Sad but True

[Banjo]

kimphil:

How about "... until the govennment(or maybe the Navy?) deems me worthy of a commission...." ? Not an english major, I take it.

You sound terribly naive. It is my opinion that anyone that can define themself on a line between "Democrats" and "Republicans" hasn't given much time to political thought, or is an extremist. In the case of extremism the only thing you're good for is riling up for kicks(like teasing a caged animal), or maybe pitting against other oppositely polarized extremists.

I think that is giving you too much credit though, from your posts on this thread and others, I think you're just a troll. So I'll just advise everyone to stop feeding the troll.

I'll just add this link though, as I like the way he divides up political viewpoints:

http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/001449.html

 

[kimphil]

Originally posted by Banjo
kimphil:

How about "... until the govennment(or maybe the Navy?) deems me worthy of a commission...." ? Not an english major, I take it.

You sound terribly naive. It is my opinion that anyone that can define themself on a line between "Democrats" and "Republicans" hasn't given much time to political thought, or is an extremist. In the case of extremism the only thing you're good for is riling up for kicks(like teasing a caged animal), or maybe pitting against other oppositely polarized extremists.

I think that is giving you too much credit though, from your posts on this thread and others, I think you're just a troll. So I'll just advise everyone to stop feeding the troll.

Pardon Banjo,

Have I offended you? Did I sleep with your sister or something? Why do you want to pick on me?

Where did you learn how to write? The New York Times? Here's an English lesson you seem in need of. Airwarriors.com is an informal discussion board. Any posting on it should be written in a colloquial manner. Writing something like "... until the govennment (or maybe the Navy?) deems me worthy of a commission...." is too formal. However, you may use phrases like "deems me worthy" in your everyday speech. You may even use such words as beseech, ergo, insouciance, and avuncular. I assume you walk around in tights and wear a codpiece if you talk like this everyday, because such language is positively medieval. Since I, unlike you, live in the 21st century and talk in a less formal manner, what I wrote is more appropriate.

I don't know why I sound "naive." You'll have to explain that to me. I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that I sit on the fence between Democrats and Republicans. In all of my political postings I've only said disparaging things about Republicans. After reading my previous postings, if you've concluded I tow the middle line you're either a liar (because you haven't read my other posts) or an idiot (because you've come to the wrong conclusion about my politics). Well, which one is it?

As far as stirring things up, look at the author of this thread, because its not me. I like to start less controversial threads, like Pensacola: Wings of Gold and JSF. If people want to put their political viewpoints out there, they should be prepared to defend them from criticism, which I'm more than happy to provide.

You finish by writing "stop feeding the troll." That's almost witty. Some variation of "don't feed the animals," except with a troll. LOL. I hope your mommy and daddy aren't paying for college, because if that's the best insult you've learned to make, they're wasting their money on your education. Please, something more original.

So what have we learned about you, Banjo? You like to wear a codpiece and tights, talk in a stilted, formal English and your parents are wasting their money on your college education.

PS -- UInavy, you take offense at my comments about the President. These remarks were written in response (and in a similar tone) to points made against affirmative action and the Clintons. You may find them insulting, but they are true. The elite East Coast schools have a policy of giving preference to legacies (ie children of alumni). Conservatives don't criticize this policy because their children are often the recipients of these preferences. Of course, if you have another reason why a school like Yale would admit a mediocre student like GW Bush, I'd like to hear. As far as President Bush's former business dealings, there is the strong appearance of illegality. If Congress were to appoint an independent counsel, spend tens of millions of dollars of the taxpayer's money (like the Clintons and Whitewater), I wonder what would we find out about the President? What illegal dealings he was involved in? Who covered them up? Some carnal knowledge?

I never brought these topics up. Others did. I simply redirected them towards the current administration. That's only fair.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mongol General: ...Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.

 

[jaerose]

The elite East Coast schools have a policy of giving preference to legacies (ie children of alumni). Conservatives don't criticize this policy because their children are often the recipients of these preferences.

Hmmm...I wonder if Chelsie Clinton being the daughter of the President had anything to do with her getting into Stanford? Nah, probably not...

JR

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke

 

[kimphil]

You're right, I don't use "carnal knowledge" everyday. However, its not an unusual phrase, since there is a major Hollywood movie with that same title. Normally, I would probably say something like " who's giving the President a blowjob" which is more informal but not too diplomatic. Happy now? No, of course not, an officer wouldn't say something like that.

As far as Chelsea Clinton getting in to Stanford, I'm sure her grades and board scores at Sidwell Friends compare better than the President's grades and boards at Andover. And, her parents don't take a hypocritical stance on affirmative action.

