User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 4:11:19 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stop trying to appropriate my culture human. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cyborg patriarchy. Stop trying to appropriate my culture human. Well, look who needs to check their privilege. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 6:15:55 PM EDT
[#2]
Interesting Hearing aids might not be tempest violation
page 2 section B-1 at the bottom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 7:44:14 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Interesting Hearing aids might not be tempest violation page 2 section B-1 at the bottom. Interesting, so those with hearing aids could serve? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:14:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
page 2 section B-1 at the bottom. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/842001p.pdf Interesting, so those with hearing aids could serve? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Interesting Hearing aids might not be tempest violation http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/842001p.pdf Interesting, so those with hearing aids could serve? I don't think that's what it says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:29:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think that's what it says. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Interesting Hearing aids might not be tempest violation http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/842001p.pdf Interesting, so those with hearing aids could serve? I don't think that's what it says. Could you translate for me? I'm terrible at legal speak.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:35:43 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: page 2 section B-1 at the bottom. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Interesting Hearing aids might not be tempest violation page 2 section B-1 at the bottom. Interesting, so those with hearing aids could serve? http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-86-132'' It does not permit nor bar them from the military it just means there are provisions for people such as contractors with hearing aids to be able to be around tempest protected circuits. There is a lot that goes into this and I will let you peruse the links I posted. Other than that I really do not want to go more into it than that. For various reasons. Everything I have stated is open and well known to the general public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:06:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So don't deploy them to FOBs, keep them at other bases that don't see combat but they can still play a role in serving their military. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bird says it's a matter of deaf people being treated equally with those who can hear. But they aren't equal when it comes to military suitability. I agree with Joker, I was born deaf. However, there's a difference between combat and non-combat roles. I hope they stick with just non-combat. Combat roles are obviously a no-go. Non-combat roles are ok. They can easily take care of the normal roles that hearing people can do in non-combat. That frees up more manpower for those in combat situations. Are these hard of hearing people becoming military paralegals, IT specialists, Mechanics, Nurses? If so, I'd say go for it. Gets to deployability and interchangeability of personnel I can always put a deploy admin or mechanic on the wall to defend the FOB something this would impact the ability to do So don't deploy them to FOBs, keep them at other bases that don't see combat but they can still play a role in serving their military. That's why we have civilian positions on bases. If you are non-deployable (permanently) then you should not be in the military. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:09:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clarify the red. 
There are deaf people that I know of who can easily kick any hearing person's ass at dissembling an engine block and replacing a cracked valve. There's another one I know of whose a legal assistant and she fought tooth and nail to get that position and even was a huge asset to her law firm. Don't think for a second that deaf and hard of hearing people are inferior to hearing people. Granted they are not suitable for combat roles in which hearing and communication is essential, but that doesn't mean they are a "waste of space and money and rely upon others to pick up their slack." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gets to deployability and interchangeability of personnel I can always put a deploy admin or mechanic on the wall to defend the FOB something this would impact the ability to do So don't deploy them to FOBs, keep them at other bases that don't see combat but they can still play a role in serving their military. If you cannot deploy to where ever the military needs you then you are a waste of space and money. You are also a burden on everyone else that can do those things because they pick up your slack. Clarify the red.
There are deaf people that I know of who can easily kick any hearing person's ass at dissembling an engine block and replacing a cracked valve. There's another one I know of whose a legal assistant and she fought tooth and nail to get that position and even was a huge asset to her law firm. Don't think for a second that deaf and hard of hearing people are inferior to hearing people. Granted they are not suitable for combat roles in which hearing and communication is essential, but that doesn't mean they are a "waste of space and money and rely upon others to pick up their slack." When your unit goes down range and you cannot, someone has to pick up that slack, don't they? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:17:36 PM EDT
[#9]
Deaf officers is an ok idea, but I think blind people have the right to be snipers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:19:38 PM EDT
[#10]
Officers are already handicapped.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:20:25 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have men that have served in here telling you it is a bad idea, yet you continue to try and force your view of things. This is just like women in combat mos's People like you are the reason civilians have no business trying to change how the military operates. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:What about non-deployment roles then?
