Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
Is it a crusade?
Yes 32%
No 19%
Maybe 0%
Don't Know 3%
I hope so 12%
I hope not 12%
Who cares 19%

Votes: 31

 Looking For A Few Good Crusaders

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Nov 09, 2001
 Comments:
Let's take a look at the latest propaganda from Uncle Sam.

The old recruiting slogan for the Air Force was "No One Comes Close."

The new slogan is "Cross Into The Blue."

Pretty innocent, huh?

Nope: That new catchphrase is expertly designed to recruit exactly the kind of soldiers needed for the Hundred Years War Against Terrorism.

conspiracy

More stories about Conspiracy
The Gay Tax
The AIDS Hoax
Models - Stormtrooping superbitches of the Fashion Industry
Luv Yr Enemies -- Jesus Christ
Germany Eats Young in Attempt to Globalize
Saluting American Heroes on Flight 93
Once again, blame Microsoft!
Crazy, Like Me
The Adequacy.org Guide to Airplane Hijacking in the Post-WTC Era
The Evil of M*A*S*H
Hijacked plane crash destroys Canary Wharf; Shocked Americans ask, `What's Canary Wharf?'
The Hidden Threat
Was the fourth plane shot down during an attack on 9/11?
The Boy Scouts of America, and the Threat To American Values

More stories by
perdida

Hump Day News Wrap-Up #1: Where is Chandra Levy?
The cultural and economic benefits of smoking
Germany Eats Young in Attempt to Globalize
Philip Morris Is Right
In Praise of Censorware
peace
what now for US Israel-Palestinan policy?
Milosevic, Sovereignty, and the War against Terrorism
Something Patriotic that The Geeks Can Do Right Now
Wil Wheaton Moves Beyond Wesley To Internet Stardom
Why They Should Abolish the World Series
Welcome to the Third World
Britney Spears' Six-Inch Secret
An Adequate Look at Insider Trading
Google Needs a Winston Smith
America's Case for Packing Heat
What To Do About Arafat?
Koleen Brooks Has Got The Right Stuff
Shit or Get Off the Pot
As we all know, advertising is filled with content other than the product or service being sold. A car commercial on TV may have sexy young people, cool computer graphics, and trendy music in it.

It doesn't tell you shit about the car, really. You see maybe three seconds of the car. That ad is selling you a lifestyle, and associating that lifestyle with the car.

Images and words in an ad can bring up uncomfortable or unpleasant motivations using double meanings. Ads regularly suggest, indirectly, that not desiring the product can associate you with impotents, aging, poverty, meanness, or death. You're denying your four-year-old your love when you don't buy Pillsbury Cookie Dough and bake it with him.

Okay, let's look at the Air Force slogans.

On its surface, "No One Comes Close" states the well-earned pride of an elite military force with training honed to perfection.

The double meaning, though, evokes one of the chief ways the Air Force found recruits before September 11th: it cast itself as the service with the lowest mortality. If you're in the Air Force these days, you're usually in a plane, bombing villages from thousands of feet up. No one, literally, comes close. You'll be safe.

Likewise, "Cross Into The Blue" suggests the blue Air Force uniform and planes in a blue sky.

But you've got to take into account that the Air Force changed this slogan after September 11th, to reflect the circumstances of the war it was beginning to fight.

To many Muslim opponents of this war, the Air Force truly must be a "Cross into the blue;" that is, a crusade. Now, the Air Force is openly recruiting crusaders.

The war sure looks like an Air Force crusade. Thus far, it's mostly an air war. There are a few troops on the ground, but the majority of the campaigns are bombing raids from airplanes too high up for anybody to hit. In Afghanistan, like in Iraq, the Air Force acts like the hand of a capricious god, killing civilians by chance.

Those who doubt that the U.S. is going to war against Islam don't consider that even Pervez Musharraf, the military dictator of Pakistan and the most valuable "coalition" ally of the United States, has pressured the U.S. to stop operations during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. We're likely to ignore him.

We're stepping up the war on every Islam-related front. Next, we're in the Phillipines fighting Abu Sayyaf, a group known for beheading American tourists (and, maybe, a few spies). We'll be in Brazil fighting the Party of God. We'll disrupt the private hawallah banks, and with them, the ordinary lives of millions of people in the U.S., Europe and the Middle East. We'll dry up the funding of Hamas, and with it the funding of social services for thousands in Palestine.

All of these acts may be designed to fight terrorists, crucial for our national security.

