They're BOTH equally important and mutually inclusive of the greater goal. As our highest ranking CIVILIAN leader, who by the Constitution of the U.S, is placed in the position of CiC, it is his - or possibly in the future - her DUTY to "NAME the threat" appropriately AND "ACT" accordingly, in the most effective and efficient manner to minimize said threat. IMHO, he is failing and in the previous 6+ years has failed to do so.

YMMV. :)

You haven't really shown any facts to support your political assertions.

Treason? GMAFB

By the way:
Wednesday, February 04, 2015

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove.

Go back to your little Faux News corner.

P.S. Megyn Kelly is HOT

<img src="http://thesenewtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/megyn-kelly-3.jpg" alt="megyn-kelly-3.jpg (807×569)"/>

I know it's popular for most on here to blame Clinton and Obama for everything wrong in the world the last 100 years,(Hell, some on here have written best sellers about it) just kidding brother Buzz:) BUT *** did 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Daddy Bush and 8 years of Bubba Bush do? If it was so easy to fix the Arab world or just incinerate them, why did they not do it? That part of the world has been in turmoil since time began.

Two questions to follow up on this discussion:

1. Do you think that if we had not made the strategic blunder of invading Iraq in 2003 that ISIS would be the threat that it is?

2. You have made the point (was attempting to quote GearJerk here, sorry if I misattributed), probably correctly I might add (at least with the moral constraints against mass casualties the US currently has), that airpower alone is not going to solve the ISIS problem. Sub questions:
-Do you think that if the US wasn't in a complete state of war weariness due to the previous strategically unnecessary war in Iraq that the president may have the backing of the American public to actually involve US ground forces on a large scale? Or do you think the president can just commit the entirety of the US Army and Marine Corps without the backing of Congress and the American public?

-If Obama decided to fight ISIS via ground forces, would you be OK with a draft that would potentially force YOUR children to serve as foot soldiers? Not a cushy assignment in a cockpit or UAS container, no kidding going out on patrol with hajji trying to kill them. At this point, my answer would be "no way." I'd personally rather give up the moral high ground and resort to WWII fire-bomb tactics. Neither is particularly appealing to me though.

Beyond that though, I don't really see why all the animosity towards the president. For any person in that job, there are things they want to do and things they can do. I'm by no means a liberal, nor a fan of every policy of the current administration, but I'd certainly call the rhetoric being spewed a bit "Limbaugh-esque."

Have you seen the ultra conservative NBC News tonight? The right wing Andrea Mitchell reporting that our Arab allies have been complaining of our resistance to using enough fire power to degrade and defeat ISIS--our stated goal. They (Jordan and the UAE) are upset at our lack of participation. Maybe you can catch tonight NBC News.

Jordan responded to the burning of their pilot by executing 2 prisoners they were holding while promising further hell to come. Contrast that with Barry rushing to the golf course to get in ANOTHER 18 holes after the beheading of our journalist by this "JV Team."

OF COURSE they do!! Like I said in an earlier post, because the "LEFT" purchases their votes through government entitlement programs! :rolleyes:It's a difficult thing to maintain an ethical standard when all you have to do these days is 'hold your hand out'.

In an attempt to not continue down the quasi-political path of this discussion, ultimately leading to an infraction by THE 80ktsclamp, I'll refrain from answering your questions to the depth I would if we were talking about this over a beer. :)

For the rest, I'll have to answer later. (Friends are wanting to grab eats & drinks...priorities!! ) :D

FWIW, I think that the current administration has lacked the leadership ability of those in the past. That's my opinion. There are more examples than I have time to post, but when the media and elected officials in one's own political party refuse to campaign with the POTUS, that signifies serious issues.

Cheers.

Great Call. Lets all chill out on the Political discussion for three reasons:

1. Violation of TOS.
2. Has anyone ever gotten someone else to change their mind? :D
3. Violation of TOS.

Thanks Scoop

Here's a question from a Newbie to change the topic. (I'll be starting indoc soon). If I get sick before I start a trip from my domicile, no big deal, as the company can just call a reserve pilot to cover for me. But what if I'm on Day 2 or 3 of a 4 day trip, and I wake up in say Tulsa, or Jackson, MS, and I realize I'm too sick to fly. How does the company get a pilot out to where you are to cover the flight for you?

That would be, as they say, their problem. If you can't safely fly, don't try. Delta has chartered G5s to protect flights. But TUL would most likely cancel. The more heads up you can give about being sick, the better for everyone. And you'll be deadhead back to base, or more likely wherever you want to go. Let the Capt know you banged out too, so he has a fighting chance at getting things arranged.