Budget Cut Bullshit

DarkDante said:
Even in the JROTC they teach unquestioning loyalty and obidience.
No, they don't. Or your teachers were not following the correct curriculum, but I doubt you were ever in ROTC. This is rediculous though. DarkDante, as far as I know you are not in the military and never have been, but you are disagreeing with military members about what they can and can not do. I'm sorry, but those in the military will know better about what they can and can not do than you. They can disagree with unlawful and immoral orders.

Combat situation where lives will be lost by a seconds hesitation, no they can't question the order without very good cause. However, most missions are planned in advance. Any questions of morality and rules of engagement are sorted out there. The modern US military takes special effort to avoid blindly following orders. We teach soldiers to be aware and consider the morality. If nothing else, bad publicity can result from soldiers following immoral orders.
If it hasn't been approved before and no one thinks it will pass then putting it into an outline is BULL isn't it Rones...................
Like I said before: That is the opinion of the article's author. There are many in congress who are working for those mentioned changes. So to claim 'no one thinks it will pass' is foolish. Should the situation in Iran blow up, we can expect more oil shortages which will force oil drilling in Alasaka.
Mokk said:
Your suspicions border on conspiracy.
What does that have to do with any of this? How does my belief that oil drilling will be approved fall under conspiracy? Predicting political actions has little to do with conspiracy.
 
Darkdante said:
Before we go on, try to answer the first question and I think you'll get from where I"m coming from.What happens to those pilots that deny the order? Lets say its not a nuclear bomb anymore and lets say the target is a supposed electric plant that is reported to be a chemical weapons factory, but its actually full with civilians.Is its the pilots job to use morality to question an order? What happens if he doesn't follow through?Now if the pilot in question where a civilian, hey no problem, say no, don't do it, no harm comes to you.

How are pilots going to know it's filled with civilians?
 
Darkdante said:
Even in the JROTC they teach unquestioning loyalty and obidience.

No they don't. JROTC have horrible military standards, we rag on the all the time we see them touring on the base.

So says me SrA of the USAF.

edit: And we aren't taught to follow things just blindly without thinking. We are mostly thought to think and do things with attention to every little detail. I question my superiors all the time, everyday. They are real people and this is the real military. You are seriously just basing all your information off cliche movies about boot camp and training. We are in fact encouraged to question things to improve the military, you can be awarded thousands of dollars even in the military if you find a better way for something to be performed.

Sure in boot camp its "they say jump, you say how high". But thats not how the real military works.
 
Last edited:
isajeep said:
No they don't. JROTC have horrible military standards, we rag on the all the time we see them touring on the base.

So says me SrA of the USAF.

Funny cause the army rags on the SrA that think they are in the military.
 
Shaunessy said:
Funny cause the army rags on the SrA that think they are in the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_Airman

Looks like a real military rank to me.

BTW, I'm not into that issue where all branches like to compare each other in childish fasions. So stop trying to start pointless crap that has nothing to do with this thread. In other words... grow up, all US military shares the same commander in chief.
 
Rones said:
What does that have to do with any of this? How does my belief that oil drilling will be approved fall under conspiracy? Predicting political actions has little to do with conspiracy.

So discrediting an action that has been turned down by the government time and time again no matter the circumstances based on your own suspicions as opposed to any facts relating to the issue at hand is excusable when it works for your means in a conversation?

It should also be noted that predicting a political action or the reasons for a political action based on anything but facts at hand (skewed and subjective facts as they tend to be depending on your sources) is where many conspiracies first take root. One could easily argue your scenario involving Iran is conspiritorial and would indeed force the issue of ANWR, but it's highly doubtful. Most people don't know our largest ammount of foreign imported oil actually comes from Canada. Those crazy Muslims sure are a great diversion though.
 
Last edited:
isajeep said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_Airman

Looks like a real military rank to me.

BTW, I'm not into that issue where all branches like to compare each other in childish fasions. So stop trying to start pointless crap that has nothing to do with this thread. In other words... grow up, all US military shares the same commander in chief.