But, how do they look to the outside? And, more importantly, how do they look to potential Air Force recruits, the kind of people who shoot targets of Arabs at shooting ranges and on their computer screens?




At least they aren't promoting homosexuality now (none / 0) (#3)
by bc on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 09:36:06 AM PST
Back in the 80's, they were, using songs by the disgraceful group 'The Village People' in US Navy recruitment adverts.

Hughes and his band mates were surprised when their single "In the Navy" was used as a recruiting campaign anthem for the US Navy and Naval Reserves. With the full support of the War Department, Hughes and his band mates were taped performing aboard a US Navy Destroyer as part of the recruitment campaign, the footage and the hit song being used in television ads for the recruiting drive until the Pentagon demanded that the ads be dropped in light of The Village People's public image as a pro-homosexual group.

It would seem that, if what you say is true, the armed services are considerably more Christian now than they used to be, which is to be applauded.


♥, bc.

then only Christians applaud with you (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 09:14:08 PM PST
I as a non-Christian (I am a Jewish) I am utterly sick and tired of some of the Christian crap being shoved down my throat. I very much respect both Catholic and Protestant Christians who respect my religion. I am however, tired of hearing how we must return to "Christian Values" in America. I respect anyone, no matter what religion that gives praise to [their] God.

The Constitution fully protects freedom of religion and calls for separation of church and state. People like Pat Robertson will try to convince stupid people it's not in there but it is.

Here's an example of stupidity spread by him and people like him:

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.

This pretty much sums up Pat's political philosophy. Unfortunately for him, what he espouses here is blatantly unconstitutional, as Article VI, Section 3 states: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."


"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." --Pat Robertson, November 1993 during an address to the American Center for Law and Justice

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This simply wouldn't work if there wasn't a separation of church and state. A theocracy would inevitably violate the First Amendment. Separation of church and state is the only way to insure that freedom of religion is kept



Surely one of the greatest achievements of the US (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 01:18:08 PM PST
Is the creation of the secular state and the intention that all religions be treated equally before the law.
That achievement is threatened as much by protestant conservatives who want to make the US a backward theocracy through the back door, as by Islamist fundamentalists who, let it be remembered, are not only responsible for terrorism against the West but want to force all Muslims to follow _their_ deeply unpleasant Conservative agenda. (in Iran they've just been beating women senseless for celebrating a victory by the national football team...go figure)
Conservative Islam and conservative protestantism are both opposed to the modern world. As other posters rightly point out, this appeals to inadequate young men who want an excuse for aggressive behaviour and who want to be able to force young women to do what they want because they don't have the character, the kindness or the imagination to form good relationships with them.
If this is a crusade, it needs to be against all the forces of backwardness. And some of them are not brown and mad: they are white and mad, and may even get to advise presidents.


 
indeed (none / 0) (#31)
by cp on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 11:41:39 PM PST
the Pentagon demanded that the ads be dropped in light of The Village People's public image as a pro-homosexual group.
Indeed, the Village People raised homosexualism to a level of professionalism rarely seen before or since.


 
This piece is based upon the flawed premise that (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Mint Waltman on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 10:42:11 AM PST
...there is an escalation in the War on Islam- implying that there was ever a time since the crusades in which the War on Islam has halted or at least calmed. State-sponsered military action against the Islaminists may have abated over the past 600 years or so, but we Christians have been fighting a God-sponsered war over that period of time. We may not have tanks or bombs or whatever, but we have something even more powerful. We preach outside of mosques and bazaars in ethnic neighborhoods, gaining fresh conscripts for God's Army everyday.

That this is news to you wimpy college liberal types is no suprise to me. We've been fighting the good fight, the fight that provides you with the luxury to blaspheme, or push a radical homosexual agenda through the public school system with virtually no recognition- in this life at least. It's a dirty, filthy war that you've never heard of, but we'll continue to fight it until the enemy is vanquished.

You may now return to your woman's studies coursework...


God's Army can kiss my arse! (none / 0) (#7)
by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 11:35:26 AM PST
"God-sponsered" war? First of all, it's sponsored...if you're going to make offensive super conservative right wing remarks, at least take the time to spell correctly. Your piece is based on the flawed premise that anything can be sponsored by god. I'll give you this: If Yaweh gets off his supposed white-robed ass and comes down here and causes some kind of miracle telling Christians that they are right and the rest are wrong then I'll convert immediately and join your little army. Unfortunately, nothing like that will ever happen. The whole god thing is still up in the air and can be debated ad infinitum. That said, there cannot be a god-sponsored war in the world as it stands now. Sure, people like you and good old Dubya can get up there and invoke Yaweh but that's just using psychological constructs. And us "wimpy liberal college types" are well aware of the fact that there are freaks like you everywhere around the world trying to convert people who already have their own religion. The thing I really don't understand it two-fold: 1)How the hell do you people have so much time on your hands? and 2)How can you claim to live a "Christian" life while not loving your neighbor enough to leave him the fuck alone while he's praying on his little carpet? I don't expect anything coherent back, cause I suspect you could probably condone the killing of abortion providers to "save lives".
PFFFFFTTTTTTTT!


