Arming our military domestically

[Noodle]

A "ship driver"? Are you sure you were really in the Navy?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

A "ship driver"? Are you sure you were really in the Navy?

Yep, I was a ship driver. It's just slang for Surface Warfare Officer, the offical warfare community. We serve in ships and driving ships (actually, giving the orders to the helmsman and leehelman to drive the ship) is just one of the many things we do, but it's one of the most enjoyable things we do. It's a badge of honor to be considered a good ship driver. I've taken ships in and out of some of the busiest ports in the world (Tokyo Harbor, Hong Kong, etc.) and loved it.

 

[Noodle]

Yep, I was a ship driver. It's just slang for Surface Warfare Officer, the offical warfare community. We serve in ships and driving ships (actually, giving the orders to the helmsman and leehelman to drive the ship) is just one of the many things we do, but it's one of the most enjoyable things we do. It's a badge of honor to be considered a good ship driver. I've taken ships in and out of some of the busiest ports in the world (Tokyo Harbor, Hong Kong, etc.) and loved it.

Thanks. I had never heard that term before, so I thought you might be trying to civilianize the word captain or helmsman.

Victoria Harbour (Hong Kong) seems like it would be a nightmare to try to navigate a large ship in. I was lucky enough to take a nighttime cruise on the harbor about 16 months ago. The view was absolutely spectacular, despite heavy fog and rain the entire time we were there.

I'll be in North Carolina next week and hope to visit the battleship North Carolina in Wilmington. Meanwhile, Victoria Harbour:

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Thanks. I had never heard that term before, so I thought you might be trying to civilianize the word captain or helmsman.

Victoria Harbour (Hong Kong) seems like it would be a nightmare to try to navigate a large ship in. I was lucky enough to take a nighttime cruise on the harbor about 16 months ago. The view was absolutely spectacular, despite heavy fog and rain the entire time we were there.

I'll be in North Carolina next week and hope to visit the battleship North Carolina in Wilmington. Meanwhile, Victoria Harbour:

I've personally taken four ships in and out of there about 10 times. I'd have to spend some time thinking about it to get the exact number. My third ship, which is one of those I took in, was the last US Navy ship to go pierside at HMS Tamar (the British Naval station in Hong Kong) before the turnover to the PRC. Since then I've taken two additional ships in and we had to anchor out. Being pierside is much more convenient. Hong Kong was still great (last time was 2009), but I liked it a little less each visit and I've like Singapore a little better each visit (another busy port, by the way). I'd say Tokyo Harbor was the busiest one I've taken ships in and out of - also several times. These ports I like highways, with very big vehicles.

 

[zeke4ahs]

While your characterization about who votes against benefits is selective and incomplete (the truth is that the military has benefitted since the 90s by politicians of both parties trying to prove they like us more) and neglects to mention which party is more inclined to cut the military than the other, here's something for you to read. It's got some good stuff in it. From my experience, conservatives tend to join the military more than liberals (so there's a beginning bias - and that has declined some) and it's not uncommon for those that start out as liberal or moderate to become more conservative while in the military. That was my personal experience too. I've noticed more and more in my last years in the military that claim to be independent rather than Republican, but haven't seen a huge increase in people calling themselves liberal and Democrat. I did have more officers in the wardroom of my last ship that were obviously liberal than I've ever had before. Still a minority, but a much larger one. On my first ship I bet I was one of only two Democrats in the wardroom. There may have been a couple others, but not sure who. I used to joke with one of my fellow officers about him being a right wing Nazi when he picked up his conservative magazines at mail call and he jokingly called me a commie as I picked up my copy of the Rolling Stone or some other liberal leaning magazine. We're both still good good friends today. While he's way more right than I am (to the point that I even hide some of his more right wing posts on Facebook because I don't want to see them and don't care for my friends to see them), we're at least on the same side of the aisle and he doesn't call me a commie.

Thanks for the article. That was an interesting read. Of course I agree with most of what has happened in the military, regarding the social changes and in a decade or so down the road, it will seem strange that it wasn't protocol. Obama will take the brunt for it, but most of it seems long overdue. And granted, I know absolutely nothing about how those type of changes effect morale, etc. I think the military has always been mainly conservative though, even before Obama. Remember when Bush/Gore was going on and they were counting on the military vote still coming in to give Bush another bump.