Lol I know what an SrA is. Got to see one put 440 volts through his body in the motorpool I was in. That was good times, just wish I had it on video. I don't know about you but I think the whole better branch thing is funny.
 
Shaunessy said:
Lol I know what an SrA is. Got to see one put 440 volts through his body in the motorpool I was in. That was good times, just wish I had it on video. I don't know about you but I think the whole better branch thing is funny.

Grow up.
 
Mokk said:
So discrediting an action that has been turned down by the government time and time again no matter the circumstances based on your own suspicions as opposed to any facts relating to the issue at hand is excusable when it works for your means in a conversation?

It should also be noted that predicting a political action or the reasons for a political action based on anything but facts at hand (skewed and subjective facts as they tend to be depending on your sources) is where many conspiracies first take root. One could easily argue your scenario involving Iran is conspiritorial and would indeed force the issue of ANWR, but it's highly doubtful. Most people don't know our largest ammount of foreign imported oil actually comes from Canada. Those crazy Muslims sure are a great diversion though.
I think you have forgot what the definition of conspiracy is:
a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act
a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

So explain to me how my guess that laws for oil drilling will be passed in 2006 falls under any of those. Conspiracy requires secrets hidden from the public. Last I checked, bills getting approved in Congress aren't secrets. For me to be creating a conspiracy I would have to claim there is a subversive plot in the government to bypass the government's decision and sneak oil from Alasaka, which is not what I'm saying.
 
Shaunessy said:
Heh, ok buddy just because you are in the USAF I will let it slide because I know that you get ragged on more than I would.
No, he is correct. Your maturity level is lacking. You are on the same team even. I don't even understand why we still have the branches divided. It was needed in the past for logistical management, but now with modern computing all the branches should be intergrated together. This would remove the animosity and ease cooperation between groups that seem to prefer to rival and compete than work together.
 
We work together just fine. When the shit hits the fan guaranteed that if U.S. anything is above your left breast it's all good. Just a friendly ragging is no reason to get upset over.
 
Rones said:
I think you have forgot what the definition of conspiracy is:
a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act
a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

So explain to me how my guess that laws for oil drilling will be passed in 2006 falls under any of those. Conspiracy requires secrets hidden from the public. Last I checked, bills getting approved in Congress aren't secrets. For me to be creating a conspiracy I would have to claim there is a subversive plot in the government to bypass the government's decision and sneak oil from Alasaka, which is not what I'm saying.

It's an issue of syntax. The post i'm questioning basicly discredited the opinions of others based on fact and past performance by stating there are people pushing for the bill and your suspicions are that it will pass. There are people working to kill all the jews and bring down western civilazation, for arguements sake let's say i took your postion on the latter arguements, think i'd make more than 2 posts without being torn apart?

I just think it's kinda interesting you didn't at least have a supporting fact other than "people are working at it" (completely obvious, i might add. Even though it hasen't happened yet) and "i suspect"; then go on to site Iran for a possible reason why it would happen without even mentioning the fact that we get very little in the way of Iranian oil.

So let's set this up properly instead of spinning it around the room:

Government supresses ANWR in all forms so far.

But....

Iran is in the media spotlight for it's nuclear capabilities, being a middle eastern country and a popular one at that this gets alot of attention. Due to the blinding glare of the headlines you (Rones) made the afforementioned comments and chose a specific way to defend your point also previously mentioned above.

Where's the conspiracy connection?

Let's say based on your suspicions you say "I believe it will happen. They're working on it and if it doesn't happen there's always a catalyst out there (namely Iran, in this instance)."
Granted it could, but will it? doubtful. Yet you held your opinion/suspicion up as your means to justify your statements.

Let's say based on my suspicions i say "I believe it will happen. The administration will use anyone or anything to further the means of their agenda." While fundamentally i would be agreeing with you i have now spun this into conspiracy theory. Unfortunately i would also share being horribly misinformed in conjunction with this subject matter.

Theory is an important word; one i omitted when i first brought it up.

