[FoRK] Reducing defense spending

mdw at martinwills.com mdw at martinwills.com
Fri Jun 25 10:23:53 PDT 2010


>
> On Jun 25, 2010, at 10:31 AM, mdw at martinwills.com wrote:
>
>> Obviously you are too mired in your own self-importance and incredible
>> lack of common sense to realize you are full of sh*t.  Please don't make
>> comments about things you are completely and totally unqualified to
>> speak
>> about.  I am tired of your self-important drivel taken from your
>> sphincter.  I have military training, I am an instrument rated pilot, I
>> am
>> an Officer in the Armed Forces. You know nothing about warfare and I am
>> calling you out on your total incompetence in speaking about matters
>> where
>> you are unwanted and unqualified to to offer your pubescent beliefs.
>> Remember: "It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought the fool,
>> then to open it, and remove all doubt.".  Silence is golden, shut up and
>> get rich.
>
> BTW, your little outburst would seem to say far more about you (cf.
> "self-importance", "drivel," "sphincter";  cross-ref "argument from
> authority") than it does me.  The only "pubescent" behavior I've seen here
> is that paragraph quoted above.  You spout initially spout some pat
> "common sense" from some supposed position of authority and then get all
> huffy when somebody challenges you to think in a broader context, to
> question your premises.  If you'd bothered to actually read what I said,
> you'd note that I actually acknowledged the correctness of your assertion
> *given your apparent assumptions.*  It's the assumptions --- the
> tenability of occupation in almost any case --- that I question.  Those
> assumptions have managed to get us into a lot of trouble at great cost in
> the previous decade.
>
> How about engaging folks on the basis of content?  That really too much to
> ask?  I attempt to do that --- don't always succeed, but at least I make
> the attempt.  Is it possible to do that without the above sort of abuse?
> I mean, I'm all for abuse, but I don't know you well enough (i.e., at all)
> to be comfortable calling you a fucktard yet. ;-)
>
>
> jb
>
>
> PS - for your record:  USAF brat, dad was a Vietnam era fighter pilot and
> later instructor;  also a player of games who taught me a lot through
> constant challenge.  I grew up barely realizing that you could shop
> anywhere but the commissary and PX;  AFROTC scholarship (opted over Air
> Force Academy, an even better NROTC scholarship, and Naval Academy out of
> some misplaced family legacy loyalty, then abandoned.  One of my few
> semi-regrets.  Or maybe several.  Annapolis would have been the right
> choice.)  I'm the first male in my family in three generations not to have
> ever been active military.  Spent most weekends in my teens in tow planes
> and sailplanes.  (Don't like the odds these days, stick to commercial
> mostly, safest travel on the planet even if it's the most annoying. ;-)
> I've had retired top brass and top-level intel agency heads on the boards
> of companies I've started, and a good friend that's the founder of a major
> defense contractor, numerous other friends and form!
>  er colleagues at various levels of a variety of defense agencies and
> contractors.  And I read the lit, what may be available.
>
> Probably better-schooled in the relevant material than many if not most
> folks that graduate OTS / OCS;  the military theory and history section of
> the home library would probably blow your mind.  Think / talk about this
> stuff for fun, including these little exchanges modulo swatting away
> mosquitoes like this.  So I've got a little context, maybe not as much as
> you but more than the average civ, I'd guess with some confidence.  At
> least enough to have a reasonable conversation without, presumably, being
> subject to bullshit like the above.
>
> You're an officer;  I acknowledge and respect that if true, didn't know
> --- though most real military folks I know have a lot more composure than
> you've demonstrated above.  Nothing but respect for those who serve.  But
> doesn't matter.  If you can't have a civil discussion that runs counter to
> your apparently immutable assumptions, you're not much of a gentleman.
> Maybe we could reset and you could demonstrate a little of that composure,
> and we could have an interesting time playing what-if...?
>
> How's that work for you, Sir?
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>

Sorry, people with your mind set, are in Congress, and have been killing
18-25 year-olds in Afghanistan and Iran for the last 8 years.  I have zero
tolerance for an arm-chair quarterback who doesn't know that "condition
green, weapons free" means that someone is going to die very soon.  You
can play all the mind games you wish from the safety of your iPad
controlled house.  It is those 18-25 year olds that give you that
priviledge (it isn't your right).  It is people with your mind set that
gives them the ROE that says you can't shoot unless you are shot at. They
look at 30 men with AK-47's pointed at the ground, knowing full well, that
when they turn, they will have 30 rounds in their back.

It is people like you who say that unmanned drones are the solution when
you have know idea what the capabilities of a drone are.  Maybe ask those
30 wedding guests in Afghanistan what they think, oh wait, they're dead.
When you have real world experience and not "Book Knowledge", you might be
invited to sit at the table of assholes.  Until then, please wait in the
kitchen with the rest of the staff, your not worthy.

Regards,
Martin




More information about the FoRK mailing list