Thats called: Not the military. You have men that have served in here telling you it is a bad idea, yet you continue to try and force your view of things. This is just like women in combat mos's People like you are the reason civilians have no business trying to change how the military operates. I hope you are not talking to RustedAce 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:22:26 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Don't think for a second that deaf and hard of hearing people are inferior to hearing people. Granted they are not suitable for combat roles in which hearing and communication is essential, So you are sitting on your FOB where you fix engines better than the hearing privileged, incoming is detected/base is under direct fire attack/ shits on fire yo, alarm goes off. I guess you just sit in your pod and die in place since you can't hear it? Seems like a good idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:24:46 PM EDT
[#13]
As much as I feel for them, I don't think I agree with this sentiment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:31:50 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree with Joker, I was born deaf. However, there's a difference between combat and non-combat roles. I hope they stick with just non-combat. Combat roles are obviously a no-go. Non-combat roles are ok. They can easily take care of the normal roles that hearing people can do in non-combat. That frees up more manpower for those in combat situations. Are these hard of hearing people becoming military paralegals, IT specialists, Mechanics, Nurses? If so, I'd say go for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Bird says it's a matter of deaf people being treated equally with those who can hear. But they aren't equal when it comes to military suitability. I agree with Joker, I was born deaf. However, there's a difference between combat and non-combat roles. I hope they stick with just non-combat. Combat roles are obviously a no-go. Non-combat roles are ok. They can easily take care of the normal roles that hearing people can do in non-combat. That frees up more manpower for those in combat situations. Are these hard of hearing people becoming military paralegals, IT specialists, Mechanics, Nurses? If so, I'd say go for it. The problem with your theory is the fact that quite a lot of noncombat roles directly support combat arms. They could still very possibly put lives in danger. If they were to actually allow these people in? It would have to be absolutely removed from what I mentioned. I could see an admin role possibly, without the possibility of deploying. That would be their best bet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:38:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no it doesn't. its the military. the uniform means combat. standing around the FOB and an occasional rocket blows by, thats combat. What you are thinking of is maneuver forces. Guys who go out to find the enemy, get in his face, and then blow it away. That line is as thick and defined as it has ever been. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The line between combat and non-combat roles gets pretty fuzzy...especially if somebody is deployed to a situation like Iraq/Afghanistan. There are a ton of people who were not in combat roles who still ended up exposed to risk because bad guys don't give a shit who is in the uniform they're dedicated to shooting at. The military does combat. Everywhere they go there is the realistic possibility of being surrounded by shitheads who want to kill them. Everyone might not have to bear the physical burdens of an infantryman, but everybody needs to be able to do the combat thing pretty well, in my uneducated opinion. no it doesn't. its the military. the uniform means combat. standing around the FOB and an occasional rocket blows by, thats combat. What you are thinking of is maneuver forces. Guys who go out to find the enemy, get in his face, and then blow it away. That line is as thick and defined as it has ever been. I think I get what you're saying but there's no way you can tell me that standing around a fob and an occasional rocket blows by is combat. It's not. Maybe the people standing around the fob may think that it's combat or really want to think that it's combat, but it just isn't. Saying things like that really diminishes what those who've actually been in combat have done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:58:15 PM EDT
[#16]
I have met at least one Army LTC that wore a hearing aid. I cannot remember if he was in theater or at MacDill with CENTCOM. It surprised me, but what the hell, I toiled at echelons above reality, and our primary contribution to the war was PowerPoint slides on obscure subjects that no operator types would ever read.
