T Nation

Hiring . . .

Politics and World Issues
#21

I very rarely, if ever agree with posts by wreck, but…

I would love to see some of those congressional staffers in a utility uniform getting worn the f*ck out by a Drill Instructor. As a Marine officer in D.C., I often have to deal with those turds and thier inflated sense of entitlement and disregard for the military. They look down thier noses at anyone in uniform and assume they are a superior person simply because they work for a congressman. If you think Wreakless dislikes the military, you all should spend a day in the Rayburn house office building.

#22

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The USMC is quite possibly the finest organisation on earth. These guys risk their lives to protect Americans. For you to make fun of them is just plain swinish.

I find it funny that a man who never served with the USMC is so quick to talk about how great they are.

Please remove the photo of Suribachi–you aren’t one of the few…that honor lies with 5th MARDIV which is no longer.

LIFTICVS,

This is an extremely flawed line of thinking considering that we are all commenting and quarterbacking politics, while I’m sure that 99.999% of us have never been elected to a public office.

That same line of logic dictates that you, even if you have served as a Marine, cannot post a picture of those honored men, because you were not a part of the 5th MARDIV.

Get what I’m saying? Think about it.

[/quote]
Yeah, I get it; however, I am not talking about the politics of the military I am talking about the “hangers on” whom have no frame of reference to judge. Politics doesn’t fall into this realm. Everyone can have an opinion about politics–their opinions are usually dictated by their experience. Not only that these same hangers-on wax philosophic about that which they’ve never experienced and at the same time get offended by jokes that have nothing to do with the military and everything to do with the politics of a lost cause. I am tired of “arm-chair” combatants waving their flags talking about what’s best for the country.

In all fairness I have allowed my emotions come itno play on some of these threads but I never talk out of my ass.

#23

[quote]Dickhunter wrote:
I didn’t start this stream of insults. You did. Now go fucking die.[/quote]

Tell you what shithead, go back and read the OP and then explain how exactly you think it was “making fun” of the USMC. If you convince me, I’ll let you continue to fantasize that you could ever kick me in the head, with or without your clodhoppers on.

And no, sending candy and cigarettes to a former student doesn’t make you an expert either. Did you talk this kid into signing up so you could be a vicarious hero to yourself? He probably just thinks his fat, gay high school teacher is stalking him.

#24

This thing started off petty and got worse. Sometimes, restraint on a keyboard is valuable.

#25

[quote]pat36 wrote:
This thing started off petty and got worse. Sometimes, restraint on a keyboard is valuable.[/quote]

I agree. I will simply not respond to tme again in any way. tme began this shit with attacking my user name. He has also attacked me with my illness. He is beneath contempt.

#26

[quote]pat36 wrote:
This thing started off petty and got worse. Sometimes, restraint on a keyboard is valuable.[/quote]

Yes, I agree. But you have to admit that it can be really entertaining watching people get all bent out of shape over a post that Wreckless didn’t originally write. He forgot to post the link to the person who really wrote it.

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/11/republican-staffers-new-career-awaits.html

I also don’t see where this is making fun of the USMC. It is saying that all of those gung-ho, chickenhawk republican staffers that were so hell bent on starting this war now have some free time on their hands to actually go fight in it. In other words, put your money where your mouth is. There was no insult directed to the military at all.

#27

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
pat36 wrote:
This thing started off petty and got worse. Sometimes, restraint on a keyboard is valuable.

Yes, I agree. But you have to admit that it can be really entertaining watching people get all bent out of shape over a post that Wreckless didn’t originally write. He forgot to post the link to the person who really wrote it.

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/11/republican-staffers-new-career-awaits.html

I also don’t see where this is making fun of the USMC. It is saying that all of those gung-ho, chickenhawk republican staffers that were so hell bent on starting this war now have some free time on their hands to actually go fight in it. In other words, put your money where your mouth is. There was no insult directed to the military at all.
[/quote]

I just think this thread is hilarious. Besides the obvious fact that anyone with reading comprehension can understand that the OP is mocking republicans, it seems that cause wreckless posted it, he get hated on.

So if someone posted this saying “Hey guys, one of the soldiers I am serving with sent me this in an e-mail, hope you all get a good laugh from it” I bet there would be none of the flaming going on.

