Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

This sort of puts the kibosh on THAT bogus notion. The Soviets are STILL among the pariahs of the international community...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/04 ... port-says/

SuperHornet wrote:This sort of puts the kibosh on THAT bogus notion. The Soviets are STILL among the pariahs of the international community...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/04 ... port-says/

So are you going to enlist and help keep us free?

Already done that. And I'd go back in a heatbeat if the Navy would take me and my body would allow it. (I have a REALLY bad knee right now, but I'd ignore that tomorrow if I could get orders to a San Diego-based ship....)

SuperHornet wrote:Already done that. And I'd go back in a heatbeat if the Navy would take me and my body would allow it. (I have a REALLY bad knee right now, but I'd ignore that tomorrow if I could get orders to a San Diego-based ship....)

No, I was talking about enlisting in the military.

houndawg wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Already done that. And I'd go back in a heatbeat if the Navy would take me and my body would allow it. (I have a REALLY bad knee right now, but I'd ignore that tomorrow if I could get orders to a San Diego-based ship....)

No, I was talking about enlisting in the military.

One week at sea and you'd be shitting yourself to get off the ship. Crying like a baby...

SuperHornet wrote:This sort of puts the kibosh on THAT bogus notion. The Soviets are STILL among the pariahs of the international community...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/04 ... port-says/

I'm not going to search to find it, but several other media outlets had "scary" headlines about this missile launch, and then, deep in the article, it mentioned that this missile test was scheduled well BEFORE the Ukraine crisis started. Your sources says, "days." Yeah, like 180 days.

Russia gave everyone notice, WAY before this was an issue. Routine test...nothing to see here.

Oh, BTW, are we still holding occasional military exercises in the South China Sea? How about in/around the Middle East? Do we still position carriers wherever we want...which often is within range of some conflict with which we have interest? Do we still have drones delivering our special packages wherever and whenever we want? I could go on, you know.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

SuperHornet wrote:This sort of puts the kibosh on THAT bogus notion. The Soviets are STILL among the pariahs of the international community...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/04 ... port-says/

This is nothing new. In fact, this test was scheduled way before the Crimea Crisis. Try again, dipshit.

Cluck U wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:This sort of puts the kibosh on THAT bogus notion. The Soviets are STILL among the pariahs of the international community...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/04 ... port-says/

I'm not going to search to find it, but several other media outlets had "scary" headlines about this missile launch, and then, deep in the article, it mentioned that this missile test was scheduled well BEFORE the Ukraine crisis started. Your sources says, "days." Yeah, like 180 days.

Russia gave everyone notice, WAY before this was an issue. Routine test...nothing to see here.

Oh, BTW, are we still holding occasional military exercises in the South China Sea? How about in/around the Middle East? Do we still position carriers wherever we want...which often is within range of some conflict with which we have interest? Do we still have drones delivering our special packages wherever and whenever we want? I could go on, you know.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

Cluck, you beat me to it.

SuperHornet wrote:Already done that. And I'd go back in a heatbeat if the Navy would take me and my body would allow it. (I have a REALLY bad knee right now, but I'd ignore that tomorrow if I could get orders to a San Diego-based ship....)

Yes, because defending our country has to be convenient for you.

Here's a hint: the military doesn't need you. Apparently, they don't need a whole bunch of people either because our general is TELLING Congress that we should cut our budget. They already have enough dolts that can push a button or get shot up for other people's monetary gain.

Cluck U wrote:They already have enough dolts that can push a button or get shot up for other people's monetary gain.

Dolts huh? Tell us how you really feel about the people leaving their families to go to some shithole for five pumps in the last ten years. Lot of lives and blood shed to be calling them dolts, but that's easy to do from inside your cozy borders.

IMO the Cold War is still going on only the weapon is economic now instead of things that go bang!

93henfan wrote:

Cluck U wrote:They already have enough dolts that can push a button or get shot up for other people's monetary gain.

Dolts huh? Tell us how you really feel about the people leaving their families to go to some shithole for five pumps in the last ten years. Lot of lives and blood shed to be calling them dolts, but that's easy to do from inside your cozy borders.

Cry me a river. I traveled all over this g'damned country, away from my family for weeks, for several previous jobs and don't expect anyone to loose sleep or call me a hero because I chose a certain occupation with costs associated with it.

Anyone who signs up for our military is nuts.

Seriously.

There is NO reason for anyone to go into the armed services at this point in time. You might think that is stupid, but anyone who goes into the military is NOT protecting the United States of America from any foreign power. We are not under any threat from any country...and haven't been for decades. The people of Egypt aren't going to rise up to attack 'Merica. Russia? Nope. Korea? Not a chance.

