• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PC attack on the USS Soup. Salty Chief forced to walk the plank

I wouldn't know if that was their complant, I'm not from that generation.

Neither am I - but I know enough about how pervasive racism was even when I was growing up - and how much I saw of it in the Navy - to understand how it must have been back before the Civil Rights Act was passed.
 
Here's an opinion from someone who was.

There are still consequenses of desegregation of the military that still hasn't been solved. One is that dirty little secret on the "Rock."

With the end of the draft most of the problems took care of themselves. But many of us who were serving back during the Vietnam war era remember what was going on. I remember when someone volunteered our platoon to assist the MP's when a riot broke out at the DaNang brig. Or riding shotgun with MP's when they would make a sweep of Dog Patch.

It's like when the libs used social engineering and opened up many of the MOS and ratings to females. Are libs that stupid not seeing what the consequences would be ? All you have to do is look at the monthly general and special court martial that are released every month by each branch of the services. Half of them have to deal with sexual harassment charges. Unheard of when I served. The facts are, this little social engineering experimentation caused problems that didn't exist before.

Once the military got rid of the Black Panther types, things actually got better than what they were in the civilian world.
 
There are still consequenses of desegregation of the military that still hasn't been solved. One is that dirty little secret on the "Rock."

With the end of the draft most of the problems took care of themselves. But many of us who were serving back during the Vietnam war era remember what was going on. I remember when someone volunteered our platoon to assist the MP's when a riot broke out at the DaNang brig. Or riding shotgun with MP's when they would make a sweep of Dog Patch.

It's like when the libs used social engineering and opened up many of the MOS and ratings to females. Are libs that stupid not seeing what the consequences would be ? All you have to do is look at the monthly general and special court martial that are released every month by each branch of the services. Half of them have to deal with sexual harassment charges. Unheard of when I served. The facts are, this little social engineering experimentation caused problems that didn't exist before.

Once the military got rid of the Black Panther types, things actually got better than what they were in the civilian world.

I've said this before, but here it goes again. For most of my career, I was one of those who thought that women on Navy ships was a Bad Thing...

...until I saw it in action, and what I saw forced me to change my mind. With the women on board, the men were generally more professional, better behaved, and the ship as a whole was much cleaner than those I'd been on before. YES, there was the occasional fraternization and he-said/she-said problems - of course there were! But overall, the women were significantly more of a plus than a minus.

And conservative problems with this are like almost everything else they see as a problem: they see a new system or a change within a system that doesn't go according to conservative dogma, and they focus on the relatively few problems and blow them way out of proportion. The concentrate on the molehill and ignore the mountain.
 
I've said this before, but here it goes again. For most of my career, I was one of those who thought that women on Navy ships was a Bad Thing...

...until I saw it in action, and what I saw forced me to change my mind. With the women on board, the men were generally more professional, better behaved, and the ship as a whole was much cleaner than those I'd been on before. YES, there was the occasional fraternization and he-said/she-said problems - of course there were! But overall, the women were significantly more of a plus than a minus.

And conservative problems with this are like almost everything else they see as a problem: they see a new system or a change within a system that doesn't go according to conservative dogma, and they focus on the relatively few problems and blow them way out of proportion. The concentrate on the molehill and ignore the mountain.

So your saying is, that todays sailors don't talk like sailors. I've noticed that.

A few years ago I was invited aboard the USS Reagan. What I noticed first off how filthy the ship was compared to the old Navy I was familiar with. If I were to pick up a cheeseburger at quarter rations and accidentally dropped it on the deck, I wouldn't eat it.

I brought this up to the Chief who was my escort. He agreed, todays PC Navy isn't the old fighting navy.

"Sweepers, Sweepers, man your brooms. Give the ship a good clean sweep down both fore and aft! Sweep down all lower decks, ladder backs and passageways! Dump all garbage clear of the fantail! Sweepers."
 
So your saying is, that todays sailors don't talk like sailors. I've noticed that.

A few years ago I was invited aboard the USS Reagan. What I noticed first off how filthy the ship was compared to the old Navy I was familiar with. If I were to pick up a cheeseburger at quarter rations and accidentally dropped it on the deck, I wouldn't eat it.