 

[U81Too]

Nobody is saying that. However, if you don't think that they are under great stress, both job related and trauma related, then we needn't talk anymore.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2009/02/13/696992/-Army-Recruiting-The-crappiest-job-in-the-world

I'm fine with the bulletproof glass and hardening the building. I'm just trying to tell you that some training in small arms doesn't make someone able to respond to that level of attack. Everyone in the military has small arms training but practicing annually doesn't help keep people safe.

The military policies on arming troops on base and off post are sensible and grounded in logic. Armed soldiers walking around is a disaster waiting to happen and should only be addressed if enough evidence and planning warrant it. So far it hasn't.

Not every serviceman is Rambo. You are all vastly overstating the combat training of our military. Less than 25% are combat trained in responding to attacks.

Never did I say PTSD wasn't a problem! I also made no comment about the stress the troops have been under!

We aren't talking about arming every private on a base. It would be a small number of selected people only if they have qualified with the weapon issued. Allowing them to be armed doesn't mean everyone will start packing. As I have seen it posted many times, if they have the training and can qualify, our military should be allowed to carry their issued weapons while on duty.

Military bases were under heightened security around July 4th for an unspecified reason. I consider a recruiting office a military installation worthy of protection. That's all I have to say about that!

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Thanks for the article. That was an interesting read. Of course I agree with most of what has happened in the military, regarding the social changes and in a decade or so down the road, it will seem strange that it wasn't protocol. Obama will take the brunt for it, but most of it seems long overdue. And granted, I know absolutely nothing about how those type of changes effect morale, etc. I think the military has always been mainly conservative though, even before Obama. Remember when Bush/Gore was going on and they were counting on the military vote still coming in to give Bush another bump.

"[E}ven before Obama."? The military was more conservative in 2000 than it is now, even though it is still quite conservative. Yes, I remember that Gore's team didn't want to count military absentee ballots. That didn't look good and they backed off.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Wrong is not my opinion. You're WRONG. Your rebuttal, when I explained in many posts in this thread that the vast majority of servicemen don't touch their weapons more than once a year when qualifying, is to speak about policemen who carry their weapons everyday and are extremely proficient.

I say again: the vast majority of servicemen are not MPs, are not Infantry, are not SOF, and do not have experience engaging the enemy in close combat. They are weapons novices at best...powder kegs at worst.

This is a load.
All Marines are trained infantry prior to specialty assignment school. They are all proficient with any number of weapons. Recruiters seem to be mid-level NCO's, not some green bean straight out of basic. Your example is intentionally misleading.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

This is a load.
All Marines are trained infantry prior to specialty assignment school. They are all proficient with any number of weapons. Recruiters seem to be mid-level NCO's, not some green bean straight out of basic. Your example is intentionally misleading.

Learn to read and comprehend, numbnuts. You want to believe the recruiting propaganda that all Marines are infantry first, then that's fine, and I've got some stuff I want to sell you.

Were you able to read English, you'd see that I said they are initially trained in weapons but then the vast majority don't touch them more than once or twice a year.

Please tell me how many weapons a signals specialist or truck driver in the Marines is proficient on. And then define proficient.

Jessica Lynch threw a grenade in Basic Training. Is she proficient in grenades? The answer is no, numbnuts, and she's just like nearly every other sailor, airmen, soldier, and marine in the service.

 

[zeke4ahs]

"[E}ven before Obama."? The military was more conservative in 2000 than it is now, even though it is still quite conservative. Yes, I remember that Gore's team didn't want to count military absentee ballots. That didn't look good and they backed off.

Interesting that's the way you remember it. I recall the Bush campaign pushing very hard to get illegal ballots from the military counted, the same kind of ballots that the hanging chads fiasco came from. Ballots that were dated too late, etc.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Interesting that's the way you remember it. I recall the Bush campaign pushing very hard to get illegal ballots from the military counted, the same kind of ballots that the hanging chads fiasco came from. Ballots that were dated too late, etc.

Wrong. Try again.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Wrong. Try again.

Actually, she's right. The debate was over ballots that did not meet requirements under Florida law. The GOP won the PR battle, and even the Dems quickly called for them to be counted, but they had been rejected appropriately under the law.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Wrong. Try again.