Who is going to invade the United States?

If you suggest we should defend Europe...why the fvck should our troops be stationed in Europe? Who is going to invade Europe? Not Russia (Don't...don't...don't believe the hype). And, if someone invades Europe, the Europeans should be adequately able to defend themselves from this mysterious attacker.

So really, who is a military threat to the United States of America? Godzilla? Martians?

Now, some of you are going to insert Al Qaeda...and I am going to have to laugh. AQ would have NOTHING to do with the U.S. if we weren't farting around the world propping up oppressive dictators who are letting their people get educated by imams in tents.

We don't need a huge standing military. We just don't. Our top general, who gets paid to make such decisions, wants to cut our military back to pre-WWII levels. And heck, we don't even need that if we decide that we don't need to be involved in, or cause of, every single flare up on this planet...and we could go down even farther if we tell Europe to fund their own defense forces.

Instead, we have a huge standing military that gets sent to do the bidding of our corporations...at the expense of our taxpayers. In the meantime, the big wigs and MIC companies make a ton of money off the latest overly expensive and redundant gadgets, many that don't work as advertised, and few that we really need.

We simply don't need such a military.

Currently, we have a bunch of our boys, girls, and transgendered suckers getting shot at in places they shouldn't be...all in the name of....what? Democracy? No way. Fair trade? No way. Freedom? You're fvcking with me. Saving the helpless from tyrants? Puhlease. Defending our "strategic" interests? Huh? Who's interests?

Goat herders around the world don't want America dead...they are too busy trying to scrape out a living to care about us. Cripes, we don't even care about us, so why should they? But, we're dropping bombs and killing their people...for what? BTW, I'm not crying about it...people die all the time...but we don't need to be there and anyone who signs up for that shvt is stupid. They've bought into a lie.

You want a force for protection? OK, I get that. Someone hits us, we hit them back. Defending our country...something I can believe in and appreciate.

But that isn't what we have.

We have a bunch of people who join the military for a paycheck (often, not having many other choices), and then they get ordered to go into places where we have no business. Shooting up people in Afghanistan really isn't defending my country, no matter how anyone tries to sell that story.

And don't give me the garbage about their dedication and bravery going into battle. Soldiers follow those orders because they are brainwashed about loyalty, courage, and the great defense of this country (and the fact that they will be thrown into the brig if they don't). Would you expect me to respect an Iraqi soldier because they think they are doing something for their country? Or maybe only the ones on our current list of good guys?

Oh, and soldiers are trained to follow orders...rather than think. They aren't sacrificing for me...they are doing their job (a choice they most likely made for their own well being). They know the risks, and, if they've been paying attention to the world, they know (but probably don't bother to try to understand) that they are going to be sent to get shot at, and shoot back at, some people who don't want them where they are going. Why are they being shot at? Well, if you ask, "why" then the military doesn't want you (or you get thrown into the brig), at least not on the front lines. So, there really isn't any choice...our soldiers just do what they are told. And they knew that was the deal when they signed up. BTW, why does every military movie have some clown that screams, "I didn't sign up for this shit!", when in fact, they signed up for that shit?

You've probably already lost it at that point, but you can put your gun back in its holster...I'm not the enemy. I just don't think anyone should respect a soldier simply because those folks have chosen to put on a uniform because no one really believes they are going into the military to defend our country from bad guys, do they?

Let the politician's children sign up for the military...and the politicians themselves. If we did that, we'd really see what size military we'd need...and what military actions we deemed were "necessary." My bet is that we'd have a really different attitude towards our "conflicts."

Heck, there used to be a time when leader LED their troops into battle. When is the last time that happened in a "civilized" (now that is funny) nation? Well, we know who the smart ones are now, don't we...and they ain't wearing a dirty uniform.

Cool essay Smug U.

It's amazing how little respect you seem to have for the people who do in fact defend your right to insult them.

I think the DE Guard might be returning to NCC Airport soon. Make sure you save up as much spit as possible for the baby killers.

At least you made one good point here: "Let the politician's children sign up for the military...and the politicians themselves. If we did that, we'd really see what size military we'd need...and what military actions we deemed were "necessary." My bet is that we'd have a really different attitude towards our "conflicts."

Cluck U wrote: We don't need a huge standing military. We just don't. Our top general, who gets paid to make such decisions, wants to cut our military back to pre-WWII levels. And heck, we don't even need that if we decide that we don't need to be involved in, or cause of, every single flare up on this planet...and we could go down even farther if we tell Europe to fund their own defense forces.

Our top general, after Obama fired 197 senior officers to get to the one who agreed with him?