I brought this up to the Chief who was my escort. He agreed, todays PC Navy isn't the old fighting navy.

"Sweepers, Sweepers, man your brooms. Give the ship a good clean sweep down both fore and aft! Sweep down all lower decks, ladder backs and passageways! Dump all garbage clear of the fantail! Sweepers."

There's a "now" that comes before the final 'sweepers'. ;)

If there's something I've seen over the years, it's always "today's [branch of the military] isn't the old [branch of the military] - regardless of how old the one is who's saying it. We all piss and moan about how much better it was Back Then. Thing is, I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar that just before WWI, the senior military officers looked at the younger military and made the same gripes for the same reason, and on the way to Thermopylae, the senior Spartans were probably making the same kind of gripes.
 
So your saying is, that todays sailors don't talk like sailors. I've noticed that.

A few years ago I was invited aboard the USS Reagan. What I noticed first off how filthy the ship was compared to the old Navy I was familiar with. If I were to pick up a cheeseburger at quarter rations and accidentally dropped it on the deck, I wouldn't eat it.

I brought this up to the Chief who was my escort. He agreed, todays PC Navy isn't the old fighting navy.

"Sweepers, Sweepers, man your brooms. Give the ship a good clean sweep down both fore and aft! Sweep down all lower decks, ladder backs and passageways! Dump all garbage clear of the fantail! Sweepers."

Still making **** up I see. This post has no bearing on reality. Ignore it.
 
Still making **** up I see. This post has no bearing on reality. Ignore it.

I concur, your post "has no bearing on reality."

Why not participate instead of trolling ?

Was the Chief wrongly forced to walk the plank ?

Did it matter if the sailor who got his feelings hurt was a male or female ? Don't todays PC sailors want to be treated equally ?

Don't they want to be treated like those sailors they are trying to fill the shoes of, those who served on Flecture class DD's ?

Every month I look at every general and special court martial that has taken place in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Half have to do with sexual harassments or assaults. Physical and verbal. This didn't happen back when I served.

(Liberals using the U.S. military for social engineering experimentation and not thinking things through what the consequences will be.)

Back track 44 years ago. It was hot, humid, and because of all of the salt tablets I have taken, sweat was pouring down my face, my eyes were blood shot and burning. My sweat towel was soaking wet. It was a battalion size operation and my NGF spot team was attached to a Marine rifle company who were climbing a 1'000 hill (mountain to you who live east of the Rockies) A 70 % grade.

I remember looking to my right as either I was passing or he was passing me, a 200 lb. Navajo Indian who had a PRC-41 on his back and as if his face was like a storm cloud pouring sweat.

I could hear the lifers and Lt's cussing at Marines telling them to keep up and get up the hill. Eventually you could hear half of the company cussing and encouraging each other to get up the hill. There were times we were on all fours climbing that damn hill.

Soon my radioman who was carrying our PRC-25 was having problems keeping up. I was cussing at him that my DI would have blushed. Then I was grabbing his flak-jacket and pulling up the hill. Then I was behind him and was pushing his ass with my two hands up the hill.

Fast track today, if my radioman was a female Marine, I would be facing a court martial for sexual assault. At the minimum, I would be "standing before the man" for using words that the PC libs have decided were politically incorrect and a verbal assault.

Still today I can't figure why we had to climb that hill ? Charley wasn't there. He wasn't that stupid to climb that hill.
 
I concur, your post "has no bearing on reality."

Why not participate instead of trolling ?

Was the Chief wrongly forced to walk the plank ?

Did it matter if the sailor who got his feelings hurt was a male or female ? Don't todays PC sailors want to be treated equally ?

Don't they want to be treated like those sailors they are trying to fill the shoes of, those who served on Flecture class DD's ?

Every month I look at every general and special court martial that has taken place in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Half have to do with sexual harassments or assaults. Physical and verbal. This didn't happen back when I served.

(Liberals using the U.S. military for social engineering experimentation and not thinking things through what the consequences will be.)

