That makes sense. We used the expression, "when in doubt, whip it out".
It was sometimes comical watching people fumble around trying to salute when inconvenient or caught off guard.
USN_Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:Interesting. I don't remember ever saluting someone who was driving around. Maybe it was a when in doubt kind of thing.
When did they stop the blue stickers?
USN_Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:The only saluting of someone in a car I can think of is at the gate by an MP.
Interestingly, most warrant officers I knew hated to be saluted, and would often "return" their salute so soon and quickly that the enlisted guy wouldn't have even rendered theirs yet.
USN_Hokie wrote:A common occurrence is being saluted while driving a car (this happens more on Marine bases than Navy ones) or while in civvies. In that circumstance, a nod or hand gesture with a "good morning/afternoon/evening" is all that's required.
Really? I was saluted while driving on Camp Lejeune all the time. This was when the officers had blue stickers on their cars, so it was more obvious. I don't think they do the stickers any more.
Yeah, the WO thing, as you know, is them "keepin' it real" with the enlisted folks.
I'm not saying everyone did it - just that it was common.
They got rid of base stickers a couple years ago in the MIDLANT region, but they may still use them in other areas. I think the idea is that the stickers are easy to forge and shouldn't be used as a means of ID'ing someone. Makes sense.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Hokie CPA wrote:So you agree, then, that he did escalate the war in Afghanistan. Thank you.
Oh, and in Gulf War I (Operation Desert Storm) where our Navy and Air Force pilots flew thousands of sorties over Iraq for a month and a half before any personnel crossed the border on the ground.... were we not at war for that month? Or did it not start until the invasion force crossed the border? Boots on the ground is irrelevant. Our military is killing people and breaking things in anger. That's war. Obama has started our military into at least two of them.
Of course, the surge in Afghanistan is historical fact. It was a war he inherited and temporarily escalated for strategic reasons and has since drawn down. You trying to equate strategic air strikes to prevent the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people to the war in Iraq is very misguided (to say the least).
Boots on the ground is absolutely relevant.
Explain to me how the air strikes in Libya were an example of "our military is killing people and breaking things in anger. That's war." I'd love to hear you tell me how that's true, given that the 22-member Arab League used the term "humanitarian action" to describe the situation. Qaddafi said, "We are coming tonight, and there will be no mercy." It was a broad effort to prevent the imminent slaughter of innocent Libyans. Very soon after we did the air strikes, NATO assumed command and control. So, again I ask - how was Libya an example of "our military killing people and breaking things in anger."
So we were NOT at war from January 17 to February 24, 1991, then? Is that what you're telling me? Cuz I don't think Bernie Shaw or Peter Arnette would agree with you there. Bombing sorties are most DEFINITELY an act of war, ESPECIALLY when they are part of a sustained action to keep an enemy at bay or outright cause their destruction. A few sorties in response to a sanctioned act of terror (embassy bombings or plane hijacking lead to cruise missiles being launched on Iraq or F-111s bomb Qadaffi's palace) don't constitute WAR because it was a one-and-done retaliation. President Obama sustained the bombings in Libya as long as he could get away with it before Congress started bitching about it, and he'll do the same in Syria. Sustained bombings are war.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.
Marine Hokie wrote:That makes sense. We used the expression, "when in doubt, whip it out".
It was sometimes comical watching people fumble around trying to salute when inconvenient or caught off guard.
USN_Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:Interesting. I don't remember ever saluting someone who was driving around. Maybe it was a when in doubt kind of thing.
When did they stop the blue stickers?
USN_Hokie wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:The only saluting of someone in a car I can think of is at the gate by an MP.
Interestingly, most warrant officers I knew hated to be saluted, and would often "return" their salute so soon and quickly that the enlisted guy wouldn't have even rendered theirs yet.
USN_Hokie wrote:A common occurrence is being saluted while driving a car (this happens more on Marine bases than Navy ones) or while in civvies. In that circumstance, a nod or hand gesture with a "good morning/afternoon/evening" is all that's required.
Really? I was saluted while driving on Camp Lejeune all the time. This was when the officers had blue stickers on their cars, so it was more obvious. I don't think they do the stickers any more.