Again, you hide behind the UCMJ. I don't intend to restrain my speech and behave like an officer. I also intend to do things not appropriate for officers like wearing T-shirts, blue jeans, athletic shoes and sporting a five o'clock shadow. Your argument, taken to its logical conclusion would mean just that, which I see as ridiculous.

Hey, maybe "codpiece" isn't the best term. How about "Elizabethan athletic cup?" Or do you like "Dark Ages banana sling?" That makes more sense.

One more thing, you want a funny sight, picture me bursting into my OSO's office asking "Sire, I beseech you to tell me when I will be deemed worthy of a commission?" Almost as funny as asking when the government is going to "earn" me a commission.

BTW, tights are only worn in semi-formal situations, that is, whenever you might wear you service alpha.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mongol General: ...Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.

 

[wildflyin69]

From now on Kimphil's posts will always be read with Stuie's voice in my head. Thanks a lot UINavy...lol

"Push the stick foward, the houses get bigger; pull back, the houses get smaller... unless you keep pulling back, then they get bigger again."

 

[room5047]

i'll be goll friggin darned if "codpiece" isn't one of the funniest words in the english lexicon.

as for kimphil sounding like stewie, (how you could misspell stewie so grievously, by the way, is beyond me), at least you make him sound like somebody with an intellect, vice the general stench of limbaugh, o' reilly, or scarborough that tends to waft from this room occasionally. remind me again, how many days of active duty do they have between 'em?

sorry for being predictable, but i AM gonna have to side with the surrender monkey on this one. chelsea was in classes with a friend of mine in palo alto, and she was the real deal. i can fully accept the idea that she would have gotten in anywhere on her own graces (tho it wasn't necessary given her lineage). whereas, as driven and conscientious as he seems, i have trouble believing that the 2.0 mensch who told our enemies "bring 'em on!" could have gotten a yale BA and a harvard MBA without some nodding and winking down at the skull and bones lodge.

(long tirade follows below.)

be all that as it may, what matters is not how you get there, but what you do with it once ya got it. for my part, bringing this bar brawl back to the policy issues, i think our commander-in-chief, domestic eccentricities aside, has to account seriously for why, exactly, we went to war again... here's my problem, and it has nothing to do with my feelings about CinC, cuz i would have walked through minefields to get to Kabul when he said "go"...

1) don't tell me we fought "to free the iraqis from tyranny", cuz the GOP dittoheads who say that (most of whom, of course, didn't serve or have relations who did) were the first ones in line in the 90's to pull us out of kosovo, somalia, haiti, et al because "we shouldn't be the world's policeman", and "these are internal matters that we have no right to intrude upon". all the arguments that germany and france threw at us in the UN for not acting alone? i heard 'em from dole, gingrich and the rest way back in 93, thank you very much.

2) don't tell me hussein posed a threat to the US simply by being hussein. firstly, we let tyrants, even ones that spout anti-US vitriol, slide every day. can you say kim jong il? castro? khamenei? and if straight-up anti-US sentiment was a criterion for pre-emption, then why didn't we ever just invade the ussr and get it over with? (maybe the only answer is, we could never beat any of those guys flat out without a fuss, but nobody gives a crap about iraq.) and IF saddam's instability was that much of a pressing security issue to us, then why the hell did we stop short of baghdad in 91, and why didn't we finish the job before now? for that matter, WHY finish the job NOW?

3) oh YEAH, it must be the weapons and terrorists, stupid. now i know one thing for sure. the united states has the finest intelligence, special operating forces, and conventional military that human history has ever known. if we can't find a shred of material to substantiate pre-war claims, then you know what? we'd better take a closer look at those claims. forget about the whole uranium debacle for a minute, and look at what else we had. the US and UK said saddam had a nuke program, because he was buying aluminum tubes. yep, and i MUST be building an antipersonnel spud gun with that pvc i got from home depot. the US and UK said that, since we haven't surveilled iraq on the ground since 1998, we have to presume that their programs continued unabated. uh huh, and since the cops never see a criminal after he's released from jail, we have to presume that the criminal's about to knock over a liquor store and shoot him before he gets a chance. please. this would have been laughed out of any court in the world if we slapped it together as a case for prosecution. you don't convict some guy on an illegal weapons charge because he bought some wd-40 and couldn't prove to the court that he DIDN'T own any weapons.