Back track 44 years ago. It was hot, humid, and because of all of the salt tablets I have taken, sweat was pouring down my face, my eyes were blood shot and burning. My sweat towel was soaking wet. It was a battalion size operation and my NGF spot team was attached to a Marine rifle company who were climbing a 1'000 hill (mountain to you who live east of the Rockies) A 70 % grade.

I remember looking to my right as either I was passing or he was passing me, a 200 lb. Navajo Indian who had a PRC-41 on his back and as if his face was like a storm cloud pouring sweat.

I could hear the lifers and Lt's cussing at Marines telling them to keep up and get up the hill. Eventually you could hear half of the company cussing and encouraging each other to get up the hill. There were times we were on all fours climbing that damn hill.

Soon my radioman who was carrying our PRC-25 was having problems keeping up. I was cussing at him that my DI would have blushed. Then I was grabbing his flak-jacket and pulling up the hill. Then I was behind him and was pushing his ass with my two hands up the hill.

Fast track today, if my radioman was a female Marine, I would be facing a court martial for sexual assault. At the minimum, I would be "standing before the man" for using words that the PC libs have decided were politically incorrect and a verbal assault.

Still today I can't figure why we had to climb that hill ? Charley wasn't there. He wasn't that stupid to climb that hill.

Some war story you heard has no bearing on reality. In truth, when I served(20 years ago), no one, not chief, not officer, could physically grab some one and expect no repercussions.

Further, what I was actually replying to was your comments about The Reagan. The mess decks are the easiest way to go fore and aft, plus they serve meals. That means a ton of people, mostly wearing filthy boots. The only times those decks look good is in the middle of the night. This is what I mean when vI say you do not know what exactly it is you are talking about, and just make **** up.
 
Some war story you heard has no bearing on reality. In truth, when I served(20 years ago), no one, not chief, not officer, could physically grab some one and expect no repercussions.

Further, what I was actually replying to was your comments about The Reagan. The mess decks are the easiest way to go fore and aft, plus they serve meals. That means a ton of people, mostly wearing filthy boots. The only times those decks look good is in the middle of the night. This is what I mean when vI say you do not know what exactly it is you are talking about, and just make **** up.

It's not someones elses war story or a "sea story" but my story. (The first time I ever put it on the web.) I have blocked a lot out of my memory. And I'm sure there are a few who have the same story to tell on the DP. One ball busting day in the bush searching for Charley and not finding Charley and sweating gallons of sweat.

And that Marine (Mojave Indian) who had a PRC-41 on his back who I don't remember if he was passing me on my right or I was passing him while crawling up that hill, I looked at him asking myself what could I take from him and carry for him to lessen the weight he was carrying ?
His rifle was the only thing I could think of but he was using his rifle as a hiking stick to help him up the hill just as I was.

You served twenty years ago, thank you for your service but twenty years ago why did you serve ? My generation served over forty years ago during an unpopular war where we were actually back stabbed by our peers and a political party. We served because of duty to country and back then it was expected that you served. It was still the 200 year old tradition of the "Citizen Soldier."

But for the majority of us it went a little further, trying to fill the boots of our fathers. Those who landed on the sands of Iwoa Jima, Tarawa, the Normandy beaches, and fought on Guadalcanal, North Africa and at the battle of the Bulge.

Did we fill our fathers boots ?
Well the left say we didn't. But I and a few million say we gave it 101 % try filling the boots of those who served before us.

How about you Redress, did you fill the boots of those sailors who served before you or did you yell for political correctness when your Chief yelled four letter words at you while he grabbed you by the shirt ?
 
It's not someones elses war story or a "sea story" but my story. (The first time I ever put it on the web.) I have blocked a lot out of my memory. And I'm sure there are a few who have the same story to tell on the DP. One ball busting day in the bush searching for Charley and not finding Charley and sweating gallons of sweat.

And that Marine (Mojave Indian) who had a PRC-41 on his back who I don't remember if he was passing me on my right or I was passing him while crawling up that hill, I looked at him asking myself what could I take from him and carry for him to lessen the weight he was carrying ?
His rifle was the only thing I could think of but he was using his rifle as a hiking stick to help him up the hill just as I was.