Admit it, you are attacking the post because its wreckless.

p.s. Its till damn funny, and makes no insult to the USMC, if you think it does, please take remedial reading comprehension again.

#28

[quote]tme wrote:
And no, sending candy and cigarettes to a former student doesn’t make you an expert either. Did you talk this kid into signing up so you could be a vicarious hero to yourself?
[/quote]

Is anyone else reminded of Kantorek, the schoolteacher in “All Quiet on the Western Front”? Kantorek extolled the virtues of the war and convinced his students to sign up.

As a fomer Marine I wasn’t offended by the original post. I am offended by Chickenhawks. What is a Chickenhawk? According to the oldest continuously operating newspaper in the U.S.: “Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.”

http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/

#29

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Is anyone else reminded of Kantorek, the schoolteacher in “All Quiet on the Western Front”? Kantorek extolled the virtues of the war and convinced his students to sign up.[/quote]

I hadn’t thought of it until I read your post, but yeah. It’s almost a perfect match. I found this on “the google”:

Kantorek
Though he is not central to the novel’s plot, Kantorek is an important figure as a focus of Remarque’s bitter critique of the ideals of patriotism and nationalism that drove nations into the catastrophe of World War I. Kantorek, the teacher who filled his students’ heads with passionate rhetoric about duty and glory, serves as a punching bag as Remarque argues against those ideals. Though a modern context is essential to the indictment of Kantorek’s patriotism and nationalism, Kantorek’s physical description groups him with premodern evil characters. The fierce and pompous Kantorek is a small man described as ?energetic and uncompromising, characteristics that recall the worried Caesar’s remarks about Cassius in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: ‘Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look. / He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous’ (I.ii.195?196). Napoleon also springs to mind as a historical model for Kantorek.
The inclusion of a seemingly anachronistic literary type - the scheming or dangerous diminutive man - may seem out of place in a modern novel. Yet this quality of Kantorek arguably reflects the espousal of dated ideas by an older generation of leaders who betray their followers with manipulations, ignorance, and lies. ‘While they taught that duty to one’s country is the greatest thing,’ Paul writes in Chapter One, ‘we already knew that death-throes are stronger.’ As schoolboys, Paul and his friends believed that Kantorek was an enlightened man whose authority derived from his wisdom; as soldiers, they quickly learn to see through Kantorek’s rhetoric and grow to despise him, especially after the death of Joseph Behm. That Kantorek is eventually drafted and makes a terrible soldier reflects the uselessness of the ideals that he touts.

Scary. It’s like he actually knew Headhunter or something.

#30

Obviously the OP was a chickenhawk joke and the chickenhawks got offended. Typical response by playing the Sacred Soldiers card. That trumps just about everything. It probably even beats the Race card. Now if you folks had followed up with the one-two knockout power of the American Flag and Holy Bible cards, well then this discussion would be over.

“Because I’m a man and you’re not?”

Just a step above “I’m made of rubber, you’re made of glue.” What a letdown.

#31

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
tme wrote:
And no, sending candy and cigarettes to a former student doesn’t make you an expert either. Did you talk this kid into signing up so you could be a vicarious hero to yourself?

Is anyone else reminded of Kantorek, the schoolteacher in “All Quiet on the Western Front”? Kantorek extolled the virtues of the war and convinced his students to sign up.

As a fomer Marine I wasn’t offended by the original post. I am offended by Chickenhawks. What is a Chickenhawk? According to the oldest continuously operating newspaper in the U.S.: “Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.”

http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/

[/quote]

That is the point. If a PHYSICAL AILMENT prevents someone from doing there bit, are they then disqualified from wanting their country to fight back? Do you guys understand this?

Many people from inner cities (like myself) are rejected because of asthma. Not everyone grew up in lilly-white suburbs or out in hillbilly land. You guys do realize that about half of all peeps who WANT to join are rejected (for health or criminal reasons)?

Give this point the fuck up already. I have posted source after source explaining this, from the DoD on down. Do you guys comprehend this?