The difference between your statement and mine is purely literary; however i'm willing to bet i'd be written off as a conspiracy nut before you would even though we said the same thing.
Despite This noise..

The point is it's statement like these that make people feel that they are in the know simply by association instead of knowing as much as possible on their own.
 
Last edited:
Oh btw, i've just finished my bestselling novel.

Chapter 6 and 13 were removed in the outline due to unforseen events, so consequentially the book has some pretty big story gaps but i found a really dumb publisher to buy into it and imagine most of america will buy it anyway after all they already made their choice to read my books until 08 no matter how little sense they make. :cool:

Metaphores 4tw.
 
Last edited:
It's an issue of syntax. The post i'm questioning basicly discredited the opinions of others based on fact and past performance by stating there are people pushing for the bill and your suspicions are that it will pass. There are people working to kill all the jews and bring down western civilazation, for arguements sake let's say i took your postion on the latter arguements, think i'd make more than 2 posts without being torn apart?
Mokk I have no idea what you are going on about. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill as the saying goes.

The article says: Artic drilling hasn't passed and won't. It provides no facts or support for this prediction of the future.

I say I feel otherwise which is an opinion and is the only thing the article provided. So that puts me at equal footing as it. I then go on to give a possible cause for my belief (Iran). That now puts me ahead of anything provided in the article. However, all that is irrelevent to the main subject. Bush's budget plans on having article drilling. So clearly it is in the realm of possiblity unlike the article says.

You along with DD and Trippyhippy reguarly criticize me for link hounding. So one time on a small issue where I'm not even trying to make it the central point you jump all over me for not providing documentation and supporting evidence. Not only is that hypocritical of your past complaints but you are also providing no proof that agrees with your position. And you guys say I nitpick. :wacko:

From your own article:
Prices surged as high as $69.20 a barrel in New York last month amid concern that a dispute over Iranian nuclear research would lead to a cut in oil shipments.
Analysts expecting a price increase said the standoff over the country’s atomic programme may intensify next week as the country starts negotiations with Russia.
Iran is the world’s fourth-biggest oil producer.
If military action is required against Iran it seems obvious that there is a risk OPEC will raise crude prices in retaliation.
Opec ministers are scheduled to meet in Vienna on March 8 to discuss production policy.
Opec may cut output by between 500,000bpd and 1mn bpd at the next meeting, Venezuela’s Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said on Thursday.
“There is a little talk that Opec may announce a cut,’’ said Kyle Cooper, an analyst with Citigroup Inc in Houston. “I don’t know how likely that is, but the fall in prices might prompt some action.’’
This looks like you took the conspiracy thread too personel.
 
Not at all i just found you to be lacking your usual credibility in this instance and felt the need to point it out. Had you not provided your opinion in such a dismissive way it wouldn't have even raised my eyebrow.

I don't bother you about linkhounding i just think 50% of the ones you pull are just as skewed as the links brought up to contradict you.

Rones said:
Bush's budget plans on having article drilling. So clearly it is in the realm of possiblity unlike the article says.

Correction: Bush's budget plans to already have secured drilling rights. So clearly it's not within the realm of possibility in it's current state. You can take something from something, nothing from something, but not something from nothing. The money's just not there nor should a country's budget be so reliant on speculation; however that's my personal opinion, i fully realize some speculation is required as we're not all bonafide fortune tellers.

Aside from that naturally if one worldwide supplier is threatened militarily putting the world oil market down for the year, yes naturally oil prices will rise .. sounds so obvious when i say it. However in the long run it's more europe's problem than it would be ours and relates in absolutely no way to the budget proposal or ANWR.

“I don’t see a catalyst to move prices much higher in the short term,’’ said Joseph Allman, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets in Houston. “Iran’s not likely to cut exports anytime soon. We’ve had very warm weather this winter and have built gasoline supplies despite refiners operating at reduced rates.’’
Crude oil for March delivery fell $3.38, or 5.5%, to $58.46 a barrel during the first four days of trading this week on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Futures closed at $57.65 a barrel on Wednesday, the lowest since December 19.