At one point I was the national expert  on a subject so narrowly defined that an Army Reservist MAJ could serve as the national expert without anyone pointing and laughing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 2:38:16 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think I get what you're saying but there's no way you can tell me that standing around a fob and an occasional rocket blows by is combat. It's not. Maybe the people standing around the fob may think that it's combat or really want to think that it's combat, but it just isn't. Saying things like that really diminishes what those who've actually been in combat have done. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The line between combat and non-combat roles gets pretty fuzzy...especially if somebody is deployed to a situation like Iraq/Afghanistan. There are a ton of people who were not in combat roles who still ended up exposed to risk because bad guys don't give a shit who is in the uniform they're dedicated to shooting at. The military does combat. Everywhere they go there is the realistic possibility of being surrounded by shitheads who want to kill them. Everyone might not have to bear the physical burdens of an infantryman, but everybody needs to be able to do the combat thing pretty well, in my uneducated opinion. no it doesn't. its the military. the uniform means combat. standing around the FOB and an occasional rocket blows by, thats combat. What you are thinking of is maneuver forces. Guys who go out to find the enemy, get in his face, and then blow it away. That line is as thick and defined as it has ever been. I think I get what you're saying but there's no way you can tell me that standing around a fob and an occasional rocket blows by is combat. It's not. Maybe the people standing around the fob may think that it's combat or really want to think that it's combat, but it just isn't. Saying things like that really diminishes what those who've actually been in combat have done. How about terror attacks against CONUS personnel and facilities? Combat or not combat? Because it has happened, and will continue to happen. People have died, some of them combat veterans. Do we get to argue over whether their sacrifice is diminished or not because they died on US soil? If we define the event as a terror attack (I.e. An act of war), and people die, how do we then say, oh, they're not wartime/combat casualties? For example, was Pearl Harbor "combat" or not? After all, we weren't even at war, right? How about Ft. Hood? We've officially labeled it as a terror attack - were those victims in combat or not? Active duty military personnel died on 9/11. Was that combat or not? Just because you don't have an opportunity for direct retaliation doesn't mean it isn't combat, right? I'm not just trying to be obtuse here. We all understand on a fundamental level that victims of all those attacks are wartime casualties, and they're specifically honored as such. We all have that respect - the question is about how our definitions and notions inform policy, and whether that's helpful or hurtful. Either all military personnel are (potentially, even at some dramatically low probability) targets, in which case they should be capable of at least rudimentary self defense (whether or not they're issued a weapon as per policy), or they aren't all targets, in which case it shouldn't matter if you're a quadriplegic as long as you can do your job, right? We have plenty of contractors with mild to severe disabilities. If there isn't a reason to demand physical performance from service personnel, why not put these contractors in a uniform if they want it? We all know the answer, even if we're trying to define it differently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 2:39:39 AM EDT
[#18]
We let blind bastards in, don't we?
 Whether your eyesight is correctable to 20/20, or your hearing is correctable to the normal range, what's the difference?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 2:44:27 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We let blind bastards in, don't we? Whether your eyesight is correctable to 20/20, or your hearing is correctable to the normal range, what's the difference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 3:04:11 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a legal definition for both. I have never heard of a legally blind person admitted into the military. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We let blind bastards in, don't we? Whether your eyesight is correctable to 20/20, or your hearing is correctable to the normal range, what's the difference?The four eye guy who can't see two feet in front of his face is no more a liability than the guy with hearing aids or cochlear implants. I have worked with quite a few guys who are serving on active duty with hearing aids, btw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 3:57:29 AM EDT
[#21]
Is this a joke?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 4:07:10 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a legal definition for both. I have never heard of a legally blind person admitted into the military. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We let blind bastards in, don't we? Whether your eyesight is correctable to 20/20, or your hearing is correctable to the normal range, what's the difference?They should sue Bush for not letting them become fighter pilots. It's the only way for justice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 4:38:11 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, I've been thinking. What would the Army do with a guy who has a outstanding career in the military and all of the sudden, his career gets flushed down the shitter just because he stood too close to a tank firing its gun. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
To the extent the army can be picky - it makes little sense not to hire and train the best. Generally that would preclude most people with physical disabilities. It also makes sense to use knowledge and training of the best. If an active duty member of the military becomes disabled, their knowledge and training might still be valuable in other positions. Could also argue it really does not matter with Pogues anyway Yeah, I've been thinking. What would the Army do with a guy who has a outstanding career in the military and all of the sudden, his career gets flushed down the shitter just because he stood too close to a tank firing its gun.
