So the US spends, what, $10 million (more?) to train each military pilot, and then after retirement, with their pension and thanks of a grateful nation evidently being insufficient compensation, it’s OK for one of them to decide to moonlight for the country’s main adversary to their their pilots how to shoot down US pilots (“tangentially”)?
If and when the fact pattern above is found to exist in a court of law, I sure hope the US makes an example of that.
Just get a job flying for the airlines. Those guys are making bank these days.
I don't know what dollars of pension are involved here, but the dude is currently 54, so when he was doing this training he was 44, which is 20 years away from retirement age. He served from 1989 to 2002. What's the pension he'd be earning from 13 years of work?
I'd also be guessing that no longer being a US citizen would probably mean the pension = $0 (which is a choice, of course).
> Just get a job flying for the airlines. Those guys are making bank these days.
Wasn't so good a couple of years back, but both "these days" and "couple of years back" isn't applicable to decisions for a decade ago.
This adds some context to the far different political climate with China a decade ago:
"So far as China is concerned, we were conducting joint military exercises at sea between the Royal Australian Navy, and the PLA (People's Liberation Army) Navy at a time (2010) when Dan Duggan is accused of, as it were, consorting with the enemy. It's double-standard. It's hypocrisy," he said.
If and when the fact pattern above is found to exist in a court of law, I sure hope the US makes an example of that.
Just get a job flying for the airlines. Those guys are making bank these days.