WC fans are Republicans?

[Paddybhoy]

Although that said, your initial claim doesn't even make sense on its face... because the basic thing that separates an officer from an enlisted person is a college degree... which Mr. Bush had before he joined the National Guard.)

You still need to do the officer training to become an officer though regardless of any academic accomplishment....he didn't

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Now people, what have we learned?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Except in exceedingly rare cases like battlefield comissions, an enlisted person never becomes an officer.

ALL Warrant Officers are prior enlisted. And (Unless it's changed in the last eight years) There is the LDO (Limited Duty Officer) program that enlisted swine can apply for anytime. It's a shot at OCS (Officer Candidate School). Only catch is (was) they could only be promoted up to Major.

 

[Sigmar Maximus]

BAck to the subject at hand..............

Yes the 'left' portrayed in that one WC novel where the Kilrathi faked the truce to attack Earth does have a lot of converts here on Earth as we speak. I imagine, for example, had the Soviets in the early 80's decided "Ah to heck with it" and charged their divisions across the Fulda Gap, that most of Europe would not be able to unconditionally surrender fast enough. I mean, Denmark surrendered inside of 20 minutes to Nazi Germany....I imagine they could surrender to the Soviets inside of 5 now.

 

[DyNaMiX]

You don't? It's pretty obvious.

I'm not sure how it compares to Australian politics though.
From what I can tell, it seems a liberal person is a Democrat in the US. As far as I know the current government is Republican. Over here in Australia we actually have a Liberal party. Many people compare our two ruling parties and think of them as the same. I don't. I think it's a little too hard to say "Democrat is to Labor as Republican is to Liberal".

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is by no means 100% accurate, all the following positions are genaral in nature. There are liberals in the Republican Party, and conservatives in the Democratic Party. But mostly, Democrats are liberal, and Republicans are conservative. The following are party positions, although they are not absolute:

Democrats: See government as the solution to all problems.
Republicans: See the private sector as the solution to most problems, with the government having a limited role and doing things such as defense.

Democrats: Pro abortion.
Republicans: Pro life.

Democrats: Anti gun.
Republicans: Pro gun.

Democrats: Anti death penalty.
Republicans: Pro death penalty.

Democrats: Anti military. (Lately.)
Republicans: Pro military. (Always.)

Democrats: Fewer prisons, rehabilitate criminals.
Republicans: More prisons, keep criminals behind bars so they can't commit crime.

Democrats: Higher taxes.
Republicans: Lower taxes.

Democrats: Talk to the terrorists.
Republicans: Blow up the terrorists.


There are lots of other specific issues, some that both parties agree on, but differ in how to go about them. I wish that the Democrats didn't seem to be turning into a bunch of pussies, but that seems to be the result of the influence of the feminists, homosexuals, and environmentalist radicals that seem to be taking over the party. Oh well. as long as they keep losing elections I guess it doesn't really matter that much.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Democrats: Talk to the terrorists.
Republicans: Blow up the terrorists.

You had me until this one. This is just internet/campus garbage not reality. There's certainly, certainly, certainly not a 'peace with terrorism' party in American politics. The fact that the president has been a Republican since the World Trade Center attacks doesn't mean that a Democrat would automatically do everything in reverse.

Politics isn't a magnet game, no matter how the media surrounding an election wants to make it seem.

 

[ChrisReid]

This thread just keeps getting worse.

 

[Maj.Striker]

Just to comment on the officer portion of the argument above. My father was an attorney (he's since retired) but when he was ready to attend law school after receiving his 4 year degree an officer from the army came and offered him the rank of Captain if he joined the army (JAG). As I understand it, all pilots are officers. I do not believe there is a Pfc (Private First Class) flying an F-16 any where in our military.

As for the current debate on Democrats versus Republicans...I don't think anything I can add would be helpful.

 

[Dyret]

This thread just keeps getting worse.

What would you expect? It's about politics...

 

[Ridgerunner]

The fact that the president has been a Republican since the World Trade Center attacks doesn't mean that a Democrat would automatically do everything in reverse.

Oh, I know that. But the way they are talking and acting now, and NOT condemning those who are actually saying we're the bad guys, and other things (evidence of "government" explosives at the levees in New Orleans, etc.) makes you think that they wouldn't have responded to the attacks aggressively. And this from the only political party in history to order 2 nukings. Go figure.

 

[Maj.Striker]

And this from the only political party in history to order 2 nukings. Go figure.

Now that's just irresponsible...to even insinuate that today's modern democratic party resembles the democratic party of 1945 is completely off base. I would also point out that although Truman was a democrat doesnt mean that his entire party ordered the Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Regardless of your political alignment in today's world you can't try to stick history from 60 years ago to the modern politicians. You might be able to make parallels or analogies but that's it.

 

[psych]

About enlisted to officer, there's actually a lot of them nowadays.

Chief Warrant Officers in the Navy, you have to be a Chief Petty Officer already.

Limited Duty Officers are for paygrades E-6 and above, and as a surprise to those wh o didn't know, one doesn't need a college degree to become an LDO.

And there's always a few people who enlisted in the military with degrees. I know a few good buddies of mine who enlisted with that route, basically, everyone said, "Why the fuck did you enlist with a degree?" Especially when they started to wipe the floor in terms of academic testing and potential. Needless to say, they got recruited for OCS pretty damn quick.

The Navy sees it as this, they got their education, and they still made a choice to enlist. Most people would say, "I got my degree, if I can't get in as an O, then fuck the military!" These guys didn't, and that decision to serve their country transcends basic personal ego. The Navy knows this. And they can do a lot more to serve the Navy then just chip paint and pick up trash. Because of this, the Navy always wants these people to go to OCS, and will most likely choose them over a regular college student applying for the same spot. Upward mobility is always a possibility in today's Navy, and I think it's fucking great.