what it appears like to me is that the administration took advantage of public fears, polls that show 40% of americans blame 9/11 on iraq (!), and intelligence gaps to settle a score. now, before you jump on me as a bush hating liberal, my point here is, that's what it APPEARS to be. i'd like to be proven wrong. i'd like to hear a response from the administration to these concerns. substantiating the pre war claims would be fine to me. i would ALSO be satisfied if someone told me, "our evidence was thin, but we acted because this war will improve mideast stability and US security in these (X, Y, and Z) tangible ways." but all we get so far is, "our intelligence is darn good" and "the bottom of this matter has been gotten to" and "saddam was an evil, evil man." this is not enough for the poor guys in 3rd Infantry who are still being shot at in country, so many months after the little CVN victory speech. and it shouldn't be enough for you either.

i'm not asking for much here, certainly not for a new administration. i'm asking the current CO's for clarification, and i can't figure out why that's so hard.

show me your WAARRRR face!

 

[spsiratt]

room5047, I'm guessing that by your extensive knowledge of facts about Iraqi weapons programs that you work for some organization in the American intelligence community. Then again, if you did, you probably would know better than to believe a lot of what you've said. Be careful of how much you believe, my friend, the world is a much more complicated place than most of us know.

 

[wildflyin69]

I can misspell Stewie because I'm an English major and we're all retards if we don't have Spell-Check to guide us....lol...

"Push the stick foward, the houses get bigger; pull back, the houses get smaller... unless you keep pulling back, then they get bigger again."

 

[room5047]

uinavy - thanks for the compliments. i don't need anybody else to argue with, it's pretty obvious i just love to hear my own voice. but anybody who wants to argue is kewl with me.

spsiratt - honor, courage, and commitment are good things, and worth fighting, even dying for. but just how long do we have to go on blind faith in our leaders before asking hard questions? fact is, this is a debate that the nation should have had BEFORE deciding to go into iraq.

but as my last post intones, i, like you, would like to believe that the USG has some "darned good" gouge on the threat iraq supposedly posed to us. i appreciate the sensitivity of this information, asuming it exists, but the fact is, democratic republics shouldn't go to war without having very good PUBLICLY acknowledgeable reasons -- publicly unjustifiable wars end up being a pain for us in the long run, even if we "win" (however you define victory). and whether we have any good public reasons here, is very much up for questioning in this current atmosphere.

but seriously, are you saying that the government MUST be trusted, because it would never "sex up" evidence? remember the tonkin gulf incident that escalated our involvement in vietnam? the intel wonks knew it probably never happened the way DoD said it did, but the evidence was kept out of the public view in the name of "national security" - until one courageous former marine and pentagon official published the truth in the ny times.

so yes, let's hope somebody in the ready room knows something we don't, but let's not relieve them of all public accountability. it would be naive to say they MUST know better than us -- the government HAS been wrong before.

show me your WAARRRR face!

 

[jaerose]

C'mon...room5047 makes a good point, maybe two, and all of the sudden he's 'bringing some intelligence to the argument?' Give me a break! No, I'm just kidding room, you have good points. I just have to push a little sarcasm every now and again!

JR

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke

 

[kimphil]

UINavy,

You miss the point again. I don't know what they expect from Navy officers, but Marines Corps officers are expected to conduct themselves differently. The USMC OCS web site dictates what officer candidates can wear (or can't wear) at OCS (basically the regulations that apply to USMC officers at all times).

Using your logic, I should conduct myself like an officer at all times. Before being seen in public, I should shave. If I go out I shouldn't with blue jeans, etc.

Guess what! I'm not an officer so I don't obey the dress regs most of the time. I don't think that "deems me less worthy of a commission." Likewise the UCMJ.

BTW -- I'll be happy to PT your Navy butt into shape anytime.

Room5047,

You're right on point. I made the argument months ago that I thought the administration was exaggerating (even fabricating) evidence to make the case for war. However, since this is a site patronized by people who buy the administration's propaganda unconditionally, my warnings went ignored.

Now we know some of the evidence was fabricated and we're stuck in the Middle East where we're not wanted and we have no exit strategy.

Does this sound like I'm playing the middle banjo?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mongol General: ...Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.

 

[jdfairman]

Wow. Some of you really need to pull your head out of your ass, wipe the crap out of your eyes and see the light.

When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

 

[jaerose]

It's gettin' pretty heated in here...I think I'll step outside for some fresh air =) You guys should relax a little bit, otherwise I might take my ball and go home!

JR

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke

 

[bunk22]

Originally posted by UInavy
Changing your habit of slanderous speech against the President vs. buying a couple new pairs of slacks and a good razor.
BTW- No need to point out you're not an officer. It's pretty obvious.

