Author Topic: Of Carriers and Clansmen (Read 2446 times)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #30 on:** May 20, 2003, 10:49:33 AM »

Gronk, the debate was whether this was inspirational to the crew, whether you like Bush or not, it *was* inspirational, and the cost can't be measured in a dollar amount for what it did for the US Navy... and Byrd's envy of such a position was evident.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #31 on:** May 20, 2003, 10:57:53 AM »

banana you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

First of all you have no idea about management and leadership. Anyone with a background in the field will tell you that intrinsic rewards like attention and recognition from a credible leader are far more powerful and practical rewards than extra pay - I know you dont understand that but the evidence to that is consitent in management studies again and again, so I really wont waste any more time trying to argue that point with you - you are simply flat out wrong.

Second, baring the absoulte impracticality of just giving bonuses to a single CVN crew is there any doubt that if he had done that just that you or one of your kind would now be crying how bush was wasting money and making a symbolic insignificant pandering and patronizing gesture by paying these brave men an women a small amount of money like some tribal chief of old.

And thats ecactly how the crew would percieve it, again the management literature is pretty solid on this - people dont just want insignificant little money gestures, they want personal recognition, individua attention, fun, exciting celebration events, ceremonies and a feeling that their leaders understand what they are going through and share in their experiences in some part - that is exactly what Bush did in his vistit and the viking landing. That was brilliant piece of leadership and inspiration on his part.

john9001 · « **Reply #32 on:** May 20, 2003, 11:00:38 AM »

yes, clinton didn't waste taxpayers money on "trap' landings , he just let hillary use the govt's 747 (air force one) to fly between DC and NY many times in her campagn for senator.

sen byrd has no room to talk about wasting tax money, he is known as "senator pork barrel"

AKIron · « **Reply #33 on:** May 20, 2003, 11:04:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
yes, clinton didn't waste taxpayers money on "trap' landings , he just let hillary use the govt's 747 (air force one) to fly between DC and NY many times in her campagn for senator.

Now that's the kind of money that even spread around those GIs would appreciate.

Wonder why ole Wizard Byrd missed this opportunity to look out for our financial interests?

Martlet · « **Reply #34 on:** May 20, 2003, 11:28:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by banana
So, you guys are saying that the money was better spent on the trap landing than on handing out bonuses to the crew?

I wasn't launching into some pyscho-bable about what motivates the men and women of our armed forces. I merely suggested that the money for the trap landing could've had a more direct positive influence in the form of a bonus for the crew.

Apparently you missed my post about the actual cost of that landing, from the perspective of a carrier pilot. I must say I'll take the opinion of a person with personal experience first.

Vermillion · « **Reply #35 on:** May 20, 2003, 11:30:45 AM »

Where do you guys keep getting the idea that a whole lot of money was wasted by a "trap" landing? It total crap invented by the media.

What do you THINK a carrier is suppose to do, and what it does every single day that it is at sea. Peacetime or at War. Its constantly launching and retrieving aircraft, 24 hours a day.

Military pilots constantly go up and burn JP-4 by flying in circles and doing touch and goes, and in the Navy, traps. Its because they are required to have XXX hours of flight time per year (and under different conditions) and so many landings/takeoffs to maintain they're qualifications.

Ok, lets say he rode a helicopter in to the CV. That just means that at a different time, the very same pilot that flew him in, would have had to do an extra training flight to stay current. Same number of flight hours and same number of cats & traps.

Its all politics, but this story of "wasted money" is total bullpuckey. And the sense of recognition of achievement of all those men on the carrier.... priceless. Yes its a cliche, but very true in this case.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #36 on:** May 20, 2003, 01:25:31 PM »

just another deserter with connections.

Arfann · « **Reply #37 on:** May 20, 2003, 01:25:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Gronk, the debate was whether this was inspirational to the crew, whether you like Bush or not, it *was* inspirational, and the cost can't be measured in a dollar amount for what it did for the US Navy... and Byrd's envy of such a position was evident.

The original post contained the entire letter of the cap'n. Therein he attacks Byrd's war record, or lack thereof. What could be more contiguous to the conversation than to contrast that to Dubya's?

Arfann · « **Reply #38 on:** May 20, 2003, 01:27:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Little chance of that when "ol' Slick" couldn't find the time to visit even once Little Rock AFB, less than 20 miles from the State Capitol, during his 8 years as Governor.

I'd reply, but ol' Rip thinks we're going off-topic from the rest of the thread.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #39 on:** May 20, 2003, 01:29:12 PM »

Nah, go ahead, I was just replying to the debate of the cost that transpired. thats all.

Sabre · « **Reply #40 on:** May 20, 2003, 04:41:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arfann
I'm no Byrd fan, but his work in the ship yards helped his generation's war effort tons more than Dubya's joy riding (at tax payers' expense) in the "Champagne Air Force" did ours.