Yeah, the WO thing, as you know, is them "keepin' it real" with the enlisted folks.
I'm not saying everyone did it - just that it was common.
They got rid of base stickers a couple years ago in the MIDLANT region, but they may still use them in other areas. I think the idea is that the stickers are easy to forge and shouldn't be used as a means of ID'ing someone. Makes sense.
Yeah, guys would literally be jumping out from behind bushes rendering salutes. Now, on Navy bases....guys will bend over to pretend to tie their shoes or whatever they can to get out of saluting, lol.
Hokie CPA wrote:So you agree, then, that he did escalate the war in Afghanistan. Thank you.
Oh, and in Gulf War I (Operation Desert Storm) where our Navy and Air Force pilots flew thousands of sorties over Iraq for a month and a half before any personnel crossed the border on the ground.... were we not at war for that month? Or did it not start until the invasion force crossed the border? Boots on the ground is irrelevant. Our military is killing people and breaking things in anger. That's war. Obama has started our military into at least two of them.
Of course, the surge in Afghanistan is historical fact. It was a war he inherited and temporarily escalated for strategic reasons and has since drawn down. You trying to equate strategic air strikes to prevent the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people to the war in Iraq is very misguided (to say the least).
Boots on the ground is absolutely relevant.
Explain to me how the air strikes in Libya were an example of "our military is killing people and breaking things in anger. That's war." I'd love to hear you tell me how that's true, given that the 22-member Arab League used the term "humanitarian action" to describe the situation. Qaddafi said, "We are coming tonight, and there will be no mercy." It was a broad effort to prevent the imminent slaughter of innocent Libyans. Very soon after we did the air strikes, NATO assumed command and control. So, again I ask - how was Libya an example of "our military killing people and breaking things in anger."
So we were NOT at war from January 17 to February 24, 1991, then? Is that what you're telling me? Cuz I don't think Bernie Shaw or Peter Arnette would agree with you there. Bombing sorties are most DEFINITELY an act of war, ESPECIALLY when they are part of a sustained action to keep an enemy at bay or outright cause their destruction. A few sorties in response to a sanctioned act of terror (embassy bombings or plane hijacking lead to cruise missiles being launched on Iraq or F-111s bomb Qadaffi's palace) don't constitute WAR because it was a one-and-done retaliation. President Obama sustained the bombings in Libya as long as he could get away with it before Congress started bitching about it, and he'll do the same in Syria. Sustained bombings are war.
I said whether or not the US has boots on the ground is relevant to the discussion, not the only means for defining when we are at war.
Your take on what happened in Libya is just flat out factually incorrect. Air strikes started on March 19, 2011 and by March 24, 2011 it was agreed that NATO would take over command and control of the operation. As I said above, even the Arab League referred to it was a "humanitarian action" and it was absolutely necessary to prevent the slaughtering of untold thousands of innocent civilians. Yet, in this thread, you are propping it up as an example of why President Obama was unworthy of a peace prize and also an example of him starting a war. You should have gone after him for the drone strikes in Pakistan, but you made a mistake. The Libyan example is actually counter to the point you were trying to make.
Major Kong wrote:It's not an issue of whether he has to salute.
The issue to military folks, as my nephew told me this morning, if you're going to return a salute don't ½ ass it do it correctly.
Now on to things more important things did y'all see that Kris filed for divorce against Bruce
I don't think anyone here is saying Obama shouldn't have either done it correctly, or not done it at all.
We're just laughing at someone trying to explain how giving a salute with a dog in his arms, and a leash wrapped around his right arm while he's saluting, is the correct and respectful way to do it. It's laughable.
It's along the same lines as the time Obama didn't salute the Marine when he got on the helicopter once, and the nutjub got all butthurt. Even though Obama came back almost immediately and shook his hand.
And when Obama didn't go to DDay in Normandy, and the nutjobs got all upset about it, even though almost no POTUS had gone to Normandy for DDay. And the time they all got upset about Obama not attending the funeral of Col. Davis, because it was against tradition, even though the same thing happened when officers died during the presidency's of Nixon and GHW Bush.