You served twenty years ago, thank you for your service but twenty years ago why did you serve ? My generation served over forty years ago during an unpopular war where we were actually back stabbed by our peers and a political party. We served because of duty to country and back then it was expected that you served. It was still the 200 year old tradition of the "Citizen Soldier."

But for the majority of us it went a little further, trying to fill the boots of our fathers. Those who landed on the sands of Iwoa Jima, Tarawa, the Normandy beaches, and fought on Guadalcanal, North Africa and at the battle of the Bulge.

Did we fill our fathers boots ?
Well the left say we didn't. But I and a few million say we gave it 101 % try filling the boots of those who served before us.

How about you Redress, did you fill the boots of those sailors who served before you or did you yell for political correctness when your Chief yelled four letter words at you while he grabbed you by the shirt ?

You can claim to serve all you want, but every time you talk about the military, you get it wrong. That is simply amazing...
 
Perspective. I believe both of you for the most part.
You can claim to serve all you want, but every time you talk about the military, you get it wrong. That is simply amazing...
 
You can claim to serve all you want, but every time you talk about the military, you get it wrong. That is simply amazing...

Actually, I find it gets it right quite often.

Now that does not mean I agree in everything with Apache (he and I disagree quite often actually). And experiences in one branch of service or duty station can be vastly different from another I have discovered in my own experience.

Because of my long break in service, I have quite a unique take on the military. I have served under 5 Presidents, in 2 branches of service, and been stationed on bases of all 4 branches.

However, I agree with him that we all join for many different reasons. Some for family tradition, some for patriotism, some for the love of service, some to prove themselves, some for college, the reasons are many.
 
It's not someones elses war story or a "sea story" but my story. (The first time I ever put it on the web.) I have blocked a lot out of my memory. And I'm sure there are a few who have the same story to tell on the DP. One ball busting day in the bush searching for Charley and not finding Charley and sweating gallons of sweat.

And that Marine (Mojave Indian) who had a PRC-41 on his back who I don't remember if he was passing me on my right or I was passing him while crawling up that hill, I looked at him asking myself what could I take from him and carry for him to lessen the weight he was carrying ?
His rifle was the only thing I could think of but he was using his rifle as a hiking stick to help him up the hill just as I was.

You served twenty years ago, thank you for your service but twenty years ago why did you serve ? My generation served over forty years ago during an unpopular war where we were actually back stabbed by our peers and a political party. We served because of duty to country and back then it was expected that you served. It was still the 200 year old tradition of the "Citizen Soldier."

But for the majority of us it went a little further, trying to fill the boots of our fathers. Those who landed on the sands of Iwoa Jima, Tarawa, the Normandy beaches, and fought on Guadalcanal, North Africa and at the battle of the Bulge.

Did we fill our fathers boots ?
Well the left say we didn't. But I and a few million say we gave it 101 % try filling the boots of those who served before us.

How about you Redress, did you fill the boots of those sailors who served before you or did you yell for political correctness when your Chief yelled four letter words at you while he grabbed you by the shirt ?

Y'know, it'd be nice if y'all realized that that was the left of the 1960's and early 1970's, and that today, even among the far left, such ungrateful people are very much the exception to the rule. I've yet to see a fellow leftie deride my service...so please stop blaming us for what people did back in the 1960's.
 
Some war story you heard has no bearing on reality. In truth, when I served(20 years ago), no one, not chief, not officer, could physically grab some one and expect no repercussions.

Further, what I was actually replying to was your comments about The Reagan. The mess decks are the easiest way to go fore and aft, plus they serve meals. That means a ton of people, mostly wearing filthy boots. The only times those decks look good is in the middle of the night. This is what I mean when vI say you do not know what exactly it is you are talking about, and just make **** up.

Hey, the Reagan was just up in my city, here in Bremerton.
 
While tweaking the Holly Graf article, I noticed quite a few references to a site called MilitaryCorruption.com. Having a look at this site, it's a steaming pile of libel--for instance, it alleges a lesbian cabal called "the Sisterhood" is pulling strings in the Navy. If this is a reliable source, I'll have strychnine. Blueboy96 02:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That site is not a suitable source for encyclopedia articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The website is rejected even by wiki.
 