Sounds like a good reason to raise the cost to me ... from and investor standpoint on a high risk stock <.<

... of course .. i never posted any supporting facts or anything so ... i guess take it with a grain of salt ... or something .. mebbe get some glasses :confused:
 
Last edited:
mebbe get some glasses
I have them already. I did see that in your aticle, but as I quoted in my previuos post, your article plays both sides and really doesn't support you nor me.
 
It supports the options for both to happen as much as it can realisticly. I prefer even sided articles as they provide for better discourse.

Edit: I'm all but blind too v.v
 
Rones said:
You along with DD and Trippyhippy reguarly criticize me for link hounding.

If I criticize you for linkhounding, it is unintensional. By all means, give a source for your info. That is one of the main reasons I enjoy the many discussions I've had with you. If you make a statement, by god you can back it up with at least 2 links.

Now I have been known to criticize your sources from time to time. Any source you or I can find is going to have partisan biast. Anytime I say something about your linkhounding, it's because...

a)I feel it's overly biased to the point of being a blatent lie.
b)I've seen information that directly contradicts what your link states.
c)I'm losing the arguement and fighting to hold ground, grasping at straws.

But by all means, continue on with your linkhounding. :tup:

edit:fixed a /quote tag
 
Ok first of all all you guys supposdly in the Military and supposdly that went to ROTC havent you ever heard this line?

"The mark of a true soldier and sailor has always been loyalty and obedience to leaders."

I dunno maybe you were asleep whenever they fed you that line. Maybe its like normal whenever most of us go to school half asleep, half dead, half ass, drunk as fuck, its not like any of you ever rememberd the point of school anyway right?

Seems like Masterion knows what I'm talking about so he must be in the Army.

"So says me SrA of the USAF."

Why do they even give a title of "Airman" to somebody that sits in a server room all day harassing people on internet game forums and screwing around 99% of the time? Its not like you do anything remotely close to being in the "Air", the closest you probably get to being in the air is when you break wind. TELL ME I"M WRONG. :biggrin: If they gave you a title like "Senior Geek" hey, now that would make sense, and don't get me wrong since I"m in the same boat.

Its no small wonder that the army guys get jealos of the Air Force, you guys are spoiled and arn't "real" soilders, "fighting men", that would require you to act as a team. What use is "loyalty" and "obidience" to people sitting around playing computer games all day? It doesn't take loyalty and obidience to push a button, that takes personal dedication, and self motivation, these 2 things don't work well in groups however which is why you geeks have a harder time working in groups, than the lemming like Army guys.

Of course you wouldn't understand these sorts of things since your in the Airforce. :bugeye:

Combat situation where lives will be lost by a seconds hesitation, no they can't question the order without very good cause.

Thats the whole point, why are you arguing?

If nothing else, bad publicity can result from soldiers following immoral orders.

So your willing to die for bad publicity? Abu Garahb should be proof that soilders follow orders, and there are still bad leaders. I aint saying this is fool proof, but this is how it works, it doesn't work when you have an idiot who quesitons every order.

Like I said before: That is the opinion of the article's author. There are many in congress who are working for those mentioned changes. So to claim 'no one thinks it will pass' is foolish. Should the situation in Iran blow up, we can expect more oil shortages which will force oil drilling in Alasaka.

No Rones that is your opinion, that being the opinion of a high school kid vs. the opinon of a man who follows politics for his livelyhood.

With the Iran comment I guess you got me there since it is in Bush's gameplan to "blow up" the situation and rape the American public once again, so maybe he'll make sure that happens and in that case I guess your right. :wink:

You along with DD and Trippyhippy reguarly criticize me for link hounding. So one time on a small issue where I'm not even trying to make it the central point you jump all over me for not providing documentation and supporting evidence. Not only is that hypocritical of your past complaints but you are also providing no proof that agrees with your position. And you guys say I nitpick. :wacko:

Ya but only because you critisize us for not having any "proof" and want to wage a propaganda war. :biggrin:
 
Back
Top