Really, maybe you should google it like I did to remind myself.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Really, maybe you should google it like I did to remind myself.

The big issue wasn't post dating. It was postmarks. A few hundred weren't postmarked, which is common for military mail, but a DQ under FL election law. Which probably should have come up before then, but whatever.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The big issue wasn't post dating. It was postmarks. A few hundred weren't postmarked, which is common for military mail, but a DQ under FL election law. Which probably should have come up before then, but whatever.

That is correct, but it wasn't so cut and dried. The ballots didn't have post marks which happens fairly often with mititary mail, but military members' absentee ballots were signed and dated and attested to by the units' voting officers. So they had dates on them inside the mailing envelope. What this revealed to many mititary members is that it was a crap shoot as to whether their votes counted or not. Turned out that some precincts routinely counted them as long as the dates on the ballot were before the cut off and some precincts disqualified them. Gore's team wanted to do the latter. That and initially requesting manual recounts only in large Democratic counties were two huge PR blunders by the Gore team.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That is correct, but it wasn't so cut and dried. The ballots didn't have post marks which happens fairly often with mitsry mail, but military members' absentee ballots were signed and dated and attested to by the units' voting officers. So they had dates on them inside the mailing envelope. What this revealed to many mititary members is that it was a crap shoot as to whether their votes counted or not. Turned out that some precincts routinely counted them as long as the dates on the ballot were before the cut off and some precincts disqualified them. Gore's team wanted to do the latter. That and initially requesting manual recounts only in large Democratic counties were two huge PR blunders by the Gore team.

According to stories at the time, the vast majority had multiple deficiencies, so overlooking the postmark issue probably didn't mean much, anyway.

Either way, your dismissal of Zeke's post was probably unwarranted.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Really, maybe you should google it like I did to remind myself.

Didn't have to, I knew you were wrong. The issue was postmarks and as a military guy I knew that our mail wasn't always post marked. Apparently disenfranchising the military was OK with the Gore team. This, by the way, really pissed off a lot of the military and it wasn't a good thing for making Democrats more popular.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

According to stories at the time, the vast majority had multiple deficiencies, so overlooking the postmark issue probably didn't mean much, anyway.

Either way, your dismissal of Zeke's post was probably unwarranted.

I don't recall any significant issues other than the post marks. I don't doubt that there were a few others, just like with regular ballots. Zeke was not correct about the primary issue with military ballots and most were ultimately counted.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't recall any significant issues other than the post marks. I don't doubt that there were a few others, just like with regular ballots. Zeke was not correct about the primary issue with military ballots.

She called them "illegal." That was technically accurate, although it doesn't tell the whole story. Simply calling her "wrong" was inaccurate in your part.

I also think it's inaccurate for you to conflate "the Gore team" with "Democrats." Lots of moving parts in that recount.

 

[zeke4ahs]

As I said, if you'd google you'd find there were multiple issues: ballots that were mailed within the US, ballots that did not have witness signatures, ballots dated after the election, ballots from people voting twice, etc. In previous elections, those ballots were NOT counted. The overseas ballots were not judged the same as the ones counted during the election.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

She called them "illegal." That was technically accurate, although it doesn't tell the whole story. Simply calling her "wrong" was inaccurate in your part.

I also think it's inaccurate for you to conflate "the Gore team" with "Democrats." Lots of moving parts in that recount.

You're right. I read into her post a bit and since most of the ballots without post marks, but with valid dates on the ballot were counted I wasn't thinking that they might have not technically been legal.

It was Gore's team that tried to have them thrown out, but I can guarantee you that Democrats as a whole got blamed by many in the military. Many really were furious about that effort.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

As I said, if you'd google you'd find there were multiple issues: ballots that were mailed within the US, ballots that did not have witness signatures, ballots dated after the election, ballots from people voting twice, etc. In previous elections, those ballots were NOT counted. The overseas ballots were not judged the same as the ones counted during the election.

Military ballots were what we were talking about, not all overseas or absentee ballots.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

In the event that you're tired of just hearing this from me, r/army at Reddit is pretty much exactly aligned with me on this. Then again, what do they know, right?

http://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/3e6oeo/hey_i_love_you_guys_and_all_but_im_not_gonna/