 

[Sigmar Maximus]

While I fear that some of the above does pertain to the thread's subject, I do think we should keep the focus on the Wing Commander Universe's political views. Finding parallels between politics of that world and our own is fine, but making political statements designed to inflame is not going to help anyone.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

While I fear that some of the above does pertain to the thread's subject, I do think we should keep the focus on the Wing Commander Universe's political views. Finding parallels between politics of that world and our own is fine, but making political statements designed to inflame is not going to help anyone.

While Wing Commander's politics are interesting, that's not what the subject of this thread is.

 

[Quarto]

Now that's just irresponsible...to even insinuate that today's modern democratic party resembles the democratic party of 1945 is completely off base.

That's stupid - whether today's Democrats resemble 1945's Democrats is of course a matter of discussion... but to even insinuate, like you do, that such comparisons can't be made is simply bizarre. Fact is, they still call themselves the Democrats. By retaining this same name, they are the ones suggesting that they are the same as the Democrats in 1945. So if insinuations of such similiarities are completely off base, how come the Democrats themselves get away with their insinuations?

Oh, I know that. But the way they are talking and acting now, and NOT condemning those who are actually saying we're the bad guys, and other things (evidence of "government" explosives at the levees in New Orleans, etc.) makes you think that they wouldn't have responded to the attacks aggressively. And this from the only political party in history to order 2 nukings. Go figure.

See, I don't think you quite understand how this works. If you're in power, you're the government. Your job is to do stuff. If you're not in power, you're the opposition. Your job is to protest about everything the government does... even if you secretly think they're doing a good job! It's democratic politics - you're not in power, and you want to be. So you have to persuade the voters that the people in power are doing a bad job... and that means that you absolutely must not ever suggest that there's even a minimal possibility that the government has in fact made the right decision.

Also, why you would think that not condemning the nutcases that suggest the US government blew up the levees in New Orleans says anything about anyone is beyond me. 99.9% of the US population thinks such theories are simply crazy, and it doesn't care if anybody denies them or not. In fact, a politician that would bother to challenge such theories would probably be regarded as a fool who doesn't have anything better to do than trying to disprove the ravings of lunatics. Besides, he would also be driving the remaining 0.1% of the population further into their psychotic conspiracy theories... because every conspiracy theorist knows that when somebody says your theory is stupid and makes no sense, that simply proves a) He's in on the conspiracy, and b) Your theory is absolutely correct and they are afraid that you'll reveal the conspiracy, because why else would they try to defend themselves?

 

[Maj.Striker]

That's stupid - whether today's Democrats resemble 1945's Democrats is of course a matter of discussion... but to even insinuate, like you do, that such comparisons can't be made is simply bizarre. Fact is, they still call themselves the Democrats. By retaining this same name, they are the ones suggesting that they are the same as the Democrats in 1945. So if insinuations of such similiarities are completely off base, how come the Democrats themselves get away with their insinuations?

I don't think you read my post clearly enough. I did say that it's quite possible to make analogies or parallels of the current democratic politicians to those of the past. But you can't stick them with the responsibility of nuking two cities. The only person you can do that to is Harry Truman and possibly the flight crews of the bombers that carred the A bombs. Truman ordered the bombings, not the entire Democratic party. To say:

And this from the only political party in history to order 2 nukings. Go figure.

Is a complete distortion of fact and is nothing but a loaded spin sentence.

 

[Quarto]

[...]Is a complete distortion of fact and is nothing but a loaded spin sentence.

Ok, if you put it that way, I suppose I partially agree.

(note: before I even begin, I just want to say that both the nuclear bomb and Iraq are merely examples here - in no way am I suggesting that it was a mistake to use the nuclear bomb and/or to invade Iraq; in fact, while it's not especially relevant to this discussion, in both cases I felt the American President made the right choice)

Partially - because the distinction between political parties and presidents emerging from political parties is usually conveniently forgotten when needed. Someone who supports the Democratic Party might respond to the nuclear bomb accusations by saying that it was President Truman that ordered their use, not the party... but this same person will usually in the next sentence accuse the Republicans of invading Iraq. How does that work? Is it that in the case of President Bush, party = president = party? Or is it that President Bush checked the political alignment of his soldiers, and only sent the Republican soldiers into Iraq?

In any case, all such hypocrisy aside, the distinction really isn't worth making. Whether it's Bush and Iraq or Truman and the nuclear bomb, the ultimate question is - when these people stood for the presidency (vice-presidency, in Truman's case), were they independent candidates, or were they party candidates? The latter, of course, is the correct answer. The Democrats did not order the use of the nuclear bomb, but they presented Truman as their choice for the vice-president (and, by extension, as their second choice for the president). They cannot, therefore, disavow his actions, and in a manner of speaking, it was indeed the Democrats that nuked those two cities.

 

[Maj.Striker]

I agree with you there. I, like you, believe that in both cases Iraq and the A bomb, the respective presidents made the right (although hard) decisions.

 

[powell99]

I do not believe there is a Pfc (Private First Class) flying an F-16 any where in our military.

Nope but, in the Royal Air Force there are Flight Seargents which is an enlisted rank that can fly aircraft.
the United States Army Air Corps or Army Air Force had Flight Officers who I think were like Warrant Officers. I could be wrong though.
The Royal Navy has a Flight Petty Officer which is another enlisted rank where one is a pilot.
I don't know about the USN or USMC.
As for today I am fair sure there are no enlisted pilots in the US armed forces.