You make a good point. Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, right, wrong, blonde, blue, etc, as a member of the military, that person has a certain amount of respect that should be demonstrated towards the C-in-C. That's part of being a professional. I see it a lot on other sites when political threads about current events sprout up. I've caught a few military types saying simple things like calling the President Georgey to saying they hate the President. As a professional officer, it's definitely not appropriate to refer to any President, even in a semi-public forum, as Georgy or Billy, whatever. I simply remind them of the respect factor that goes along with being a member of the military. This, IMO, includes those wanting to become a part of the military, especially the officer corps. Not saying everyone has to agree with their leadership but they should at least demonstrate the appropriate respect even when disagreeing.

Okay, here's my take with respect to the Iraq situation. Things are very different after 9/11. As a nation, we were not prepared. So now, we have created home land security while going after those in Afghanistan who were responsible for those attacks. As for Iraq, they have been a constant thorn in our side since 1990. We defeated their military while keeping their leadership intact. Over the years, the US has put forth a lot of effort in controling the sky and seas around Iraq. We have continually been at conflict with that nation since ending the first Gulf War. How many guys here have flown OSW? I bet the few seasoned fighter/attack types on this site have. Let them tell you about the strikes, AAA, and occasional SAM dodging that has occurred over the many years.

So now, in this new era of extreme cautioness (for lack of a better phrase/word) we know that at one time, Iraq had a WMD program. It was still going in 1998. So what's the possiblity that a leader of a country who hates the US for his ass kicking years ago, hates us of the sanctions, for the no-fly zones, etc, would attempt an all out Iraqi assault on the good ol USA. Not likely. However, what if he used asymmetric warfare? Something like creating some type of nasty chemical that could be placed in a bomb then detonated in downtown LA. The best way to do it might be through a terrorist organization. So Saddam is able to strike the US by covert means. That was a definite possible scenario.

Now, with basic intell info like satellite photo's, in this age of being very, very cautious, we see what looks to be mobile chem labs leaving a military base, under the cover of darkness, with military gaurd. Are there deadly chems on board? Hard to tell. Yet why have a mobile chem lab unless it is inteded on being used. Kind of like seeing a hardened aircraft shelter being built at an airfield but never seeing the fighter plane. Why build an aircraft shelter if there are no plans to use it?

My point is this, the President and his staff believe in protecting America. They had intell, a lot which has no been presented to the public even though a few on this site seem to present themselves as experts, that they felt needed to be acted on. Must always prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Yes there are other countries on the plate who pose problems but perhaps their non-aggressive stance but them on the back burner. Having our aircraft and airmen, shot at monthly over a period of 12 years needed to come to an end. Just imagine if Iraq had not been evaded and later on down the road, a WMD bomb did go off in a US city killing hundreds or thousands of American and if was found to have been developed in Iraq. The accusation that the President didn't do enough would be the chant of the day. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

VAW-120 FRS Flight Instructor

 

[kimphil]

Originally posted by UInavy
Changing your habit of slanderous speech against the President vs. buying a couple new pairs of slacks and a good razor. Any chance you notice the difference between the two? I was just trying to help by pointing out that it wasn't appropriate and that if those are your deeply held opinions as you say they are, they might be difficult to change. Getting some new clothes and shaving more often isn't. Why do you PT? You're not an officer, so you don't need to take the PFT (except for application). You PT because if you didn't and you went to OCS without ever having done any, it would be difficult, if not impossible to live up to the standards that are set forth there. But hey, like I've said before, you're free to do as you please. Has this conversation actually degraded into buying slacks? That's just embarrassing.

BTW- No need to point out you're not an officer. It's pretty obvious.

I doubt I will have time for deep political discussions at OCS with other officer candidates so I don't think my lack of respect for the administration will be relevant.

As far as my politics, I don't hide them from my OSO or the other officer candidates. Not that I advertise my politics, its just impossible to hide when your OSO introduces you to the other officer candidates by saying "this is kimphil he went to ____ University so you know he's a liberal." I do have some political discussions (none of which I initiate) with other officer candidates but they're more interested in knowing my PT routine than my politics. So I'm not worried about conducting myself as officer when I get in because I know how to do so already.

So the question should be, why don't you address the real issue, what I said and not how I said it? Take a position, instead of arguing procedure. Or are you going to continue to hide behind the UCMJ which we all agree doesn't apply to me?

BTW -- I've heard TBS platoon commanders have heated discussions about the dress code, so don't dismiss it. They take it seriously in the USMC.

Also, UInavy, have I made it clear to everyone, I'm not an officer in the military?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mongol General: ...Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.