Posted on 02/23/2021 9:30:05 PM PST by Kartographer
“And they can’t keep their ships from colliding or running aground, catching fire at a dock during an overhaul, putting out the fire, or even maintain the appearance and seaworthiness of their vessels.”
In plains Indian sign language, there is a gesture that means, “My heart is on the ground.”
“retired Army guy”
Army guys, of whom Churchill was one, say things like that a lot.
I am so disappointed in the Navy. My dad took great pride in serving in it, as did I.
This business recently about the political correctness BS and their wholehearted efforts to do even more of it makes me pretty angry.
My heart is indeed on the ground about this.
It seems like the USN is in an ongoing race to the bottom with the Air Force, followed closely by the Army...and while I have always held out hope for the USMC, I don’t anymore.
I served under Reagan and Bush. The state of todays Navy is heartbreaking.
“Am I to take it that you completely reject the idea of women in the military?”
Of course! Of farging course! How can you ask such a question?
There was a Navy nurse who got the silver star for evacuating wounded sailors from the Arizona before she went down. That is honorable, admirable, morally unimpeachable.
Women intimidating their way into places they don’t belong and can’t perform the duties required, is not honorable or admirable. It is selfish, childish, and damaging to the United States.
For every woman you see in uniform, there are a thousand men who would do a better job.
Nurses, okay, I’ll give you nurses.
However, the first requirement for the position of “warrior” is that one must be a man. Women who think they can fill that role merely betray the abysmal totality of their failure to understand what a warrior is.
Now, before the spectacle of people claiming to be conservative who believe in the equality of women in a military context causes me to barf myself to death on the bathroom floor, I believe I’ll check out of this one.
Go ahead and post your qualifications for making said remark. I’d ike to know where you’re coming from.
I took a little bit of heat here (from at least one Freeper whose opinions and experiences I highly respect) when I commented on the state of a Arleigh Burke class vessel recently coming into port after a long deployment (I acknowledge the stupidly long deployment) a vessel which had corrosion that in all my years had never seen on an active duty ship.
I grew up as a dependent on US navy bases overseas during the Vietnam War, and I spent a lot of that time down on the docks looking closely at the ships that were tied up, and had also served myself, but had never seen that level of corrosion.
It was startling to me.
That said, I was willing to take into account the busy deployment schedules of fewer ships being tasked with the same responsibilities that a greater number of vessels had previously handled, and even took into account stories I had heard that in today’s Navy, sailors don’t do chipping and painting the same way previous generations of sailors had to do (hired civilian workers to do it when in port) but...it was crazy bad corrosion.
Of all the things I have read and seen about the state of the Navy, seeing that image of a destroyer coming into port with crusted rust, peeling paint, and long streaks said volumes to me, and none of it was good.
There are personnel problems in the USN, and all this woke crap is reliably making those problems even worse, in my opinion.
You must understand that it is a minority position - even here at Free Republic.
That is why I asked you for clarification - because I might have misunderstood you or there might have been some other explanation.
Contrary to your expectations, I will not attempt to argue with you about your stance.
Regards,
Yes, the article ties a lot of things together, while making clear that totalitarian lies all have a common purpose, regardless of the source.
“You must understand that it is a minority position - even here at Free Republic.”
Heartbreaking, if true.
There are actually people here who defend the appointment of 1000 female “Eagle Scouts”, one of whom presented herself as having won 137 merit badges.
As you say, if you don’t already know, it cannot be explained to you.
The only women in the military should be USN ships. They are refereed to in the feminine by tradition. That’s it.
“The only women in the military should be USN ships. They are referred to in the feminine by tradition. That’s it.”
I don’t mind nurses at shore facilities. Perhaps nurses on hospital ships, depending on the circumstances.
All in good fun comrade. I grew up around Navy towns like North Chicago, Bremerton and Honolulu. Applied to Annapolis, but couldn’t get a senate sponsor in my state. Ended up in the army because Navy ROTC was only interested in Science and Engineering students. I regret nothing, but still follow Navy news pretty closely. Perhaps we can agree that there are troubled times ahead for our Navy?
And therefore the onus is upon you to clearly state your opinion and - upon request - provide supporting arguments.
Or just keep it to yourself.
But to make a bold, unpopular statement, and then - when challenged (or even only politely asked to clarify it) - to retreat to the "if-you-don't-know-already-then-there's-no-use-trying-to-explain-it-to-you" position (or implying that I might be a leftist troll)... Well, that's just being a jerk.
You are apparently a Navy man, so I hope that you don't mind my being frank: Put up or shut up.
Regards,
“Perhaps we can agree that there are troubled times ahead for our Navy?”
Things are looking pretty grim.
Who are you to be issuing rules for posting in a forum that doesn’t belong to you?
Back off.
As I said, I was assuming that you were a Navy man, and could thus handle a bluntly stated truth.
I was not "issuing rules" - just giving some straight advice.
When one has adopted a minority position, one should either a) state it clearly, and then be willing to defend it openly, or b) keep one's mouth shut.
The worst alternative is to make vague allusions, hint at it, and then, when "called" on it, to retreat to the "you're-probably-a-troll-or-wouldn't-understand-it-anyway" position.
I'm truly sorry if you are "offended" or "triggered." (What was it, exactly, that I said that was so offensive?)
Again: Regards,
“As I said, I was assuming that you were a Navy man, and could thus handle a bluntly stated truth.”
If you ever say something true, maybe we’ll see.
“I was not “issuing rules” - just giving some straight advice.”
Nonsense. You’re acting like a would-be bully.
“When one has adopted a minority position”
If it is a minority position, which I dispute, it has only been one since political correctness highjacked the public square. A very short time.
“one should either a) state it clearly, and then be willing to defend it openly, or b) keep one’s mouth shut.”
Who are you to pronounce on the morality of posting, or to tell me to keep my mouth shut? You got a badge to back up those orders?
“The worst alternative is to”
No, the worst alternative is to try and bully other posters, as seems to be your wont.
“when “called” on it”
Called? All you have done is to make yourself obnoxious.
“to retreat to the “you’re-probably-a-troll-or-wouldn’t-understand-it-anyway” position.”
Now, this is one thing that makes you look like a leftwad troll. You have accused me of saying that twice, and seem to be completely unconcerned that I had not said, until now, that “you’re probably a troll,” or that it wasn’t I who posted that “you wouldn’t understand it anyway.”
Just no concern for the truth of your accusations, eh, Biff?
“I’m truly sorry if you are “offended” or “triggered.”
Don’t put that snowflake crap on me, ya creep.
I’m done with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.