Cluck U wrote: Cry me a river. I traveled all over this g'damned country, away from my family for weeks, for several previous jobs and don't expect anyone to loose sleep or call me a hero because I chose a certain occupation with costs associated with it.

I take it you get shot at a lot in your line of work?

Cluck U wrote: And don't give me the garbage about their dedication and bravery going into battle. Soldiers follow those orders because they are brainwashed about loyalty, courage, and the great defense of this country (and the fact that they will be thrown into the brig if they don't). Would you expect me to respect an Iraqi soldier because they think they are doing something for their country? Or maybe only the ones on our current list of good guys?

Oh, and soldiers are trained to follow orders...rather than think.

Dude. You should have stopped digging while you were behind.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cluck U wrote: Cry me a river. I traveled all over this g'damned country, away from my family for weeks, for several previous jobs and don't expect anyone to loose sleep or call me a hero because I chose a certain occupation with costs associated with it.

I take it you get shot at a lot in your line of work?

He works at a Comic Book Shoppe

Cluck U wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Already done that. And I'd go back in a heatbeat if the Navy would take me and my body would allow it. (I have a REALLY bad knee right now, but I'd ignore that tomorrow if I could get orders to a San Diego-based ship....)

Yes, because defending our country has to be convenient for you.

Here's a hint: the military doesn't need you. Apparently, they don't need a whole bunch of people either because our general is TELLING Congress that we should cut our budget. They already have enough dolts that can push a button or get shot up for other people's monetary gain.

Which general is that? Even if there is 1 or a couple, my guess is there'a a whole lot more generals, both current and retired, that aren't saying that the budget should be cut.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cluck U wrote: We don't need a huge standing military. We just don't. Our top general, who gets paid to make such decisions, wants to cut our military back to pre-WWII levels. And heck, we don't even need that if we decide that we don't need to be involved in, or cause of, every single flare up on this planet...and we could go down even farther if we tell Europe to fund their own defense forces.

Our top general, after Obama fired 197 senior officers to get to the one who agreed with him?

or I really should be

mrklean wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I take it you get shot at a lot in your line of work?

He works at a Comic Book Shoppe

Wow. Olde English.

Cluck U wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Dolts huh? Tell us how you really feel about the people leaving their families to go to some shithole for five pumps in the last ten years. Lot of lives and blood shed to be calling them dolts, but that's easy to do from inside your cozy borders.

Cry me a river. I traveled all over this g'damned country, away from my family for weeks, for several previous jobs and don't expect anyone to loose sleep or call me a hero because I chose a certain occupation with costs associated with it.

Anyone who signs up for our military is nuts.

Seriously.

There is NO reason for anyone to go into the armed services at this point in time. You might think that is stupid, but anyone who goes into the military is NOT protecting the United States of America from any foreign power. We are not under any threat from any country...and haven't been for decades. The people of Egypt aren't going to rise up to attack 'Merica. Russia? Nope. Korea? Not a chance.

Who is going to invade the United States?

If you suggest we should defend Europe...why the fvck should our troops be stationed in Europe? Who is going to invade Europe? Not Russia (Don't...don't...don't believe the hype). And, if someone invades Europe, the Europeans should be adequately able to defend themselves from this mysterious attacker.

So really, who is a military threat to the United States of America? Godzilla? Martians?

Now, some of you are going to insert Al Qaeda...and I am going to have to laugh. AQ would have NOTHING to do with the U.S. if we weren't farting around the world propping up oppressive dictators who are letting their people get educated by imams in tents.

We don't need a huge standing military. We just don't. Our top general, who gets paid to make such decisions, wants to cut our military back to pre-WWII levels. And heck, we don't even need that if we decide that we don't need to be involved in, or cause of, every single flare up on this planet...and we could go down even farther if we tell Europe to fund their own defense forces.

Instead, we have a huge standing military that gets sent to do the bidding of our corporations...at the expense of our taxpayers. In the meantime, the big wigs and MIC companies make a ton of money off the latest overly expensive and redundant gadgets, many that don't work as advertised, and few that we really need.

We simply don't need such a military.

Currently, we have a bunch of our boys, girls, and transgendered suckers getting shot at in places they shouldn't be...all in the name of....what? Democracy? No way. Fair trade? No way. Freedom? You're fvcking with me. Saving the helpless from tyrants? Puhlease. Defending our "strategic" interests? Huh? Who's interests?

Goat herders around the world don't want America dead...they are too busy trying to scrape out a living to care about us. Cripes, we don't even care about us, so why should they? But, we're dropping bombs and killing their people...for what? BTW, I'm not crying about it...people die all the time...but we don't need to be there and anyone who signs up for that shvt is stupid. They've bought into a lie.

