nsplayr

Special tactics and SOF direct from af.mil 720 STG

Holy crap, that's exactly what I thought too. Man...this could be transitioned to the WTF thread...seriously, WTF

2001 Mitsubishi Mirage. With custom paint job (i.e. the body color is fading fast but the hood and roof are still normal looking). Had it since I was 16 so it's def a POS at this point. Still runnin'...upgrade postponed until double-platinum (Capt)

Ahh...I wish that was the case 100% of the time. I def got hosed by an evaluator nickle and diming me on everything that added up to the big "fail." We took off, performed all the maneuvers within tolerances, and landed at home field. Take offs = landings and nobody got scared or died. Anways...still bitter (even though it was 2 years ago) and I guess I'm a nav for a reason... Good luck man...that situation doesn't happen very much at all so do your best and you should be good to go.

I think XL's question wasn't necessarily about saluting back so much but about who makes the decision whether or not civ gate guards pop the salute. I've been to 3 bases recently and none of the civs have saluted so I honestly don't know...

Actually had something like this yesterday. Was walking down the sidewalk approaching a gaggle of 2 Es and an O-5. As we approach, I salute the O-5, he salutes back, but the Es pop salutes at the same time as they pass me. It ended up as a giant saluting gaggle. I thought just the col. and I should have exchanged salutes with the Es he was with being part of his "group" or "formation" or "work detail" or whatever... Luckily all involved were flyers and the Es weren't top 3 so I don't anticipate any retribution for possibly violating sacred regs

Looks nice...is there a link on where to buy one?

Damn...being a nav, a Catholic, and a firm believer that robots kick ass this story is deeply troubling...

No...you aren't serving as a pilot so no time counted as a pilot. You log flight hours obviously but not towards a PPL or instrument rating.

Speaking of Blues on Monday, new article about the proposed service coat change: Heritage Coat My favorite quotes: This participant 100% ensured we'll now have that belt with his/her remarks. Holy crap! Are they letting non-shoes on these boards now? This guy sounds like a flyer...couldn't agree more.

The dorms have a bed, dresser, desk, side table, chair, small kitchen with fridge and microwave, and a bathroom. Like a decent hotel room. I didn't live there though since I'm married but I thought they were ok. All the OPS phases are EWO stuff...on the syllabus I went through there was Ops A, B, and C all in a row over the course of a month or so and then Integration later on that had some more EWO stuff in the academics. I thought it blew chunks but some people loved it. Hard to know ahead of time...I went in wanting to be an EWO slightly and ended up choosing Nav with gusto at the scarf drop (when you track either nav or EWO).

Sweet man, enjoy it when you get down there. Single or married? If you're single expect dorms if married then find a townhouse or apartment somewhere nearby (Schertz, Universal City, etc.). The syllabus is still relatively the same, but it's been slowly evolving for a few years (my understanding from the student perspective). As of now you should be getting a lot more time in the Ops phases (read: EWO stuff) than people that went through even a year or so ago, so even if it sucks look at it as a good thing since we'll all have to know EWO stuff eventually (or so the AF thinks...) No T-6 time, same flight regime of T-43s and T-1s right at the end. The tone rides were a lot of fun. If you have more questions, PM me and I can hook up up with a stud who's currently about 1/2 way done at RND and she can give you the most up-to-date info.

Wow...I wonder if they're looking to hire pilots. "You'll have the opportunity to fly the most unnecessary and ridiculous looking flying machine ever built!"

Your points make sense but you offer no alternative. We tried the sanctions-isolation-big stick method with North Korea and what happened...they got nukes. If you say diplomacy doesn't work than what does work? I say try direct diplomacy, maintain the big stick (so to speak) of military power, work regional alliances and organizations (NATO, AU, OPEC, etc.), harass them at the UN, use targeted sanctions, all of it. Diplomacy and military power are not an either/or choice...it's possible to use all the foreign policy tools in our bag at the same time in order to try to meet our objectives.

I'm pretty sure that goes without saying. The problem with that policy is that if Iran is crazy enough to actually use a nuke then it's too late. The other problem is if they just get a bomb but don't actually use it. Then what...your statement doesn't do any good at actually stopping Iran from getting a bomb. P.S. - I'm not saying I have the answer or that there is an easy answer...I think I'm with Vertigo though since isolation & sanction aren't working, an invasion isn't really viable, and an honest stab at real diplomacy won't hurt...