God sponsoring war (none / 0) (#8)
by Yossarian on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 11:53:18 AM PST
If Yaweh gets off his supposed white-robed ass and comes down here and causes some kind of miracle telling Christians that they are right and the rest are wrong

But God has performed such miracles - repeatedly throughout the course of human history! Just look in the Bible - it's there for anyone to read!

How the hell do you people have so much time on your hands?

There is always time to spread the word of the Lord :)


Yossarian? (none / 0) (#11)
by tkatchev on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 12:54:55 PM PST
That's a Jewish last name, is it not?


--
Peace and much love...




It's from Heller's Catch-22 (none / 0) (#12)
by Adam Rightmann on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:09:40 PM PST
a book mocking US involvement in Vietnam, although it allegedly takes place in WWII. Apparently it was a huge hit with the various boat people fleeing Vietnam after the Godless Communists (no offense tkatchev) took over South Vietnam.

Nothing like humor mocking the war to defend your freedom while Malaysian pirates rape your 13 year old daughter.


A. Rightmann

Right. Teach your grandma to suck eggs, why not... (none / 0) (#13)
by tkatchev on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:20:45 PM PST
I am fully aware.

(Actually, Joseph Heller is Jewish, and seeing as Catch-22 is in many ways an autobiographical work...)


--
Peace and much love...




Horribly sorry... (none / 0) (#14)
by tkatchev on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:22:13 PM PST
I mean "...was Jewish...", of course. With all due respect. :((


--
Peace and much love...




 
mea culpa (none / 0) (#15)
by Adam Rightmann on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:26:44 PM PST
I was not aware of how far Jewish-American works satirizing the Great Patriotic War would have penetrated into Russia.


A. Rightmann

 
Kneel before my insight, puny weblog poster (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 03:47:04 PM PST
The name Yossarian is supposedly Assyrian, if I recall Catch-22 correctly. The character despite his Assyrian heritage, often refers to himself as being an Armenian. This is a reference to the works of Fresno dwelling Armenian and author, William Saroyan. I never actually picked that up when I read Catch-22, since, like most people born since the late sixties, I am almost completely unfamiliar with the work of Saroyan, despite his influence on Heller and several other authors (he merits a mention in "On the Road", as well). Heller gave the game away in "Closing Time", when Yossarian mentions a long forgotten urge to write like Saroyan, and laments the fact that Saroyan has been forgotten by America.

Aren't I a clever little tosser?


 
1961 (none / 0) (#56)
by doofus on Mon Nov 12th, 2001 at 09:14:41 AM PST
I guess I thought that "Catch 22" was first published in the subject year, which was a few years before the US involvement in Vietnam (or at least a few years before the US had enough of an involvement that US citizens noticed, eh?).

Although I do concede that it eventually was seen as an examination and condemnation of war as ludricrous circus.

But then again, I may be wrong.


 
Perhaps, but. (none / 0) (#16)
by RobotSlave on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:28:24 PM PST
Had you greater wit than a reptile, more patience than a vole, and exposure to half the books that the average american teenager has read, then you would know the greater significance of the name.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Me thinks thou asketh to much (none / 0) (#10)
by Dexter Descarte on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 12:37:16 PM PST
How can you claim to live a "Christian" life while not loving your neighbor enough to leave him the fuck alone while he's praying on his little carpet?

Come now my Discordian friend, the true measure of a 'good Christian' is the ability to look at something white and fervently believe it is black. Otherwise how could anyone claiming to follow a man who said "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. " join in a war of any sort? As the good Mr. Ambrose Bierce put it when he defined Christian; One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin. Old Ambrose was a wise man, as all true Cynics are (may I reccomend Ecclesiastes to those looking for a good biblical Cynic as well as the best poetry in that book; 8:15 is especialy cool).