You want a force for protection? OK, I get that. Someone hits us, we hit them back. Defending our country...something I can believe in and appreciate.

But that isn't what we have.

We have a bunch of people who join the military for a paycheck (often, not having many other choices), and then they get ordered to go into places where we have no business. Shooting up people in Afghanistan really isn't defending my country, no matter how anyone tries to sell that story.

And don't give me the garbage about their dedication and bravery going into battle. Soldiers follow those orders because they are brainwashed about loyalty, courage, and the great defense of this country (and the fact that they will be thrown into the brig if they don't). Would you expect me to respect an Iraqi soldier because they think they are doing something for their country? Or maybe only the ones on our current list of good guys?

Oh, and soldiers are trained to follow orders...rather than think. They aren't sacrificing for me...they are doing their job (a choice they most likely made for their own well being). They know the risks, and, if they've been paying attention to the world, they know (but probably don't bother to try to understand) that they are going to be sent to get shot at, and shoot back at, some people who don't want them where they are going. Why are they being shot at? Well, if you ask, "why" then the military doesn't want you (or you get thrown into the brig), at least not on the front lines. So, there really isn't any choice...our soldiers just do what they are told. And they knew that was the deal when they signed up. BTW, why does every military movie have some clown that screams, "I didn't sign up for this shit!", when in fact, they signed up for that shit?

You've probably already lost it at that point, but you can put your gun back in its holster...I'm not the enemy. I just don't think anyone should respect a soldier simply because those folks have chosen to put on a uniform because no one really believes they are going into the military to defend our country from bad guys, do they?

Let the politician's children sign up for the military...and the politicians themselves. If we did that, we'd really see what size military we'd need...and what military actions we deemed were "necessary." My bet is that we'd have a really different attitude towards our "conflicts."

Heck, there used to be a time when leader LED their troops into battle. When is the last time that happened in a "civilized" (now that is funny) nation? Well, we know who the smart ones are now, don't we...and they ain't wearing a dirty uniform.

HOLY RANT BATMAN!

Cluck U wrote:because our general is TELLING Congress that we should cut our budget.

Cluck U wrote:Our top general, who gets paid to make such decisions, wants to cut our military back to pre-WWII levels.

Wrong. Article out yesterday:

"Military’s top general offers grim outlook on nation’s defense

WASHINGTON — The nation’s top military commander painted a dark picture Tuesday of future U.S. defense capabilities clouded by shrinking Pentagon budgets and adversaries’ technological advances that he said would erode American battlefield superiority.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided his sobering views as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review, a congressionally mandated evaluation of U.S. military strength issued every four years.

Dempsey predicted that it would become increasingly difficult to balance the competing demands of protecting allies abroad, securing Americans at home and deterring future wars.

“The smaller and less capable military outlined in the QDR makes meeting these obligations more difficult,” he said. “Most of our platforms and equipment will be older, and our advantages in some domains will have eroded. Our loss of depth across the force could reduce our ability to intimidate opponents from escalating conflicts.”

Dempsey added: “Moreover, many of our most capable allies will lose key capabilities. The situation will be exacerbated given our current readiness concerns, which will worsen over the next three or four years.”

Dempsey’s perspective was more pessimistic than that of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

“As we move off the longest continuous war footing in our nation’s history, this QDR explains how we will adapt, reshape and rebalance our military for the challenges and opportunities of the future,” Hagel said in a statement.

Dempsey issued his warnings as President Barack Obama sent Congress a 2015 budget for the entire government on Tuesday that provides the Pentagon just over $600 billion.

That’s $13 billion less than current funding, but $26 billion more than provided in a budget deal that Congress approved in December by large bipartisan majorities.

Dempsey lashed out at Congress for slashing defense funding over the last three years while preventing the Pentagon from shuttering unneeded military bases, retiring outdated weapons systems and taking other steps to save money.

“I urge Congress - again - to move quickly to implement difficult decisions and to remove limitations on our ability to make hard choices within the Department of Defense,” he said. “The changes required for institutional reform are unpleasant and unpopular, but we need our elected leaders to work with us to reduce excess infrastructure, slow the growth of military pay and compensation, and retire equipment that we do not need.”

The response from Congress was quick.

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, a California Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the quadrennial review was driven by politics, was “budget-driven” and does not provide enough insight into Pentagon needs beyond the current spending restraints.

“Unfortunately, the product . . . is of little value to decision-makers,” McKeon said in a statement.

Calling the review “shortsighted,” McKeon said it “allows the president to duck the consequences of the deep defense cuts he has advocated and leaves us all wondering what the true future costs of those cuts will be.”

