Petition For Boot Camp Reparations

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Fonceai Holy crap, phoenix!! Nice summary. Did you write that yourself?

Yup.

[dilligras]

Apparently some give points for distortions and incomplete answers..........no pass.

Quote by: RickSp The Gadsden flag/Navy Jack was flown by a rag tag assortment of ships and boats which dared to sail against King George and the mightiest navy in the world. Back then, these privateers and early ships of the US Navy were considered little better than pirates, the terrorists of their day, by the Royal Navy. Today, the Navy Jack is being flown on the masts of the mightest navy of the mightiest empire in the world. Regrettably, the bulk of its operations have absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Today's King George can't be bothered with actually fighting terrorism. He prefers to invade or threaten to invade countries who never attacked us while at home systematically attacking the most sacred principles that those who first sailed under the Navy Jack so bravely fought for. An interesting perversion of history.

I don't find the above perversion of history very interesting, but then I was never much interested by ideologically interpreted facts. Spin and partisan bloviation do not make for a very balanced view into the past, mon ami.

I am not surprised that you failed to address the question asked, either.....in case you missed it, I asked what significance the First Navy Jack had to the War on Terror.........I see nothing in your post resembling anything close to answering that query, and am highly skeptical of the prospect of you're doing so without twisting or omitting facts in order to spin your response into another boring attack on my country, so I will provide the info myself.

From Wikipedia:

SECNAV INSTRUCTION 10520.6 From: Secretary of the Navy To: All Ships and Stations (less Marine Corps field addressees not having Navy personnel attached) Subj: DISPLAY OF THE FIRST NAVY JACK DURING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM Ref: (a) U.S. Navy Regulations, 1990 1. Purpose. To provide for the display of the first navy Jack on board all U.S. Navy ships during the Global War on Terrorism. 2. Discussion. As the first ships of the Continental Navy readied in the Delaware River during the fall of 1775, Commodore Esek Hopkins issued a set of fleet signals. His signal for the “whole Fleet to Engage” the enemy provided for the “strip’d Jack and Ensign at their proper places.” Thus, from the very beginning of our Navy, the Jack has been used on board American warships. The first navy Jack was a flag consisting of 13 horizontal alternating red and white stripes bearing diagonally across them a rattlesnake in a moving position with the motto “Don’t Tread On Me.” The temporary substitution of this Jack represents an historic reminder of the nation’s and Navy’s origin and will to persevere and triumph. 2. Action. The first navy jack will be displayed on board all U.S. Navy ships in lieu of the Union Jack, in accordance with sections 1259 and 1264 of reference (a) . The display of the first Navy Jack is an authorized exception to section 1259 of reference (a). Ships and craft of the Navy authorized to fly the first Navy Jack will receive an issue of four flags per ship through a special distribution. Gordon H. England

As you were, landlubbers

[RickSp]

Quote by: dilligras I don't find the above perversion of history very interesting, but then I was never much interested by ideologically interpreted facts. Spin and partisan bloviation do not make for a very balanced view into the past, mon ami. I am not surprised that you failed to address the question asked, either.....in case you missed it, I asked what significance the First Navy Jack had to the War on Terror.........I see nothing in your post resembling anything close to answering that query, and am highly skeptical of the prospect of you're doing so without twisting or omitting facts in order to spin your response into another boring attack on my country, so I will provide the info myself.

Just damn hopeless Dilly. Of course I read the Navy Sec's post about flying the Navy Jack as long as the undeclared, undefined, and so far pointless "War on Terror" goes on. If you miss the historical irony, well that is your problem. And it is my country too, buckeroo. I love it dearly which is why stopping the madness of King George matters so much to me.

[dilligras]

Quote by: RickSp Just damn hopeless Dilly.

Yes, I know........what I can't figure out is why you still bother me with your unsupported blather.......I would have thought by now that you would have figured out that I am immune to such.

What........does it work on everyone else you know? Is that all they require from you is cleverness, in lieu of real, verified, documented, cross-sourced facts, supporting a semi-rational viewpoint?

Do they ignore the double standard and ideologically derived positions?

Of course they do. That's why you cannot help but attack me at every opportunity isn't it........it's just so seldom anyone dares to disagree with you, eh?

Waaaal, pard, you might just want to back the hell off for awhile before you abuse the privilege of my opposition to the point where I am forced to ignore you, lest folks think I'm gay or something for meeting with you so often.

Get a life.