I dreamed I stood upon a hill, and, lo!
The godly multitudes walked to and fro
Beneath, in Sabbath garments fitly clad,
With pious mien, appropriately sad,
While all the church bells made a solemn din --
A fire-alarm to those who lived in sin.
Then saw I gazing thoughtfully below,
With tranquil face, upon that holy show
A tall, spare figure in a robe of white,
Whose eyes diffused a melancholy light.
"God keep you, stranger," I exclaimed. "You are
No doubt (your habit shows it) from afar;
And yet I entertain the hope that you,
Like these good people, are a Christian too."
He raised his eyes and with a look so stern
It made me with a thousand blushes burn
Replied -- his manner with disdain was spiced:
"What! I a Christian? No, indeed! I'm Christ."
-G.J.


 
only a forked tongue devil could speak out of both (none / 0) (#17)
by Mint Waltman on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:53:48 PM PST
.. sides of his mouth as you do.

If Yaweh gets off his supposed white-robed ass and comes down here and causes some kind of miracle telling Christians that they are right and the rest are wrong then I'll convert immediately and join your little army. Unfortunately, nothing like that will ever happen.

That will never happen simply because God is not a bearded old man who lounges around on clouds, hanging out with angels.

Sure, people like you and good old Dubya can get up there and invoke Yaweh but that's just using psychological constructs.

Using psycological constructs? You mean like you just did with your 'Yaweh sits around in white robes' arguement? It's okay for you to use them, but not anyone else? By the way, I don't see George W. Bush as suffeciently pious to lump myself in with. He's little more than a reformed party-boy who saw in God a supposed 'get out of jail free card.' Plus he's a Southern Baptist.

How can you claim to live a "Christian" life while not loving your neighbor enough to leave him the fuck alone while he's praying on his little carpet?

It is precisely because I love my neighbor that I preach to him. If I hated him would I try to save his soul? Surely not.

It's odd how you calim that I am intolerant of other's religions while you lambast me for my religious views. You are a very conflicted individual who would benifit greatly from prayer and ministry. If you care to add your phone number to your next post I'd be glad to call you and pray with you over the phone.


Fork this. (none / 0) (#19)
by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 02:46:31 PM PST
Ok. Excuse me for being intolerant. However, as I understand it, Christians should leave people of other faith alone. Full disclosure of course. I am an atheist. I came to this conclusion after much long thought and research into various faiths (I was raised Episcopalian). Love thy neighbor to me does not mean "If he's not exactly your religion, convert him" it means "love him even if he does not believe your way" I'm so tired of so-called Christians preaching hellfire to those who do not believe. I fully respect your right to believe whatever you want, so in terms of tolerance, I am more tolerant than you. I'm definitely not trying to convince you to give up Christ and believe in nothing. However, I should give a plug to Eris for posterity and for shits and giggles. The problem I see is this: Christians should be preaching love and tolerance for diverse opinions. Yet, so many seem to have missed the point and think that they are the only ones. As an atheist, I tend to lump all theists together. If there is a god, which I don't think there is (not afraid of hell, so don't bother threatening me with it) I bet god (be he/she/it or whatever could care less about which specific way you worship just as long as you have faith. Too bad this so-called god has allowed so many horrible things to happen or I might have faith in something other than synchronicity and myself.
PFFFFFTTTTTTTT!


your bluff has been called (none / 0) (#24)
by philipm on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 06:36:36 PM PST
I AM GOD.

Now, do you believe, sinner?


--philipm

 
'tolerance for diverse opinions' (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by nathan on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 06:57:59 PM PST
G. K. Chesterton said, "The purpose of an open mind, like an open mouth, is to close it again on something solid." Look, I'm genuinely sorry if your religious neighbours "harsh your buzz, dude," and they probably are very ignorant - lots of American[1] Christians have a very impoverished understanding of the faith they claim to espouse. Maybe if you didn't spend all your time worrying about how stupid they were, you'd spend a little on careful reflection, and realize that you are not necessarily sufficient unto yourself.

I invite you to notice that the people who're making the world more Hellish from minute to minute are those who are the most confident that they know it all. I'm referring, of course, to the Godless beasts in government who worship only power. And I'm no more sympathetic to them just because they claim to be Baptists. Evil people are attracted to the Church precisely because it's there they can most directly undermine the work of the most splendid, loving people in the history of the world.

[1] I'm assuming American, because of your shoutout to Eris.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
*sigh* (none / 0) (#18)
by momocrome on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 02:43:49 PM PST
pity you're wasting such an excellent nickname in the service of such pedestrian and/or sophomoric outrage. At least pretend to be more sophisticated than this. "If Yaweh gets off his supposed white-robed ass and comes down here" my ass.

