Seggy
Well-Known Member
Thanks for correcting me on that grammatical error.
Rafale kills F-22....
- Thread starter bunk22
- Start date
Thanks for correcting me on that grammatical error.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Next time we are discussing WWII veterans and their experiences, then I'm sure his observations will be relevant.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
I do respect your knowledge and experience and wouldn't criticize an Air to Ground or Air to Air combat technique. That is outside my knowledge and experience.
However, while my tax payer dollars are being used to settle sexual harassment claims from people whose salary also comes from my tax payer dollars, I have every right to make my viewpoint known. Y'all obviously don't have to agree with it and I don't take it personal, but I can and will make my opinion known.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
I think the better question you should be asking, as a taxpayer, is if all of the attention (money, effort, etc) that is being paid to this issue is actually reflective of the actual severity of the issue.
Sexual assault is as harmful to combat readiness as everyone says it is -- fact. Absolutely no argument that it has zero place in any organization, much less a warfighting organization where trust, order, and discipline form the backbone. It should be hunted and punished with the full weight of both civil and military law.
What is in question is what actions actually qualify, and if the significance of those actions is as it is being made out to be in the media. The issue that we are facing is that there has now been a link drawn that says "anything offensive" is now equal to sexual assault. The core problem is that "offensive" is an inherently subjective line, and the military has currently drawn that line at the lowest common denominator. There are people in society that can literally be personally offended by just about anything.
Take a look at the results of the latest witch hunt, a "health and welfare inspection" last December which went to go find anything that could be deemed offensive to anyone. Interestingly, the results don't list what the specific items were or why they were found offensive -- and there's a reason for that. Just as an example, two of the items that were deemed "offensive" were the nose art on a B-17 and B-24 at the USAF Museum:
http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130118-015.pdf
The noseart of Strawberry Bitch and Shoo Shoo Baby were actually COVERED UP WITH SHEETS, and were being considered to be PAINTED OVER so that they would not offend anyone. In my squadron, magazines like Men's Fitness were reported as "offensive", as was a guy's photo of he and his wife/kids on vacation at the beach, because the wife was in a bikini. My squadron also has a skin panel painted up with this vintage squadron noseart (a F-5 that flew with my squadron in the Pacific in WWII), which is actual, real heritage. That noseart panel is now sitting in a garbage bag in a closet so as not to offend anyone, at all, ever (aside from me -- apparently the fact that I'm offended that we are trampling on our own heritage in the name of political correctness isn't valid):
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130130/NEWS/301300323/Health-welfare-inspections-expect-more
But, don't just take my word for it. I think a good starting point is the WSJ piece written by USMC Capt Lindsay Rodman (a Marine JAG officer), "The Pentagon's Bad Math on Sexual Assault".
Sexual assault is as harmful to combat readiness as everyone says it is -- fact. Absolutely no argument that it has zero place in any organization, much less a warfighting organization where trust, order, and discipline form the backbone. It should be hunted and punished with the full weight of both civil and military law.
What is in question is what actions actually qualify, and if the significance of those actions is as it is being made out to be in the media. The issue that we are facing is that there has now been a link drawn that says "anything offensive" is now equal to sexual assault. The core problem is that "offensive" is an inherently subjective line, and the military has currently drawn that line at the lowest common denominator. There are people in society that can literally be personally offended by just about anything.
Take a look at the results of the latest witch hunt, a "health and welfare inspection" last December which went to go find anything that could be deemed offensive to anyone. Interestingly, the results don't list what the specific items were or why they were found offensive -- and there's a reason for that. Just as an example, two of the items that were deemed "offensive" were the nose art on a B-17 and B-24 at the USAF Museum:
http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130118-015.pdf
The noseart of Strawberry Bitch and Shoo Shoo Baby were actually COVERED UP WITH SHEETS, and were being considered to be PAINTED OVER so that they would not offend anyone. In my squadron, magazines like Men's Fitness were reported as "offensive", as was a guy's photo of he and his wife/kids on vacation at the beach, because the wife was in a bikini. My squadron also has a skin panel painted up with this vintage squadron noseart (a F-5 that flew with my squadron in the Pacific in WWII), which is actual, real heritage. That noseart panel is now sitting in a garbage bag in a closet so as not to offend anyone, at all, ever (aside from me -- apparently the fact that I'm offended that we are trampling on our own heritage in the name of political correctness isn't valid):
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130130/NEWS/301300323/Health-welfare-inspections-expect-more
But, don't just take my word for it. I think a good starting point is the WSJ piece written by USMC Capt Lindsay Rodman (a Marine JAG officer), "The Pentagon's Bad Math on Sexual Assault".
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
As is often the case on the internet, simply having an opinion along with the means to express it, does not give it inherent validity.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
I think the better question you should be asking, as a taxpayer, is if all of the attention (money, effort, etc) that is being paid to this issue is actually reflective of the actual severity of the issue.
Sexual assault is as harmful to combat readiness as everyone says it is -- fact. Absolutely no argument that it has zero place in any organization, much less a warfighting organization where trust, order, and discipline form the backbone. It should be hunted and punished with the full weight of both civil and military law.