He would get medically retired just like I did last year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 5:13:52 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
UAV operators are operating their UAVs and shit on a totally secure fob. The Chinese attack. Your UAV hut is blown up and you only have 2/3 of a crew still alive. The totally secure fob is under attack from just about every direction. Now wake up your squad of fat ass one legged deaf guys and get into the fight. GO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The line between combat and non-combat roles gets pretty fuzzy...especially if somebody is deployed to a situation like Iraq/Afghanistan. There are a ton of people who were not in combat roles who still ended up exposed to risk because bad guys don't give a shit who is in the uniform they're dedicated to shooting at. The military does combat. Everywhere they go there is the realistic possibility of being surrounded by shitheads who want to kill them. Everyone might not have to bear the physical burdens of an infantryman, but everybody needs to be able to do the combat thing pretty well, in my uneducated opinion. That has a cost associated with it. We might get better value by having personnel that will not be put into combat (or are no more likely to have to do the combat thing than a barista ). (Some) UAV operators come to mind, as well as some other tech workers. UAV operators are operating their UAVs and shit on a totally secure fob. The Chinese attack. Your UAV hut is blown up and you only have 2/3 of a crew still alive. The totally secure fob is under attack from just about every direction. Now wake up your squad of fat ass one legged deaf guys and get into the fight. GO. You don't even have to go there. We communicate with UAV operators via voice comms. No time for delays. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 5:18:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And wouldn't you want to free up more "hearing capable" manpower for those duties while having the hearing-disabled handle "desk jobs" or being mechanics? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you cannot deploy to where ever the military needs you then you are a waste of space and money. You are also a burden on everyone else that can do those things because they pick up your slack. Clarify the red.
There are deaf people that I know of who can easily kick any hearing person's ass at dissembling an engine block and replacing a cracked valve. There's another one I know of whose a legal assistant and she fought tooth and nail to get that position and even was a huge asset to her law firm. Don't think for a second that deaf and hard of hearing people are inferior to hearing people. Granted they are not suitable for combat roles in which hearing and communication is essential, but that doesn't mean they are a "waste of space and money and rely upon others to pick up their slack." If you are in theater you are in a combat roll, you aren't carrying that rifle over your shoulder for fun. That could mean standing a guard post, being on QRF, gate guard, perimeter patrol etc. Even if you are a pogue on a base doing a support mission or turning a wrench your unit is still expected to give up bodies for these jobs. And wouldn't you want to free up more "hearing capable" manpower for those duties while having the hearing-disabled handle "desk jobs" or being mechanics? The desk jobs pull those duties because the combat arms cats are out doing combat arms stuff. You can't create jobs out of thin air for one special snowflake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 5:59:54 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not, most are mentally challenged IME. You and FPNI |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 6:02:46 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm 100% on board with this, the only purpose of the military is to be a gigantic social experiment with guns and shit. Take away the guns part and liberals would say "amen". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 6:03:45 AM EDT
[#28]
If physically challenged people were equal to humans then there wouldn't be a law that denotes them as a special, protected class, with segregated parking and a cavalcade of other "the world must conform to suit the whims of a tiny, irrelevant minority" laws under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 6:10:27 AM EDT
[#29]
Why stop at hearing? Why not accept people missing limbs, eyes, etc?
The problem is the assumption that everyone has a right to serve in the military. That is not accurate. Almost everyone has the right to volunteer for service. The military has no obligation to accept you. We have medical and physical standards for a reason. It's because combat is hard, and the less physically fit or capable won't hack it in a combat environment. And the days of "safe" jobs in CONUS, or "non-deployable" jobs, ended about 20 years ago. People who don't meet the standard are a liability to the ones who do. And keep in mind there are differences between accession (entry) standards and retention standards. The first is for unshaped clay, the second takes into the consideration the cost of treatment/mitigation vs. the cost to train a new replacement. So while they may not accept someone missing a hand for entry, they will issue a prosthetic for someone if it happens after training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 6:16:42 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And wouldn't you want to free up more "hearing capable" manpower for those duties while having the hearing-disabled handle "desk jobs" or being mechanics? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you cannot deploy to where ever the military needs you then you are a waste of space and money. You are also a burden on everyone else that can do those things because they pick up your slack. Clarify the red.