If ol' Slick had been the one to grab the trap, y'all right wing lemmings would be on him like chickens on a june bug.

What a load o' crap.

Like the left-wing lemmings were all over Bush? I'm sorry Gronk, but I've just got to disagree strongly with your view on this. There's on old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China." Clinton would never have thought to do this, becaues he wasn't about leadership, at least not leadership of people. He neither understand or respected us in uniform, and his disdain was well recognized by all. However, had he tried a similar "stunt", I'm inclined to believe the military would have assumed it to be exactly what Byrd tried to claim Bush's "trap" was, i.e. a pubilicity stunt for the coming election (remember a fellow named Ducacus, in the M1A1?). The controversy over Bush's military record asside, most in uniform today believe he honors and respects them. This only cemented that image in their minds.

Back in WWII, Admiral "Bull" Halsey was the first admiral to get carrier qualified, and the only one who did so before the war even started. It wasn't required. Indeed, all the other admirals were big-gun surface admirals, and thought Bull was a bit off his rocker for wasting the time. He did it anyway, because he knew that the future of the Navy was the carrier, and to be the most effective carrier admiral, to lead naval airmen, he needed to be one of them. Bush was following that tradition when he elected to share a bit of the danger they face every day aboard the Abe Lincoln. And the crew, the entire US military, accepted it, revelled in it. A helo ride would have cost about the same, but would never have had the same impact. The primary reason most dems are so upset about this is they know they could never have pulled this off. Clinton visited several carriers in his time, so it's not the trip to the AL that's got their goat. It's the fact that he looks too much like a leader in that flight suit. Maybe that's because he IS a leader.

AKIron · « **Reply #41 on:** May 20, 2003, 05:36:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arfann
I'd reply, but ol' Rip thinks we're going off-topic from the rest of the thread.

Very convenient.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #42 on:** May 20, 2003, 09:56:20 PM »

"It's the fact that he looks too much like a leader in that flight suit. Maybe that's because he IS a leader."

or they resent a coke head deserter playing ceasar.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #43 on:** May 20, 2003, 09:59:35 PM »

Yes thats it, they all obviously hate him...

Hell why dont you bother to ask some of AH very own Iraq and Afghanistan vets about their opinions of their CIC and his leadership? Wouldn't that be revolutionary?

Arfann · « **Reply #44 on:** May 20, 2003, 11:34:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sabre
Like the left-wing lemmings were all over Bush? I'm sorry Gronk, but I've just got to disagree strongly with your view on this. There's on old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China." Clinton would never have thought to do this, becaues he wasn't about leadership, at least not leadership of people. He neither understand or respected us in uniform, and his disdain was well recognized by all. However, had he tried a similar "stunt", I'm inclined to believe the military would have assumed it to be exactly what Byrd tried to claim Bush's "trap" was, i.e. a pubilicity stunt for the coming election (remember a fellow named Ducacus, in the M1A1?). The controversy over Bush's military record asside, most in uniform today believe he honors and respects them. This only cemented that image in their minds.

Back in WWII, Admiral "Bull" Halsey was the first admiral to get carrier qualified, and the only one who did so before the war even started. It wasn't required. Indeed, all the other admirals were big-gun surface admirals, and thought Bull was a bit off his rocker for wasting the time. He did it anyway, because he knew that the future of the Navy was the carrier, and to be the most effective carrier admiral, to lead naval airmen, he needed to be one of them. Bush was following that tradition when he elected to share a bit of the danger they face every day aboard the Abe Lincoln. And the crew, the entire US military, accepted it, revelled in it. A helo ride would have cost about the same, but would never have had the same impact. The primary reason most dems are so upset about this is they know they could never have pulled this off. Clinton visited several carriers in his time, so it's not the trip to the AL that's got their goat. It's the fact that he looks too much like a leader in that flight suit. Maybe that's because he IS a leader.

Yes, he looks quite the leader. As did Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler in their military finery. But where is he leading us to? It's clear that stirring the pot in the mideast enables him to increase his hold on the reins of power, and it certainly helps to have the military on your side if you plan on expanding that power globally. Let me make this perfectly clear. I don't trust presidents. Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., no matter who. They're all politicians out for the power. Lemmings, both on the right and left, normally keep them in control. The WTC disaster has given this particular president way too much power. So much so that it has knocked me off the fence (you know, the one down the middle of the road) on the left side. At the air show this weekend (didn't see ya there, sorry if you couldn't make it!) the national anthem was accompanied by the largest American flag ever suspended from a sky-diver, over 200 square feet. I shed alligator tears for the WTC victims, our valiant troops who are in harm's way, and for the future of our country under an executive that put them there for reasons I suspect had more to do with his power acquisition than a just cause.

I know and respect you, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this subject. If it helps, know that I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

GronK