What is in question is what actions actually qualify, and if the significance of those actions is as it is being made out to be in the media. The issue that we are facing is that there has now been a link drawn that says "anything offensive" is now equal to sexual assault. The core problem is that "offensive" is an inherently subjective line, and the military has currently drawn that line at the lowest common denominator. There are people in society that can literally be personally offended by just about anything.
Take a look at the results of the latest witch hunt, a "health and welfare inspection" last December which went to go find anything that could be deemed offensive to anyone. Interestingly, the results don't list what the specific items were or why they were found offensive -- and there's a reason for that. Just as an example, two of the items that were deemed "offensive" were the nose art on a B-17 and B-24 at the USAF Museum:
http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130118-015.pdf
The noseart of Strawberry Bitch and Shoo Shoo Baby were actually COVERED UP WITH SHEETS, and were being considered to be PAINTED OVER so that they would not offend anyone. In my squadron, magazines like Men's Fitness were reported as "offensive", as was a guy's photo of he and his wife/kids on vacation at the beach, because the wife was in a bikini. My squadron also has a skin panel painted up with this vintage squadron noseart (a F-5 that flew with my squadron in the Pacific in WWII), which is actual, real heritage. That noseart panel is now sitting in a garbage bag in a closet so as not to offend anyone, at all, ever (aside from me -- apparently the fact that I'm offended that we are trampling on our own heritage in the name of political correctness isn't valid):
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130130/NEWS/301300323/Health-welfare-inspections-expect-more
But, don't just take my word for it. I think a good starting point is the WSJ piece written by USMC Capt Lindsay Rodman (a Marine JAG officer), "The Pentagon's Bad Math on Sexual Assault".
In all seriousness. The F5 thing is sad and scary beyond words. It reminds me of censorship from fast fascist regimes. There is something Orwellian about it. It is history. One of a kind and can never be replaced. I'd be off my rocker like steal the piece and keep it somewhere safe until idiocy subsides kind crazy mad.
Not to mention it says a lot about what it takes as a society to succeed at war like it or not.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
I've asked the same as a taxpayer seeing the IRS issue unfold. My stance with that is that the severity of the IRS issue does not deserve that attention. But what can I do about it? I would also say that as long as a mountain is being made out of a mole hill with the IRS issue and I'm sure a mountain is being made out of a mole hill with the military, but what is fair is fair.
Unless people start saying the IRS issue is being overblown (which they won't), it is hypocritical to speak critically of the military getting uptight over potential sexual harassment cases. Not saying how you feel about the IRS, I am speaking generally here.
People can make a mountain out of a mole hill, yes. But once again, how do you expect the reaction to be here because few bad apples?
Take a look at the results of the latest witch hunt, a "health and welfare inspection" last December which went to go find anything that could be deemed offensive to anyone. Interestingly, the results don't list what the specific items were or why they were found offensive -- and there's a reason for that. Just as an example, two of the items that were deemed "offensive" were the nose art on a B-17 and B-24 at the USAF Museum:
http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130118-015.pdf
The noseart of Strawberry Bitch and Shoo Shoo Baby were actually COVERED UP WITH SHEETS, and were being considered to be PAINTED OVER so that they would not offend anyone. In my squadron, magazines like Men's Fitness were reported as "offensive", as was a guy's photo of he and his wife/kids on vacation at the beach, because the wife was in a bikini. My squadron also has a skin panel painted up with this vintage squadron noseart (a F-5 that flew with my squadron in the Pacific in WWII), which is actual, real heritage. That noseart panel is now sitting in a garbage bag in a closet so as not to offend anyone, at all, ever (aside from me -- apparently the fact that I'm offended that we are trampling on our own heritage in the name of political correctness isn't valid):
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130130/NEWS/301300323/Health-welfare-inspections-expect-more
But, don't just take my word for it. I think a good starting point is the WSJ piece written by USMC Capt Lindsay Rodman (a Marine JAG officer), "The Pentagon's Bad Math on Sexual Assault".
No different than the 'witch hunt' going on against the IRS now. Yes people are overreacting with the nose art, but people also are overreacting because a handful of potential bad apples at the IRS Office in Cincinnati.
Sorry Steve, being ex-Navy myself, I should have stated, "Other Drunks". My deepeest apologies
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
Interestingly, not one second. His experience with the military and the only time he ever wore a uniform was in his sophomore year in college, in the ROTC.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Really? That's it? You support an over-reaction/witch-hunt atmosphere which results in intentional destruction of military culture as some kind of "retribution" for some completely unrelated issue involving a different branch of the federal government? As in, one bad deed deserves another?
Tip o' the hat to you, sir.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
I know a good number of alcoholics that might find "Bar Fly" a term of endearment rather than offensive.
bunk22
Well-Known Member
bunk22
Well-Known Member
I think the better question you should be asking, as a taxpayer, is if all of the attention (money, effort, etc) that is being paid to this issue is actually reflective of the actual severity of the issue.