Don't you know how to use Wikipedia ? The source you provided is from the Wiki talk page and it was one individual person's response to another article.< Holly Graf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >

Wikipedia is a liberal website and should only be used as a starting point for further research.

Militarycorruption proudly claims that it isn't a politically correct website or PC rag like "Stars and Stripes" and "Military Times."


But Militarycorruption.com should only be used as a starting point for further research just like the way Wikipedia should be used.
 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

>" Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. Note that most other encyclopedias and reference works also have similar disclaimers. "<

No formal peer review

Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
If Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of all its information, while confidently condemning your source as unreliable, that makes your situation even worse.

Wkipedia is acknowledeged to be generally as accurate as encyclopedias, and certainly more accurate than the individual websites that the seeker of information would have to trawl if Wikipedia didn't exist.
 
Last edited:
Don't you know how to use Wikipedia ? The source you provided is from the Wiki talk page and it was one individual person's response to another article.< Holly Graf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >

Wikipedia is a liberal website and should only be used as a starting point for further research.

Militarycorruption proudly claims that it isn't a politically correct website or PC rag like "Stars and Stripes" and "Military Times."


But Militarycorruption.com should only be used as a starting point for further research just like the way Wikipedia should be used.

I thought it was some sort of wiki "official' deciding if the website could be referenced in an article.

Do you have any link to criticism of militarycorruption?
 
Don't you know how to use Wikipedia ? The source you provided is from the Wiki talk page and it was one individual person's response to another article.< Holly Graf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >

Wikipedia is a liberal website and should only be used as a starting point for further research.

Militarycorruption proudly claims that it isn't a politically correct website or PC rag like "Stars and Stripes" and "Military Times."


But Militarycorruption.com should only be used as a starting point for further research just like the way Wikipedia should be used.

Here we go with the false equivalencies again...but - as always - the molehill is not equivalent to the mountain, and the apple cannot be compared to the orange.

I agree that the Wiki, like most sites, should only be used as a starting point...but the Wiki DOES strive to be non-partisan, whereas the other site is a joke. Sure, it may have a nugget of good info here or there, but even a cursory glance shows that the owners of the site haven't a clue as to the importance of non-partisanship, much less concerning the need for professionalism when it comes to site construction and administration.

This isn't to say the Wiki is perfect - it's certainly not (I've had my own battle with it) - but the Wiki administrators DO try to be non-partisan.
 
"Grabbed the shirt"- does that mean a fistful high on the chest? 'Cause that'd be out of line.
 
I thought it was some sort of wiki "official' deciding if the website could be referenced in an article.

Do you have any link to criticism of militarycorruption?

It wasn't a "Wiki official" because there aren't any real Wiki officials no more than I'm a Wiki official.

I probably have one of the oldest Wiki accounts since I was involved from the beginning of Wikipedia. I can go on any topic and re-edit and type in any BS I want as long as there's not a locked padlock icon at the right top of the page. It might stay up for weeks, months or even years before someone comes around and re-edits it or completely deletes it. That's the way Wiki works.

If you don't have a Wiki account you can open one in a few minutes and start editing or adding on to any topic found on Wiki. Those who have a Wiki account and write the articles are no different than you and I except you and I are probably more knowledgeable.

That's why I always tell people that Wiki should never be used as a reliable source, only as a starting point for further research. I also tell people to go to the talk page of the Wiki topic to see what those who wrote the article or have re-edited the article are saying among each other.

And it's well known and no one argues that Wikipedia is a liberal leaning website because most who write the articles are bias.

I also say the same thing with Military Corruption website. It should only be used as a starting point for further research. If you notice they always have a sentence or two that is opinionated. But most on that site are combat vets.
 
"Grabbed the shirt"- does that mean a fistful high on the chest? 'Cause that'd be out of line.

Well there's one female CPO who grabs sailors clothing a little lower than the shirt when straightening out some sailor who doesn't want to go along with the program. She runs a pretty tight ship I'm told.
 
Back
Top Bottom