And then, carry on

[Osborn F Enready]

Rick said: Just damn hopeless Dilly. Of course I read the Navy Sec's post about flying the Navy Jack as long as the undeclared, undefined, and so far pointless "War on Terror" goes on. If you miss the historical irony, well that is your problem. And it is my country too, buckeroo. I love it dearly which is why stopping the madness of King George matters so much to me.

Here here!

[dilligras]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Here here!

I believe that would be, "hear, hear!"

[Gods_Mercenary]

How is giving you the plain english of the constitution which specifically says no law shall be made against free speach blathering unsupportedly? it is you, Dilli,who fail to support your arguments and take on our arguments.

[RickSp]

What a farce Dilly. You ignore the major media, claiming that they are in league with AlQaeda then claim that my assertions are unsupported. Pretty much defines clueless. And if you ignore or are ignorant of your own navy's history, well that that is you problem not mine, buckeroo.

[dilligras]

This is the form letter I received back from Sen. Cornyn:

Dear Mr. Johnsey: Thank you for contacting me regarding the United States’ policy toward Iraq. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter. Liberation from Saddam Hussein’s oppressive rule was Iraq’s first step on the long road to democracy. Although there were real disagreements over how to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, we all agree that a democratic, stable, and prosperous Iraq is in the best interest of its citizens, the region, and the international community. Indeed, the world is safer because this brutal dictator was removed from power. I remain deeply concerned about the level of sectarian violence in Iraq. Despite the successful 2005 elections and constitutional referendum, in which large numbers of Iraqis participated, violence between Shiites and Sunnis increased dramatically in 2006—due primarily to the Al Qaeda bombing of a sacred Shiite mosque in Samarra in February 2006. Unfortunately, the nascent Iraqi government has been unable to end this wave of sectarian violence. It is critical that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Iraqi government work aggressively to broker a political settlement among Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis that ends the violence. Though the United States can help improve Iraq’s short-term security situation with additional military personnel, in the end, it is up to the Iraqis to determine the success of their democracy. I appreciate the efforts of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) to provide recommendations for success in Iraq, and I agree with the ISG assessment that a premature withdrawal of American forces from Iraq would not be in our national security interests. The consequences of failure in Iraq are severe. Indeed, failure to lay the foundation for a stable Iraq would result in a greater terrorist threat to our nation—especially as Iran seeks to extend its influence in the region and Al Qaeda tries to establish an Islamic caliphate that would serve as a base of terrorist operations. Unfortunately, Iran and Syria continue to pursue policies that undermine stability in Iraq, allowing foreign fighters to cross their borders and providing insurgents with weaponry that has been used to kill American military personnel. We all want our troops home as soon as possible, but our military strategy in Iraq must be based on clear national security considerations. We owe it to all Americans to establish a strategy for victory, and to support it—with one voice. I look forward to working with President Bush and my congressional colleagues in a bipartisan manner to establish a way forward in Iraq that will lead to a safer world for us all. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me. Sincerely, JOHN CORNYN United States Senator 517 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Tel: (202) 224-2934 Fax: (202) 228-2856 Office of Senator John Cornyn Please sign up for my monthly newsletter at www.senate.gov. PLEASE NOTE: Due to the nature of electronic communication, if you did not receive this e-mail directly from my office, I cannot guarantee that the text has not been altered. If you have questions about the validity of this message, or would like to respond to this message, please use the web form available at my website, http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact.

Carry on

[Osborn F Enready]

Thats a nice form letter he sent you......

[bishop]

indeed.. glad to see that it ended with the standard talking point phrases such as "bipartisan" and "way forward".. the good ol' cut & paste gets 'em every time.

those losers have been repeating the same babble for months now, and still haven't come up with any new ideas. and, none of the war's self-proclaimed opponents have moved to cut off funding for the war.

[RickSp]

What? You mean he didn't send dilly a check for billions of dollars cause he got his feeling hurt while watching Bill O'Reilly? Damn. Poor, poor dilly.

[bishop]

heh.. cornyn's cut & paste reply didn't even remotely address dill's ridiculous note about reparations.

i personally view all americans (military or not) who support the continuation of this war as being part of the problem - if not enemies themselves. if some gung-ho military guy's demanding that the rest of the country support this quagmire, and that opposition is tantamount to disrespecting the troops.. well, too f'n bad mr. fodder.

[phoenix_fire]

No, I rather imagine that letters received by such politicians are sorted into different categories and sent a canned response such as the one seen above. All letters that can be filed under "anti war" would probably receive a nearly duplicate response. Should we test this theory?

[Fonceai]

I always find it much more effective to make an appointment with the House Rep. or Senator.

