kallend 2,184 #26 July 20, 2008 Quote Quote Quote And they are doing that but it takes time. Now if the top logistics brass decided to put a comfort capsule on a c-17 slated for Baghdad instead of a MRAP simply because a couple generals were on board then we'd have a something to complain about. But as it stands one has nothing to do with the other. Tell us about the federal deficit and the DoD "war on terror" budget, then tell us again how federal expenditures are unconnected. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation between Amazon and I so nice try. Perhaps you'll have better luck in one of those anti-gun threads you love so much. Just because you fail to see the connection doesn't mean there isn't one... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #27 July 20, 2008 I didn't say there wasn't a connection. The money comes from the same pool. Big deal. That has nothing to do with the conversation between Amazon and I. These USAF generals were not part of the MRAP program. The difficulties of getting the MRAPs to the middle east were not due to money. Thanks to Congress denying the program funding, the money for the capsules will now come out of the USAF annual budget. The capsules played no part in the difficulties of up armor or MRAPs getting to our soldiers and Marines. So what's your point? www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #28 July 20, 2008 Quote I didn't say there wasn't a connection. The money comes from the same pool. Big deal. That has nothing to do with the conversation between Amazon and I. These USAF generals were not part of the MRAP program. The difficulties of getting the MRAPs to the middle east were not due to money. Thanks to Congress denying the program funding, the money for the capsules will now come out of the USAF annual budget. The capsules played no part in the difficulties of up armor or MRAPs getting to our soldiers and Marines. So what's your point? It seems you are the only one posting in the thread who failed to see it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #29 July 21, 2008 so rather then debate you try to appeal to my ego? Transparency is unbecoming of a professor.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doogie320 0 #30 July 21, 2008 I disagree. The majority of AF officers are pilots or aircrew. They've never really known hard conditions except for their SERE school time. The majority that I've worked with in Afghanistan are put off by sleeping in a tent or plywood b-hut. The few general officers over here rarely leave the comfort of Bagram or Kabul. Most GO's anyway when they fly will take up a whole aircraft to themselves. Imagine a C-17 carrying a few passengers and no cargo, it is a waste. So the comfort pallet doesn't shock me one bit. "Cross into the Blue". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #31 July 21, 2008 Quoteso rather then debate you try to appeal to my ego? Transparency is unbecoming of a professor. One can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink. If you choose not to see a connection, there's nothing I can do about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #32 July 21, 2008 You are absolutely right. The standard of living in the USAF is much higher than in other branches. They, without a doubt, have the best of everything. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with other than maybe that I don't have a problem with the comfort capsules. Kallend - Please feel free to point out the connection. I'm not against learning something. Don't be scared. I'm not.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertimeunc 0 #33 July 21, 2008 QuoteI disagree. The majority of AF officers are pilots or aircrew. Ummm, no. Not even close. Mission Support officers greatly outnumber all pilots and air-crew. In response to the original thread, I have no problem with General Officers taking measures to ensure efficient in-transit mission planning and/or crew rest. I do, however, have a big problem with the funding coming from the wrong place and the units being ordered with unnecessary frills that drive the cost up. Doing so doesn't display good management of resources. But hey, that's me. I'm ethical like that.The best things in life are dangerous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #34 July 21, 2008 Yeah I'm not sure where they got the balls to request funding come from the counter terrorism budget. Maybe because the capsules aren't just for Air Force officers. Fortunately Congress denied them funding so the Air Force has to pay for it themselves.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doogie320 0 #35 July 21, 2008 My apologies, I meant "general officers" and omitted that from my original statement. The Fighter Pilot mafia and ACC run the AF. QuoteQuoteI disagree. The majority of AF officers are pilots or aircrew. Ummm, no. Not even close. Mission Support officers greatly outnumber all pilots and air-crew. In response to the original thread, I have no problem with General Officers taking measures to ensure efficient in-transit mission planning and/or crew rest. I do, however, have a big problem with the funding coming from the wrong place and the units being ordered with unnecessary frills that drive the cost up. Doing so doesn't display good management of resources. But hey, that's me. I'm ethical like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #36 July 21, 2008 Quote They've never really known hard conditions except for their SERE school time. I have pretty good memories of my time at USAF SERE schools. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
