rather than a chainsaw is always better because this is the kind of program that gets cut by the chainsaw. Private sector employment and innovation + federal incentives and seed money + making people work for the good of the country = win. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO are both for stuff like this, and they pretty much hate each other.

So how about this potential solution? The government should either directly employ (unlikely) or start public-private cooperatives (more likely) that put people who are receiving unemployment benefits to work on basic infrastructure projects. Last time I checked roads still needed paving and ditches still needed digging, so if the government is paying people anyways why not actually require them to do the nation's work? Since the government itself doesn't have the process setup to directly employ millions more people, why not allow federal money to be used to start public-private cooperatives with companies that work in contracting, paving, construction, etc. who could employ people in low-skilled but necessary jobs? Take it a step further; why can't the government partner with charities, home-healthcare companies, etc. to do the same? At least make people receiving long-term unemployment benefits do something to earn those benefits. I'm sure there are soup kitchens that could use an extra hand.

If anyone thinks military pay will actually be cut they are an idiot. If anything it will be frozen (i.e. no cost of living raises every year). Congress has "led the way" by freezing their own pay so that's what I was trying to prove. I'm not sure what you're saying here, can you be more specific? Don't get it twisted, I don't think cutting (or freezing, the far more likely option) military pay is going to make one bit of difference in cutting the federal budget deficit. Yes, it will save dollars and some is better than none is an argument, but it's saving pennies when million dollar bills are being flushed down the toilet by increasing medical care costs and other systemic problems is pointless. Freezing military pay (or federal civilian pay) is merely a symbolic gesture to "share in the pain" with everyone else and doesn't address the big problem. Most people who are in the military or work for the federal government are regular, middle-class Americans and freezing their pay doesn't make sense to me if it doesn't accomplish anything. Some on here have argued that "Congress should lead the way," and I'm arguing that for the most likely COA (pay freezes), they already are so what's the larger point?

Like this?

They could build in more flexibility and options, but the services will oppose it because the 20 year or nothing approach is a unspoken retention tool and the military lobbying groups will oppose it because apparently any change is a "radical cut to benefits!!" To the determent of the active force who will not stay until 20 years (the vast majority) or those who would go guard/reserve early if they could.

This does not seem to be the case anymore based on the examples people have provided in the VSP thread, starting here. Any thoughts on those data points that directly contradict this claim?

The way I read it was that for whatever percentage of the year you were deployed, you got to deduct that percentage of your home's value off of your taxes in addition to the $50,000 in homestead exemption. For example, I was deployed 121 days last year, which is 33% of the year. So you take 33% of your home's tax-assessed value, and deduct that from the amount you pay taxes on. So if your house is worth $200K, you already only pay taxes on it like it was worth $150K with the standard homestead deduction, and if you were deployed for 33% of the year, you would only pay taxes on it like it was worth $84,000 (after an additional deduction of $66K i.e. 33% of the original value). Seems like a pretty significant additional deduction for folks who are gone a lot and I know there were plenty of people at HRT gone more than me. Anyone else get a different interpretation?

You're right. It's like smoking...there would be an uproar if you outright banned it (which commanders could do), but they want to make it so inconvenient that people give it up and therefore eliminate the risk altogether.

WTF man...seriously? If you don't see me based on the vest I'm wearing, the RB on my backpack, and the tail/brake lights on my bike, you probably weren't gonna see me anyways. There's always a risk when you ride of drivers just being dumb and not looking for you, but extra reflectivity usually isn't the silver bullet for mitigating that risk.