There are deaf people that I know of who can easily kick any hearing person's ass at dissembling an engine block and replacing a cracked valve. There's another one I know of whose a legal assistant and she fought tooth and nail to get that position and even was a huge asset to her law firm. Don't think for a second that deaf and hard of hearing people are inferior to hearing people. Granted they are not suitable for combat roles in which hearing and communication is essential, but that doesn't mean they are a "waste of space and money and rely upon others to pick up their slack." If you are in theater you are in a combat roll, you aren't carrying that rifle over your shoulder for fun. That could mean standing a guard post, being on QRF, gate guard, perimeter patrol etc. Even if you are a pogue on a base doing a support mission or turning a wrench your unit is still expected to give up bodies for these jobs. And wouldn't you want to free up more "hearing capable" manpower for those duties while having the hearing-disabled handle "desk jobs" or being mechanics? Next you're going to suggest there are a lot of stateside non-combat jobs that must be filled by studly warriors because you never can tell when the Apache and Comanche will go on the warpath again. But Daddy, why did they bring females in to the armed forces?? To release men for combat roles. But weren't they afraid Kaiser Bill or General Tojo were going to attack in Kansas? My son just got medically retired because of cancer which is cured, but he became non-deployable. Historically, his shop has only deployed about a third of it's maintainers. His only combat zone deployment was to Italy for the Khaddafi discussions. And that was after he was found to be non-deployable, then deployable, and then on his return non-deployable. One of his Shop Chiefs (now in state custody for crimes against children) tried to right him a bad fitness report (or whatever they call them) for slacking, even though the Chief had been gone 3/4 the reporting period. The Company CO (equiv) called them into his office had my son show him his scar, Tell us how big the tumor was (orange size) tell him what the Docs are saying, the AF was two years late in spotting it. So he's out, the shop is unable to meet mission requirements due to lack of people and nobody trained available with his quals, overall short people, (dui's and pot smoking) So he's out and they're catching hell because if they fill all their deployment slots, they can't support the non-deployed squadrons. Is it me, or wouldn't it have made sense to figure out a way to keep him in his job?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 6:19:54 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Bird says it's a matter of deaf people being treated equally with those who can hear. But they aren't equal when it comes to military suitability. I agree with Joker, I was born deaf. However, there's a difference between combat and non-combat roles. I hope they stick with just non-combat. Combat roles are obviously a no-go. Non-combat roles are ok. They can easily take care of the normal roles that hearing people can do in non-combat. That frees up more manpower for those in combat situations. Are these hard of hearing people becoming military paralegals, IT specialists, Mechanics, Nurses? If so, I'd say go for it. Yeah, that sounds fair to the people who put their lives on the line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 6:21:55 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, I've been thinking. What would the Army do with a guy who has a outstanding career in the military and all of the sudden, his career gets flushed down the shitter just because he stood too close to a tank firing its gun.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
To the extent the army can be picky - it makes little sense not to hire and train the best. Generally that would preclude most people with physical disabilities. It also makes sense to use knowledge and training of the best. If an active duty member of the military becomes disabled, their knowledge and training might still be valuable in other positions. Could also argue it really does not matter with Pogues anyway Yeah, I've been thinking. What would the Army do with a guy who has a outstanding career in the military and all of the sudden, his career gets flushed down the shitter just because he stood too close to a tank firing its gun.
Throw him away, he's busted. All that training and experience is no longer valid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 6:25:30 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Deaf officers is an ok idea, but I think blind people have the right to be snipers. We do not have the real estate. The size of the blind sniper range and it's 360 degree minimum safe distance would be too large for most military training facilities. But, that is not the only difficulty with standing up (sorry for the "able-ist" phrase) the VERY SPECIAL FORCES. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 6:28:40 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guess most of the Air Force is not military.