McKeon said he will introduce legislation requiring the Pentagon “to rewrite and resubmit a compliant report.”

A congressional demand that the Pentagon redo the quadrennial review, which is 88 pages long this time, would be unprecedented. Even if such a bill were to pass the Republican-controlled House, it almost certainly would be defeated in the Democratic-majority Senate.

Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican, accused Obama of slashing defense funding in his proposed budget while seeking new spending in other areas.

“We see a budget which drives us further into debt, takes more money out of the pockets of the American people, decreases our military readiness and does nothing to ensure that critical entitlements will be sustainable for the next generation,” Scott said.

The back and forth among the Pentagon, Obama and Congress extends a blame game over defense funding reductions that most outside analysts say are inevitable.

The budget cuts follow a decade-long spending binge triggered by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, as Pentagon funding reached record highs to pay for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and broader anti-terror initiatives.

Hagel’s criticism of the defense spending reductions over the last three years was more muted than that of Dempsey.

“These continued fiscal constraints cannot be ignored,” the defense secretary said. “It would be dishonest and irresponsible to present a QDR articulating a strategy disconnected from the reality of resource constraints. A strategy must have the resources for its implementation.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/04/2 ... -grim.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

93henfan wrote:Cool essay Smug U.

It's amazing how little respect you seem to have for the people who do in fact defend your right to insult them.

I think the DE Guard might be returning to NCC Airport soon. Make sure you save up as much spit as possible for the baby killers.

At least you made one good point here: "Let the politician's children sign up for the military...and the politicians themselves. If we did that, we'd really see what size military we'd need...and what military actions we deemed were "necessary." My bet is that we'd have a really different attitude towards our "conflicts."

You should probably have your doctor check that knee...jerking it around like that can cause damage and in this case might have resulted in a concussion.

Do you spit at the retail clerks when you return items or do you simply snicker at the fact that you are taking food off the plate of their children while ruining their sales efforts?

Now that we’ve addressed the hippie/spit/returning war hero/baby killer/cue the Born in the U.S.A music hyperbole, let’s get back to reality. I’m not the one that sent thousands of our kids to die in Afghanistan, and wants to keep them there after “mission accomplished.” I’m not the one who sent our husbands, wives, and children to Iraq…for what? You can ask the Obushma twins if they spit on our soldiers graves before they have their defense contractor friends over for a $10,000 a plate fundraising dinner. Then ask our congressmen why they like to send our troops needlessly into harm’s way in order to keep up the retarded game of fear just to keep one of their area’s bases open for jobs (never waste a good crisis).

Speaking of which…

"Despite the attention focused on Ukraine, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s testimony Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee was remarkable for another reason: it showed how lawmakers remain focused on bread-and-butter budget concerns even in times of international crisis.

Another Democrat up for re-election this fall, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, told Hagel that while he’d been concentrating on “the significant crises we are facing throughout the world today, and the challenges ... for our national security, what I hear mostly from my constituents in New Hampshire is not really about those challenges. It's about what's happening to our men and women in uniform. It's about what's happening domestically in terms of our military and its footprint in the United States.”'

THIS is what our military is really about. Money and jobs. We’re not protecting the good ol’ US of A from anything because no one is attacking us.

There is no heroism/patriotism going on out there, unless you consider wasting people’s lives in a back woods third world country a heroic and patriotic endeavor. In that case, you might want to feel some sympathy for the corner drug dealer who finds himself in a war zone every day. Otherwise, I simply consider the vast majority of our overseas casualties a sad waste of people’s lives. And, unfortunately, those people are fools for volunteering to be nothing but a disposable tool in someone else’s profitable side show. Hey, I hope none of them die or get injured…and I hope they kill everyone trying to kill them…but that isn’t my definition of a hero or a patriot.

Vietnam…58,000 dead. For what? Looking back, what a farce…propping up a crooked government while defense contractors and oil/rubber interests got rich. Sound eerily familiar to Afghanistan, et al? Yes, those VC gooks were digging trenches across the Pacific so they could invade and trample our God and Country…and after nearly 40 years, they are due to break into California any minute now.

If you knew what we know now, would you support that war? We’ll look back in 30 years and shake our heads at the wasted lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. At the same time, we’ll be involved in yet another war where some other dumbasses will be getting shot and people will be calling them heroes.

CluckU coming in at over 1,500 words in two posts.

Skjellyfetti wrote:CluckU coming in at over 1,500 words in two posts.

His emoticon to word ratio is way down. I don't think I saw a single emoticon (maybe he saves that one for me ). He means business on this thread.