4merper4mer Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Well, in his defense...it's better than Iraq = Canteloupe. I guess. Maybe. I believe Sharia law is clear that marriages are arranged you cantaloupe.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 BREAKING NEWS: US to cruise missiles, and Stealth bombers to Iraq, and parachute 82nd Airborne into Tikrit. "To assist with evacuations of American personnel if necessary," says administration. My favorite of the day so far. :lol: (and since I'm stuck traveling, any levity is appreciated)
Chef Jim Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I believe Sharia law is clear that marriages are arranged you cantaloupe. Can't elope unless your honey do.
B-Man Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) Why Can’t They Name Attack Helicopters After Hippies? :With the Redskins under attack, a Boston Review editor wants weapons systems renamed. By Ian Tuttle First they came for the Redskins. Now, following up on charges that the name of Washington’s football team is racist, offended activists are calling on the United States military to rechristen the military vehicles — including the Apache and Black Hawk helicopters — that are now named for American Indians. At the Washington Post, Simon Waxman, managing editor of Boston Review, has an Onion-worthy op-ed outlining the case. Why do we name our battles and weapons after people we have vanquished? For the same reason the Washington team is the Redskins and my hometown Red Sox go to Cleveland to play the Indians and to Atlanta to play the Braves: because the myth of the worthy native adversary is more palatable than the reality — the conquered tribes of this land were not rivals but victims, cheated and impossibly outgunned. . . . It is worse than denial; it is propaganda. . . . In whatever measure it is tribute to the dead, it is in greater measure a boost to our national sense of superiority. Waxman evidently has more of an inclination for psychoanalysis than for scholarship. While helicopter names may suggest a worthy former adversary, these names exist with that adversary’s blessing. The military helicopter was envisioned by General Hamilton Howze, first director of Army aviation, as “a fast, mobile, stealthy machine on the field of battle using terrain and vegetation to an advantage similar to the Warrior Tribes,” says Bob Mitchell, curator of the U.S. Army Aviation Museum. But unlike “redskin,” which is sometimes considered a racial slur, “Apache,” “Comanche,” and other designations are official names for tribes that are not “dead” at all but still around today. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Americans Indians and Alaska Natives grew by 27 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly triple the rate of U.S. population growth overall. Army Regulation 70-28, dated April 4, 1969, made the tradition of conferring tribal names on military choppers official policy, and names are selected from a list provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 2012, American Indian leaders came out to ritually bless two new LUH-72 Lakota helicopters. These and other easy-to-locate facts can be found in U.S. Army aviator Major Crispin Burke’s “Everyone Relax — The Army’s Native American Helicopter Names Are Not Racist.” In his pity for American Indians, Waxman ignores the very strong warrior ethic that girded many native cultures, and that still does today — which helps explain why American Indians serve at higher per capita rates than almost any other group. {snip} But the progressivism that has flourished over the past half-century is not interested merely in eradicating war (a doomed, if well-intentioned, undertaking). It sees a self-evident evil in the martial virtues themselves. Progressives see not an America whose martial virtues have been exercised in defending and liberating but rather a jingoistic country that has used superior military force to conquer and brutalize. They would much prefer an army (if such a thing is necessary) of SNAGs: Sensitive New-Age Guys. American Indians such as Apache John, who embrace warrior glory rather than victim status, are not only unwelcome in the progressive vision but impossible. Like offensive team names, they need to be disappeared. Rewriting the history of American-Indian relations the way Waxman desires has nothing to do with Indians’ feelings or wishes. Unanimous tribal support for AR 70-28 would not convince Waxman that he is wrong — only that the timing is. Rather, the military’s capitulation to this latest demand would signify an admission of American guilt, which would bolster the progressive version of American history and ground new demands for sweeping policy changes. As long as institutions submit to the notion that America must be constantly repenting past injustices, real or imagined, those with the inclination to revise history will continue to demand concessions. more at the link: Edited July 3, 2014 by B-Man
3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 more at the link: I can envision our new line of war machines---the Bambi, the kitty and the Bunny. Then again, we might be offending animals.
IDBillzFan Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 I can envision our new line of war machines---the Bambi, the kitty and the Bunny. Then again, we might be offending animals. We could just name everything "the Obama" with a numeral after it. The Obama VI. Or The Obama 600T. One simple word to let everyone know it's weak, misguided, and completely incompetent...without offending anyone!
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 We could just name everything "the Obama" with a numeral after it. The Obama VI. Or The Obama 600T. One simple word to let everyone know it's weak, misguided, and completely incompetent...without offending anyone! Racist.
3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 We could just name everything "the Obama" with a numeral after it. The Obama VI. Or The Obama 600T. One simple word to let everyone know it's weak, misguided, and completely incompetent...without offending anyone! I could conquer this with my line of Viagra I, Ciaiis Striker and Extenze I.