Believe it or not, actually showing up in person says a lot about how much you believe in your issue.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Certainly, I'd guess that your legislature was just telling oyu what you wanted to hear, Dilli.

[dilligras]

History is a funny thing.........we watch while it is made, occasionally finding ourselves privy to details not available to those writing the history in their "news" columns and op ed articles. We'll read or watch a story on TV that assures us of something of which we have direct contravening experience, evidence or insider testimony from a source we know to be an authority.

Like the bloggers who outed Dan Rather's phoney memo from Col. Jerry Killian, by noticing that the words, "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" included an elevated "th" after the "111"; something the IBM selectric -- in use on every military desk of the day -- was incapable of doing.

Like the fellow tour guide who claims he gave Dan Rather a tour of the Air Nat'l Guard Gallery in our museum, and that Dan stood and looked at a photo of Col. Killian smiling and pinning 2nd Lt. Bush's new rank on his shoulder for several minutes........but choosing another of the museum's photo's of Lt Bush for display on our TV screens behind his "expose".......the one where Bush is seen kneeling behind the fins of a missile for his aircraft.

Like the other fellow volunteer who was in charge of Pres. Bush's personnel records at the ANG headquarters during his service -- who said that Bush served every day of his enlistment that he was required to serve, noting that many pilots were getting out early due to the glut coming back from Vietnam as that conflict wound down due to Democrat fund-cutting.

Without that and a few other details available only to former military servicemen familiar with the contemporary regulations and practices, one could easily have swallowed these frauds as "further" proof of Pres. Bush's preferential treatment during a time of war.......which was no doubt the memo's sole reason for being.

Which begs a few questions, to my feeble mind.

One obvious question is how many times stories from our past have been similarly constructed lies, with similarly constructed motives -- but without the necessary insider info to provide for their debunking -- leaving us with an incorrect version of history, altered to fit an agenda?

Also, why do we appear to cling so desperately to one version of history -- to insist that others accept some notion and its attendant conclusions as fact -- especially since nearly all have experienced the phenomenon of insider, contrary evidence, causing us to change our previously firmly-held conclusions despite all pressure from one's peers to accept the consensus?

How easily we appear to ignore our own experience of peer group fallibility, tending to deny even the possibility of some position-altering unknown quantity, and preferring instead the lazy convenience of dismissal and ridicule.

How easily we accept those things which best fit our own designs as factual, allowing agenda to trump logic as blithely as fear trumps reason.



As you were

[phoenix_fire]

It is a central argument of history. History has always been somewhat open to interpretation and reinterpretation. It is not a coincidence that our common vernacular has the phrase "history is written by the victors". For this reason, people can and do make many unsubstantiated claims about history. There was a debate on here not too long ago where some atheists debated even the existence of Jesus merely as a person. They claimed that the Christian faith was founded around a person who didn't even ever exist. Speaking on agenda.... But seriously. No one said our understanding of history was concrete.

[dilligras]

Quote by: bishop heh.. cornyn's cut & paste reply didn't even remotely address dill's ridiculous note about reparations.

As if we expected otherwise......and as if this sentence were really an attempt to comment on either letter, instead of another feeble effort to disparage those with whom one disagrees.

Further disbursement of such drivel will be treated with the contempt it so richly deserves, and nothing more.

i personally view all americans (military or not) who support the continuation of this war as being part of the problem - if not enemies themselves. if some gung-ho military guy's demanding that the rest of the country support this quagmire, and that opposition is tantamount to disrespecting the troops.. well, too f'n bad mr. fodder.

I'm sure a great many of my fellow Americans view your opinion of them as something to warrant a loss of sleep.

Not too surprisingly, I do not count myself among their unfortunate number -- preferring instead to consider the possibility of some special misfortune that caused your insanity -- and having long since recognized the futility in any exercise designed to convince any lefty of their own responsibility for any word or deed attributable to them, I shall decline your subtle offering of insult as conversation, needing something a bit more substantial in order to justify this silly undertaking.


As you were.

[dilligras]

Quote by: phoenix_fire No, I rather imagine that letters received by such politicians are sorted into different categories and sent a canned response such as the one seen above. All letters that can be filed under "anti war" would probably receive a nearly duplicate response. Should we test this theory?

Sure, why not? Send him an email opposing our presence in Iraq, and let's see if you get something more sympathetic to that position.

If you need suggestions as to what to include in such a letter, you might do a search on any of the posts about Iraq by any of the other posters in this thread, for starters.


Carry on.