Wait, you voted for the Dem cretins and criminals. THAT’S why this goes on and on…I get it now. It all fits. Wasting my time…

#32

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Obviously the OP was a chickenhawk joke and the chickenhawks got offended. Typical response by playing the Sacred Soldiers card. That trumps just about everything. It probably even beats the Race card. Now if you folks had followed up with the one-two knockout power of the American Flag and Holy Bible cards, well then this discussion would be over.

“Because I’m a man and you’re not?”

Just a step above “I’m made of rubber, you’re made of glue.” What a letdown.[/quote]

See my post about avatars.

#33

I thought thed brainless debate over ‘chickenhawks’ ended about the time Lefties started squealing about taking action in Sudan but weren’t signing up to be a part of it?

Let the ‘chickenhawk’ thing go - it was dumb then, and it is dumb now.

#34

I pay taxes to have other people fight and die for me. Only thing I need to do, to have an opinion on when the military (that I help fund) should or should not be used.

If any prospective recruits can’t deal with that, don’t join the voluntary military.

#35

What’s ridiculas about the whole “Bush is a chickenhawk” thing is that NO leader of ANY nation is going to battle. Period. Get over it.

Could you imagine Bush, Clinton, or any other leader for that matter leading the charge against the enemy? Use you fucking heads people.

I know, I know, “but Bush’s daddy got him into a guard unit to avoid going to 'nam, and then he missed some duty weekends!”“so his service doesn’t count!” Whatever, grow the fuck up.

Wait a minute!, this just in: The POTUS is a position that can be held by a civillian with absolutely zero millitary credentials.

WOW!

So, by many of the leftist anti-Bush whackos arguments, any president who didn’t serve, or didn’t see combat, or who’s daddy used influence to get him or her into a guard unit; doesn’t have the authority to make war while serving as a president!?!?!? I guess that would depend on their political ideoligy huh.

#36

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I pay taxes to have other people fight and die for me. Only thing I need to do, to have an opinion on when the military (that I help fund) should or should not be used.

If any prospective recruits can’t deal with that, don’t join the voluntary military.[/quote]

Excellent post.

It’s good to get this out in the open. This is the kind of thinking we’re dealing with people.

“I pay taxes to have other people fight and die for me.”

#37

[quote]btm62 wrote:
…

You’re an asshole and trying to deflect attention away from your pathetic post is the modus operandi of a white trash coward. If you have an opinion on the Dr. King post, put it in there. As usual you have nothing to offer but drivel.
[/quote]

I didn’t try to deflect attention. I was commenting on the person off someone who was commenting on my person.

If you’d take the effort to visit the thread about Dr. King, you’ll find that I exposed him there as a liar.

He’s lying about Dr. King and he’s lying when he calls me a troll.

#38

[quote]tme wrote:
I just don’t see the problem with the original post or how it is possibly making fun of the Marines. Can someone explain that?

It was making fun of the whole herd of Republican staffers that are looking for a job now, or will be soon. Does suggesting that some of the little chickenhawks in DC join the Marines somehow belittle the Marines? And how the fuck would Dickhunter know one way or the other anyhow?

[/quote]

They’re just pretending to misunderstand what is being said and turn it into a “look like how he insulted the troops”.

Sounds familiar?

#39

I’m surprised that some of you gents, not all, don’t get the intended insult to ALL Americans. You guys need a little updating on your mockery skills. Pathetic…

#40

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
What’s ridiculas about the whole “Bush is a chickenhawk” thing is that NO leader of ANY nation is going to battle. Period. Get over it.

[/quote]

I don’t think most Americans believe that our leaders should be fighting the battles. I think they are tired of what the leadership represents. Hell, even in the military higher brass don’t step foot on combat soil or carry a rifle–this isn’t the perception that Americans are upset with. It’s the fact that we get spoon fed ideals about what it means to be American by these flag waving, arm-chair heroes who use every bullet fired and every dead soldier as fodder for their politics that angers us.

It’s fine to be “patriotic” but realize we have differing opinions on what that means and according to our own admission as a democracy one idea does not hold sway over the other. It is hypocritical for people to use war as a political weapon when the only ideals that America was founded on are that we are all created equal, we all have the right to peruse our own happiness, and we all have equal access to the law. There is no superficial, ideological message in this.

Being apart of a fighting military does not mean we only support one faction of the US even though the conservative right thinks the military belongs to them. This is what we are angry about.