Ya know... I was going to address this, then decided not to. Fuck it. Yeah, I know there is a lot of back-and-forth between the different services and everyone likes to pick on the AF, but it is still part of the US Military. My service was during and just after the Cold War. With the exception of special duty assignments, I was on world-wide mobility status for my 20+ years. And yes, we did get "that" phone call on more than one occasion. And when we deployed - people from admin and finance and supply and even cooks and such went with us when we did bare-base ops (in addition to the flyers and maintenance and life support and security and fire and etc... that normally deployed). And yes, even while on special duty assignments, if the need arose you would be placed back onto mobility status and used in accordance with the needs of the AF. Whether you want to believe it or not, having "physically challenged" individuals serve would have an impact on the military. And as pointed out already, the DoD has civil service positions where they hire those with physical challenges or disabilities, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with serving in that capacity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:What about non-deployment roles then?
Thats called: Not the military. Guess most of the Air Force is not military.
Ya know... I was going to address this, then decided not to. Fuck it. Yeah, I know there is a lot of back-and-forth between the different services and everyone likes to pick on the AF, but it is still part of the US Military. My service was during and just after the Cold War. With the exception of special duty assignments, I was on world-wide mobility status for my 20+ years. And yes, we did get "that" phone call on more than one occasion. And when we deployed - people from admin and finance and supply and even cooks and such went with us when we did bare-base ops (in addition to the flyers and maintenance and life support and security and fire and etc... that normally deployed). And yes, even while on special duty assignments, if the need arose you would be placed back onto mobility status and used in accordance with the needs of the AF. Whether you want to believe it or not, having "physically challenged" individuals serve would have an impact on the military. And as pointed out already, the DoD has civil service positions where they hire those with physical challenges or disabilities, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with serving in that capacity. I tried that discussion with my son. If the balloon went up and his whole Maintenance squadron had to deploy, like yesterday, the war just started, he would go and do his thing until they found a replacement and sent him home. Nope the AF made it clear to him and his command, that no matter how much work he could do, and no replacements on the horizon, he had to get retired. And they could suck it when they got bad evals for readiness shortfalls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 6:32:50 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
page 2 section B-1 at the bottom. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/842001p.pdf Interesting, so those with hearing aids could serve? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Interesting Hearing aids might not be tempest violation http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/842001p.pdf Interesting, so those with hearing aids could serve? Used to be you'd see a lot of CPO's, LDO's, etc in the Navy with hearing aids. However, those guys lost their hearing while serving. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 7:02:33 AM EDT
[#36]
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that we need a military junta in this country.
The stupidity in this thread is an indicator of why. We are, as a nation, too emotive and too stupid to live. Literally all public policy in this country that isn't about keeping the masses from rioting with bribes (entitlements) is designed to prevent our population of snowflakes from getting their precious feelings hurt. It's well past the time to start cracking skulls. And hurting feelings.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 7:12:06 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You and FPNI Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why not, most are mentally challenged IME. You and FPNI I started to write a mild retort, but there would be no point... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 7:16:09 AM EDT
[#38]
Aboard ships, it used to be assumed that when all Hell breaks loose, you could depend on every Sailor to man the pumps and carry hoses and stretchers up the ladder wells.
However, many of the Sailors on ships these days are handicapped, and unable to perform these vital functions. We call these Sailors "women." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 7:22:23 AM EDT
[#39]
Reminds me of the morning I was calling the convicts out and assigning them to road work gangs.
I called this convicts name....No answer. Called again....No answer. About that time another convict came up to me and said "Capt., I don't think you can use him on the road". I asked him why not and he said " Well Capt., he only has one leg".