Major Kong wrote:It's not an issue of whether he has to salute.
The issue to military folks, as my nephew told me this morning, if you're going to return a salute don't ½ ass it do it correctly.
Now on to things more important things did y'all see that Kris filed for divorce against Bruce
I don't think anyone here is saying Obama shouldn't have either done it correctly, or not done it at all.
We're just laughing at someone trying to explain how giving a salute with a dog in his arms, and a leash wrapped around his right arm while he's saluting, is the correct and respectful way to do it. It's laughable.
It's along the same lines as the time Obama didn't salute the Marine when he got on the helicopter once, and the nutjub got all butthurt. Even though Obama came back almost immediately and shook his hand.
And when Obama didn't go to DDay in Normandy, and the nutjobs got all upset about it, even though almost no POTUS had gone to Normandy for DDay. And the time they all got upset about Obama not attending the funeral of Col. Davis, because it was against tradition, even though the same thing happened when officers died during the presidency's of Nixon and GHW Bush.
Presumably, moving a coffee cup to your left hand is an easier task than freeing your right hand of a dog and leash.
HokieFanDC wrote:I don't think anyone here is saying Obama shouldn't have either done it correctly, or not done it at all.
We're just laughing at someone trying to explain how giving a salute with a dog in his arms, and a leash wrapped around his right arm while he's saluting, is the correct and respectful way to do it. It's laughable.
It's along the same lines as the time Obama didn't salute the Marine when he got on the helicopter once, and the nutjub got all butthurt. Even though Obama came back almost immediately and shook his hand.
And when Obama didn't go to DDay in Normandy, and the nutjobs got all upset about it, even though almost no POTUS had gone to Normandy for DDay. And the time they all got upset about Obama not attending the funeral of Col. Davis, because it was against tradition, even though the same thing happened when officers died during the presidency's of Nixon and GHW Bush.
The OP was in re to the Obama tea salute and that was the only basis of my comment...now do you have any response to the important Kris & Bruce situation
HokieFanDC wrote:
We're just laughing at someone trying to explain how giving a salute with a dog in his arms, and a leash wrapped around his right arm while he's saluting, is the correct and respectful way to do it.
Bush's salute was awkward, but not incorrect. He was not, as you guys keep trying to say - holding the dog with both arms. The dog is supported by his left arm and you guys are making yourselves look silly by trying to say otherwise.
OTOH, nowhere is it stipulated that you render a salute with an object in your saluting hand.
HokieFanDC wrote:
We're just laughing at someone trying to explain how giving a salute with a dog in his arms, and a leash wrapped around his right arm while he's saluting, is the correct and respectful way to do it.
Bush's salute was awkward, but not incorrect. He was not, as you guys keep trying to say - holding the dog with both arms. The dog is supported by his left arm and you guys are making yourselves look silly by trying to say otherwise.
OTOH, nowhere is it stipulated that you render a salute with an object in your saluting hand.
Bwahahahah. This keeps getting even funnier. The only thing his left arm is holding, is the dog's chest. The rest of the dog's body is draped over his right arm. You're continued misrepresentation is truly awesome. Keep going.
HokieFanDC wrote:I don't think anyone here is saying Obama shouldn't have either done it correctly, or not done it at all.
We're just laughing at someone trying to explain how giving a salute with a dog in his arms, and a leash wrapped around his right arm while he's saluting, is the correct and respectful way to do it. It's laughable.
It's along the same lines as the time Obama didn't salute the Marine when he got on the helicopter once, and the nutjub got all butthurt. Even though Obama came back almost immediately and shook his hand.
And when Obama didn't go to DDay in Normandy, and the nutjobs got all upset about it, even though almost no POTUS had gone to Normandy for DDay. And the time they all got upset about Obama not attending the funeral of Col. Davis, because it was against tradition, even though the same thing happened when officers died during the presidency's of Nixon and GHW Bush.
The OP was in re to the Obama tea salute and that was the only basis of my comment...now do you have any response to the important Kris & Bruce situation
I just feel bad for the kids. I think this could scar them, and turn them into bizarre, spoiled babies, with no footing in the real world.