Exactly...I'm not advocating lifting sanctions or parting ways with Israel or anything like that...my point was exactly this. What we're doing ain't working b/c they're closer to having the bomb than ever and that's not gonna turn out well for anyone

Khamenei says "screw you America" just like we say "We don't negotiate with terrorists." For political reasons, it appears clear-cut, Iran doesn't want to be friends with the US. On the other hand, Khamenei knows America isn't ever going to lift sanctions or unfreeze assets without dialogue of some kind, so I guaran-freakn'-tee back channels are being worked. One Option "Visit Raises Speculation Over Turkish-mediated U.S.-Iran Talks"

I saw that today and was actually kinda pissed about it. Went to a newcommers brief at my new base and it was a cluster-esque mix of BDUs, ABUs, and blues. Now bear in mind these people are all new to the base, so no one in the room should have known if it was "cool" to wear BDUs/ABUs locally despite the well known, AF-wide directive to wear blues. WTF man? I don't like blues anymore than anyone else but Jesus, if the CSAF says blues on Monday and you're not working outside or flying a plane (or some other valid excuse), grab your blues and get with the F-ing program. If we get rid of "Blues Monday," outstanding, I'd be among the first to sign on to that, but until that's the case I don't understand how approx. like 40% of the room could so blatantly and obviously be outside the regs... //rant off//

Wow...that E9 must have really wanted to fly really bad or something to go from E9 respect level to O1...holy cow! And that whole sentence in itself validates how f-ed up it is that CGOs get less respect than NCOs but whateva...

No and I don't imagine that happening since be primary sponsor (Jim Webb) is a prominent member of the President's own party. Where'd ya read/hear that from? I know congress is considering some bills that modify how parts of the post 9/11 GI would work, but I'm not sure about the details and those have been in the pipeline since last Fall.

Don't sweat it too much man, either way you'll be fine and probably love your plane. BUT...if it were me, I'd take the slick because of the greater mission variety, the FAR better location, and the greater importance of the nav to the C-130 mission than to the JSTARS mission. Plus just from the instructors I knew the C-130 guys were cool as hell and I only knew 1 JSTARS guy who was just more removed and didn't interact with the students as much. I was sweating my drop night decision as well (b/c our flight commander let us choose in rank order...is that what yours is doing?), and everything turned out great so far. Similar situation in that my wife wanted me to pick the "safer," burning orbits in the sky option and I kinda was leaning towards the more tactical option. I thought about both honestly b/c family should be an important consideration, but in the end I chose the later option b/c I figured you're only young once and I would regret it later if I had picked something "safer" when I could have been kicking ass a little more directly. Not a knock on the JSTARS mission or anyone else for that matter Good luck & feel free to post your class' drop either in this thread or the track-select assignment night thread.

I've browsed the VA website about the new post 9/11 GI Bill and it seems like they don't really know what the deal is on it yet. It doesn't start paying benefits until June 2009 or something like that and I think Congress is still passing/considering bills that would modify it somewhat. Check out these links and it should be clear as mud :) VA Website Military.com Overview p.s. - hope your husband's having fun...I'm sure it still freezing up there

On the one hand, I think, yes, to some degree we should consider how the enemy perceives themselves in terms of how we should fight them. On the other hand though, 2 things get in the way of that: 1. Is that actually what he believes? A lot of guys talk a good talk and even walk a little walk but in the end they're not much but hype. On top of that, you have to consider the war of perceptions that's constantly being played...is this what the enemy wants me to think? Is he projecting an inflated image of zealous strength just to get me to back down/overreact/do something else, etc? 2. Leaders vs. Soldiers. In my opinion the leaders of a lot of the organizations we're fighting out there are the fanatical "true believers" who are out there to rid the world of evil as they see it. But I also believe that the majority of the actual fighters, along with some of the leaders in truth, are undertaking their fight because they stand to personally gain. Whether they gain respect from their community for being a brave Mujaheddin, whether they gain monetarily or increase their family/tribe/whatever's physical security by joining up with the guys with the guns; I tend to believe that actual, damn-near crazy fanaticism explains a smaller percentage of our enemies' motivations than do other factors. It's a good conversation to have and good on Peters for thinking deep enough to ask what should be a fundamental question.

Seriously...and I'll bet a lot of us here were born in the '70s as well...WTF were our parents thinking??

Dude, the end of the article shows the writer agrees with the policy as long as it's not some kind of concessions party: Translation: So yes, we should try to make deals with the ones that aren't really hard-core radicals, but make sure you don't just appease the truly evil guys. Sounds good to me. Translation: We're sending in some of the best of our boys to lay the smackdown on anyone who decides they don't want to get with the program and work with the government instead of blowing themselves up. We can talk and kick ass at the same time...these concepts are not mutually exclusive, as noted by this increase in ass-kicking potential alongside rumors of new negotiations. You're right in saying we can't just idly talk because while we sit and talk the Taliban are just resting and re-arming, but if we can offer some carrots along with a healthy helping of sticks, that sounds like a policy I can support. Is this change gonna "win the war," I have no idea...Afghanistan is a cluster and has been for longer than any of us can remember, but it sounds like a good start and with Gen. Petraeus as the big boss in Centcom, I'm one to think we can pull off some kind of victory in the long term.