Sexual assault is as harmful to combat readiness as everyone says it is -- fact. Absolutely no argument that it has zero place in any organization, much less a warfighting organization where trust, order, and discipline form the backbone. It should be hunted and punished with the full weight of both civil and military law.
What is in question is what actions actually qualify, and if the significance of those actions is as it is being made out to be in the media. The issue that we are facing is that there has now been a link drawn that says "anything offensive" is now equal to sexual assault. The core problem is that "offensive" is an inherently subjective line, and the military has currently drawn that line at the lowest common denominator. There are people in society that can literally be personally offended by just about anything.
Take a look at the results of the latest witch hunt, a "health and welfare inspection" last December which went to go find anything that could be deemed offensive to anyone. Interestingly, the results don't list what the specific items were or why they were found offensive -- and there's a reason for that. Just as an example, two of the items that were deemed "offensive" were the nose art on a B-17 and B-24 at the USAF Museum:
http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130118-015.pdf
The noseart of Strawberry Bitch and Shoo Shoo Baby were actually COVERED UP WITH SHEETS, and were being considered to be PAINTED OVER so that they would not offend anyone. In my squadron, magazines like Men's Fitness were reported as "offensive", as was a guy's photo of he and his wife/kids on vacation at the beach, because the wife was in a bikini. My squadron also has a skin panel painted up with this vintage squadron noseart (a F-5 that flew with my squadron in the Pacific in WWII), which is actual, real heritage. That noseart panel is now sitting in a garbage bag in a closet so as not to offend anyone, at all, ever (aside from me -- apparently the fact that I'm offended that we are trampling on our own heritage in the name of political correctness isn't valid):
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130130/NEWS/301300323/Health-welfare-inspections-expect-more
But, don't just take my word for it. I think a good starting point is the WSJ piece written by USMC Capt Lindsay Rodman (a Marine JAG officer), "The Pentagon's Bad Math on Sexual Assault".
I just want to throw up. The pussification of America is sad. A few years back, there were some groups crying about an F6F Hellcat adorned with the Navy's top ace of WWII and all time, David McCampbell's, kill marks. Luckily, someone had common sense to say it stays, pack sand.
Why paint over the nose art of the B-17 and B-24 at the USAF museum? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to just tow the birds out to the flightline, and scrap them on-site? I mean, those aircraft killed people in Europe during WWII.....surely their use as instruments of death is offensive, and therefore their mere existance as-such, should warrant their being destroyed so as not continue their offensive nature.
That's what the AF museum should do. Then, the AF museum should do that to itself.....have the building imploded in its entirety.
Heritage. The AF wouldn't know what that word meant if they wrote the dictionary themselves.
And so-called "Heritage Rooms" (squadron bars)? They should be blank white walls, with a coin operated candy and soda machine and a few chairs. Because that's all they're worth anymore. The AF has ensured that "heritage" be kept as-is.
That's what the AF museum should do. Then, the AF museum should do that to itself.....have the building imploded in its entirety.
Heritage. The AF wouldn't know what that word meant if they wrote the dictionary themselves.
And so-called "Heritage Rooms" (squadron bars)? They should be blank white walls, with a coin operated candy and soda machine and a few chairs. Because that's all they're worth anymore. The AF has ensured that "heritage" be kept as-is.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
What bothers me is that we only hear for those speaking for the oppressed or offended, not the the oppressed or offended.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
The only "heritage" that the USAF cares about are the whitewashed revisionist history points that are cherry-picked to support our current PC vision of what we wish our heritage really was.
I could not believe it in January when the CSAF wrote the letter to the masses declaring that he'd determined that singing warrior songs wasn't part of USAF heritage, because he'd spoken to his father -- a WWII veteran -- and he hadn't done it.
That's some great detective work, sir.
I guess all of these copies of songbooks I have -- with the same songs with the same "dirty" lyrics as we (used to) sing currently -- are just figments of my imagination. They can't have existed, because the boss' father said so. These are not the songbooks you are looking for...move along.
http://www.horntip.com/html/songs_sorted_by_informant/military_songs/air_force/
The records of performances of those songs from way back when by this Oscar Brand guy must just be a made up memory...just a rationalization my current-day warriors invented to cover for all of our ill intent.
http://oscarbrand.com/discog.htm
I could not believe it in January when the CSAF wrote the letter to the masses declaring that he'd determined that singing warrior songs wasn't part of USAF heritage, because he'd spoken to his father -- a WWII veteran -- and he hadn't done it.
That's some great detective work, sir.
I guess all of these copies of songbooks I have -- with the same songs with the same "dirty" lyrics as we (used to) sing currently -- are just figments of my imagination. They can't have existed, because the boss' father said so. These are not the songbooks you are looking for...move along.
http://www.horntip.com/html/songs_sorted_by_informant/military_songs/air_force/
The records of performances of those songs from way back when by this Oscar Brand guy must just be a made up memory...just a rationalization my current-day warriors invented to cover for all of our ill intent.
http://oscarbrand.com/discog.htm
SteveCostello
My member is well-known.
Man... you guys sure know how to put the buzzkill on what should be an otherwise awesome dogfighting with awesome machines!! thread.