HokieFanDC wrote:
We're just laughing at someone trying to explain how giving a salute with a dog in his arms, and a leash wrapped around his right arm while he's saluting, is the correct and respectful way to do it.
Bush's salute was awkward, but not incorrect. He was not, as you guys keep trying to say - holding the dog with both arms. The dog is supported by his left arm and you guys are making yourselves look silly by trying to say otherwise.
OTOH, nowhere is it stipulated that you render a salute with an object in your saluting hand.
Bwahahahah. This keeps getting even funnier. The only thing his left arm is holding, is the dog's chest. The rest of the dog's body is draped over his right arm. You're continued misrepresentation is truly awesome. Keep going.
Yeah, clearly Toto is being supported by both arms. There are no doubts.
HokieFanDC wrote:
We're just laughing at someone trying to explain how giving a salute with a dog in his arms, and a leash wrapped around his right arm while he's saluting, is the correct and respectful way to do it.
Bush's salute was awkward, but not incorrect. He was not, as you guys keep trying to say - holding the dog with both arms. The dog is supported by his left arm and you guys are making yourselves look silly by trying to say otherwise.
OTOH, nowhere is it stipulated that you render a salute with an object in your saluting hand.
Bwahahahah. This keeps getting even funnier. The only thing his left arm is holding, is the dog's chest. The rest of the dog's body is draped over his right arm. You're continued misrepresentation is truly awesome. Keep going.
Your partisan derangement on this is unbecoming. Looking a little closer at the picture, it appears that (besides holding the dog with his left arm as he always did) his saluting hand also became entangled in the dog's leash.
The point is this: Boosh went out of his way to render a proper salute - Obama went out of his way to not render a proper salute. Take off your donkey-colored glasses and admit that.
hokie80 wrote:This has been the problem from the right. Focusing on non-issues like this instead of going after legit things and staying on them.
Obama has been a failure and I don't think he has the interests of our country at heart. He's as corrupt an administration in my lifetime and has circumvented law and the Constitution during his tenure. He has done nothing but been a partisan and takes no responsibility for his actions and places blame on others for everything.
But I don't give a rip about his "latte salute" or lack thereof.
My God, 80 is a voice of reason. Going to my bunker now.
HokieFanDC wrote:
We're just laughing at someone trying to explain how giving a salute with a dog in his arms, and a leash wrapped around his right arm while he's saluting, is the correct and respectful way to do it.
Bush's salute was awkward, but not incorrect. He was not, as you guys keep trying to say - holding the dog with both arms. The dog is supported by his left arm and you guys are making yourselves look silly by trying to say otherwise.
OTOH, nowhere is it stipulated that you render a salute with an object in your saluting hand.
Bwahahahah. This keeps getting even funnier. The only thing his left arm is holding, is the dog's chest. The rest of the dog's body is draped over his right arm. You're continued misrepresentation is truly awesome. Keep going.
Yeah, clearly Toto is being supported by both arms. There are no doubts.
Yup. I don't see how anyone could honestly come to a different conclusion.
HokieFanDC wrote:
We're just laughing at someone trying to explain how giving a salute with a dog in his arms, and a leash wrapped around his right arm while he's saluting, is the correct and respectful way to do it.
Bush's salute was awkward, but not incorrect. He was not, as you guys keep trying to say - holding the dog with both arms. The dog is supported by his left arm and you guys are making yourselves look silly by trying to say otherwise.
OTOH, nowhere is it stipulated that you render a salute with an object in your saluting hand.
Bwahahahah. This keeps getting even funnier. The only thing his left arm is holding, is the dog's chest. The rest of the dog's body is draped over his right arm. You're continued misrepresentation is truly awesome. Keep going.
Your partisan derangement on this is unbecoming. Looking a little closer at the picture, it appears that (besides holding the dog with his left arm as he always did) his saluting hand also became entangled in the dog's leash.
The point is this: Boosh went out of his way to render a proper salute - Obama went out of his way to not render a proper salute. Take off your donkey-colored glasses and admit that.