Come to find out he was working in the kitchen as our new head baker. He was brought in when I was on my 7-day break. Damn fine baker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 7:23:18 AM EDT
[#40]
Fuck it. I've never had a CO that wasn't a retard anyway. I would've taken a competent deaf guy over the incompetent window-licker any day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 7:24:22 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aboard ships, it used to be assumed that when all Hell breaks loose, you could depend on every Sailor to man the pumps and carry hoses and stretchers up the ladder wells. However, many of the Sailors on ships these days are handicapped, and unable to perform these vital functions. We call these Sailors "women." Women can do anything men can... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 7:24:28 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aboard ships, it used to be assumed that when all Hell breaks loose, you could depend on every Sailor to man the pumps and carry hoses and stretchers up the ladder wells. However, many of the Sailors on ships these days are handicapped, and unable to perform these vital functions. We call these Sailors "women." awwww shit. Its on. Josh is gonna stroke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 7:29:40 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Women can do anything men can... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Aboard ships, it used to be assumed that when all Hell breaks loose, you could depend on every Sailor to man the pumps and carry hoses and stretchers up the ladder wells. However, many of the Sailors on ships these days are handicapped, and unable to perform these vital functions. We call these Sailors "women." Women can do anything men can... Can they pee standing up and write their name in the dirt?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 8:34:34 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aboard ships, it used to be assumed that when all Hell breaks loose, you could depend on every Sailor to man the pumps and carry hoses and stretchers up the ladder wells. However, many of the Sailors on ships these days are handicapped, and unable to perform these vital functions. We call these Sailors "women." I was once witness to some basic firearms training being provided to new USN personnel. The instructors, all of whom as their full-time job were in units named similarly to a semi-aquatic marine mammal, had very strict speech codes to use when training these people according to the contract. They could not, for instance, say "head shot", instead having to use the term "high center mass" because it was decided that the concept of using a head shot...to defend an aircraft carrier from boarders/terrorists...was too unseemly. I asked one of the instructors, who is now kind of famous and at the time was being lectured on something by the butterbar CO supposedly "in charge" of this group of trainees, how exactly these people were supposed to defend their ship if nobody could even talk realistically about what you have to do to kill bad guys. The butterbar looked at me like I had three heads. The instructor almost swallowed his chaw from laughter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 9:11:19 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that we need a military junta in this country. The stupidity in this thread is an indicator of why. We are, as a nation, too emotive and too stupid to live. Literally all public policy in this country that isn't about keeping the masses from rioting with bribes (entitlements) is designed to prevent our population of snowflakes from getting their precious feelings hurt. It's well past the time to start cracking skulls. And hurting feelings. I'm down with this. At least well get some use out of all those FEMA camps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 9:13:28 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm 100% on board with this, the only purpose of the military is to be a gigantic social experiment with guns and shit. I have 13 more years to go...no thank you please |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 9:34:46 AM EDT
[#47]
I knew an old Marine Cook. He was at Chosin with Chesty Puller. He took a round through a cook pot as he was preparing chow and that was the last time he cooked for anyone but himself in a C rat can till the got evacuated at the sea.
They threw him in a rifle squad and he fought with the rest of the men all the way to the sea. This is feel good nonsense. Pvt Johnson the deaf guy isn non deployable. He takes up a slot stateside for a deployable GI Pvt Smith to rotate to when his overseas deployment is over. Johnson gets all the perks and none of the danger that Smith faces. Smith never gets to come stateside to see his family, live with his wife and kids, or just be able to hang out in the USA for a weekend? This is unfair to the able bodied guy. Next thing you know there is a lawsuit because Johnson didn't pick up rank as fast as Smith who is outside CONUS all the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 1:01:48 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
awwww shit. Its on. Josh is gonna stroke. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Aboard ships, it used to be assumed that when all Hell breaks loose, you could depend on every Sailor to man the pumps and carry hoses and stretchers up the ladder wells. However, many of the Sailors on ships these days are handicapped, and unable to perform these vital functions. We call these Sailors "women." awwww shit. Its on. Josh is gonna stroke. Holy shit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 1:49:41 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aboard ships, it used to be assumed that when all Hell breaks loose, you could depend on every Sailor to man the pumps and carry hoses and stretchers up the ladder wells. However, many of the Sailors on ships these days are handicapped, and unable to perform these vital functions. We call these Sailors "women." Fucking subscribed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 6:30:44 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm down with this. At least well get some use out of all those FEMA camps. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I've pretty much come to the conclusion that we need a military junta in this country. The stupidity in this thread is an indicator of why. We are, as a nation, too emotive and too stupid to live. Literally all public policy in this country that isn't about keeping the masses from rioting with bribes (entitlements) is designed to prevent our population of snowflakes from getting their precious feelings hurt. It's well past the time to start cracking skulls. And hurting feelings. I'm down with this. At least well get some use out of all those FEMA camps. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