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Why do we name our battles and weapons after people we have vanquished? Bradley IFV. Abrams MBT. Sherman, Chaffee, Grant, Patton, Pershing tanks. Spruance DD. Nimitz CVN. Burke class DDG, including the USS Churchill and USS Inoyue. Yeah, we only name weapons after vanquished enemies. And helicopters are probably named after Native American tribes as a gesture of respect for their abilities as highly mobile scouting forces (e.g. Lakota, Apache, Commanche), a role played by helicopters.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Bradley IFV. Abrams MBT. Sherman, Chaffee, Grant, Patton, Pershing tanks. Spruance DD. Nimitz CVN. Burke class DDG, including the USS Churchill and USS Inoyue. Yeah, we only name weapons after vanquished enemies. And helicopters are probably named after Native American tribes as a gesture of respect for their abilities as highly mobile scouting forces (e.g. Lakota, Apache, Commanche), a role played by helicopters. I was under the impression the Native American names came more from helicopters being the modern Calvary and the role those units played in settling conflicts with said natives.
4merper4mer Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 I was under the impression the Native American names came more from helicopters being the modern Calvary and the role those units played in settling conflicts with said natives. By all means assume the worst.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 By all means assume the worst. No, it's more of an issue of growing up on the Navy side of the Army vs Navy rivalry...
Tux of Borg Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Our Existential President: Organizing the World, one community at a time! Hey, this thing looks like it could hold a whole lot of people... if they don't mind riding outside and hanging on for dear life. I'm still kicking myself in the ass for not re-upping to go to Fort Rucker. Freakin' women!
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 I was under the impression the Native American names came more from helicopters being the modern Calvary and the role those units played in settling conflicts with said natives. Turns out we're both wrong - the naming scheme predates any sort of operational doctrine. The reason helos are named after Native American tribes is because US Army Aviation was established at Ft. Sill, OK, which is located on (or near) an Indian Reservation. So when they first received helos for training, they locally named it after the Sioux. After which it became tradition (similar to how the NHC workers originally named hurricanes after their girlfriends, which then became standard). And when the Army abandoned that naming scheme - with the AH-1 Cobra, because they didn't want to offend any tribes by naming an attack helo after them - the tribes complained, and suggested attack helos be named after "aggressive" tribes. So now, transport helos are named after "peaceful' tribes (Iroquois, Chinook, Blackhawk), and attack helos after "aggressive" tribes (Apache, Commanche).
GG Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 And when the Army abandoned that naming scheme - with the AH-1 Cobra, because they didn't want to offend any tribes by naming an attack helo after them - the tribes complained, and suggested attack helos be named after "aggressive" tribes. So now, transport helos are named after "peaceful' tribes (Iroquois, Chinook, Blackhawk), and attack helos after "aggressive" tribes (Apache, Commanche). Just don't call them Redskins.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Turns out we're both wrong - the naming scheme predates any sort of operational doctrine. The reason helos are named after Native American tribes is because US Army Aviation was established at Ft. Sill, OK, which is located on (or near) an Indian Reservation. So when they first received helos for training, they locally named it after the Sioux. After which it became tradition (similar to how the NHC workers originally named hurricanes after their girlfriends, which then became standard). And when the Army abandoned that naming scheme - with the AH-1 Cobra, because they didn't want to offend any tribes by naming an attack helo after them - the tribes complained, and suggested attack helos be named after "aggressive" tribes. So now, transport helos are named after "peaceful' tribes (Iroquois, Chinook, Blackhawk), and attack helos after "aggressive" tribes (Apache, Commanche). That's awesome, thanks for the info.
Nanker Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 So look for the Progressives to lobby to get the battle tanks and vehicles named after women: The M1A1 Friedan, The M2A2 Fluke Fighting Vehicle, The M113 Chisholm Armored Personnel Carrier, The M1135 Steinem Stryker Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Reconnaissance Vehicle, and The AAVC-7A1 Hillary Command Assault Amphibious Vehicle. It should be a joy to behold. And our combat women will be more proud and the weak-kneed men left back in the States will be comforted knowing they're being protected by their mother proxies.
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 That's awesome, thanks for the info. And the moral of that story is: a lot of this **** evolves organically. Quite often, there's no rhyme or reason to why something is, it quite simply just happens. (Notable exceptions: naming aircraft carriers after living presidents. That's just pandering to Congress for funding.)
Koko78 Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) And the moral of that story is: a lot of this **** evolves organically. Quite often, there's no rhyme or reason to why something is, it quite simply just happens. (Notable exceptions: naming aircraft carriers after living presidents. That's just pandering to Congress for funding.) I can't wait to see them unveil the USS Barack H. Obama. It will only take the Navy 8 years and a few trillion dollars to find a rudder for it (after blaming the crew of the USS George W. Bush for her being rudderless...) Edited July 3, 2014 by Koko78
Tiberius Posted July 4, 2014 Posted July 4, 2014 After all the killing between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, this little disagreement between Israel and the Palestians seems like a country parade. What's a few killings and revenge killings? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/05/world/middleeast/israel.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Recommended Posts