What about the Wheel? What about the Tao? These concepts are reconcilable with religion and science both. The character Hagbard Celine would be able to translate the Xtian into Secular-Mystical jargon and respond with an in telligent rebuttal. You, on the other hand, merely grind out the same secular doubts any fourteen year old girl might scrawl in her diary. Get A Clue! You'll have to do better than this if you want to make it around here...


All your expectations are belong to us. (none / 0) (#20)
by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 02:57:38 PM PST
I'm so sorry...truly. Obviously you have mistaken me for the character Hagbard Celine. I am not. There is this concept of the online "handle". Personally, I don't change who I am when I right online. I just chose a name I like. Get over yourself. I'll try to care about your standards.
PFFFTTTTTT


believe me (none / 0) (#21)
by momocrome on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 03:06:06 PM PST
in no way whatsoever have I 'mistaken' you for the popular character Hagbard Celine. Was that supposed to be sarcasm?

Meanwhile, if you don't want to evoke the character or the concepts of the work he appears in, why do you use this nickname? It seems a most inconsiderate ruse to evoke such an exotic, sophisticated character and then proceed to argue from a simple-minded and utterly commonplace position.

Finally, shall I 'Get over myself' (which I take to mean 'dispense with my issues regarding your choice of nickname') or shall I expect you to 'take care about my standards' and abandon your nick (or otherwise attempt to represent the character authentically)?


 
Blatant trolling like this is boring and a turnoff (3.00 / 2) (#28)
by FreemoreJohnson on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 09:46:24 PM PST
This is the sort of response that the editors of this place ought to delete as obviously a violation of your so called anti-trolling policy. But if you did that, I'd guess you would have to delete half the messages around here.


Troll? No. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Logical Analysis on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 10:35:01 PM PST
Don't you think Christians use the Internet? Mr. Waltman is just expressing his honest opinion.


Troll. No other way. (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 06:05:40 AM PST
Don't you think Christians use the Internet? Mr. Waltman is just expressing his honest opinion.

Of course they do, but they don't link to these sort of sites unless they're trolling.


You're the one who linked to them. (none / 0) (#59)
by Mint Waltman on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 08:18:36 AM PST
That must mean that you are trolling. I've never linked to those sites, with the exception of Christianity.com, and I would never link to landoverbaptist.org.

Nobody wants your trolls here.


 
Why does this not suprise me? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Mint Waltman on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 06:25:21 PM PST
Another anti-Christian post on adequacy? Say it ain't so. This just goes to show (and I'm sure several other adequacy readers are already aware of this) that it's quite dangerous to be a Christian these days. For some reason it's okay to attack our belief system because you consider yourself 'enlightened.' Sounds more like close-mindedness to me.

How can discussing Christian doctrine be considered trolling? Do you define trolling as whenever someone posts opinions you disagree with and can't rebut? I'm glad the editors are wise enough to stay clear of entering into the 'trolling McArthyism'* you propose in order to suppress unpopular opinions. *the author would like to note that Mr. McArthy was a fine patriot, things just got a little nuts towards the end


 
Half right (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 11:29:06 PM PST
While Mr. Waltman's post is right on about the need to spread the word about God's love (especially to our non-Christian bretheren), I feel it must be pointed out that the use of idolatrous imagery such as that of the cross is an insult to God's true message.

I think that at times like these, in which we find our brothers and sisters indulging in primitive totem-worship: flying flags, and pasting patriotic imagery everywhere like primitive fetishes to ward off the evil eye, we should take extra special effort to remind ourselves that our only true salvation lies in embracing Christand his true message. All this hatred, warfare, and cross-worshipping, flag-idolating behavior will only lead us down the devil's path.


 
Does this mean.... (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 11:01:41 AM PST
that if I join the army, I get to help sack Byzantium before marching on Jerusalem?


Why do you ask? (none / 0) (#6)
by Mendax Veritas on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 11:14:08 AM PST
Are you looking forward to all the raping and pillaging?


 
"Cross". (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by tkatchev on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 12:07:00 PM PST
"Cross", as in -- "death". You know, "tombstone", "bodybag", "cemetery".

Have fun in Afghan.


--
Peace and much love...




 
looking to hard (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 04:04:03 PM PST
"Cross into the blue"

Yes, the religious references are SO clear

"Fly the friendly skies"

This obviously has something to do with Marijuana

Maybe Cross Walk should be changed too. This must mean that only Christians may cross the street.


words (none / 0) (#23)
by philipm on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 06:34:11 PM PST
dude, take a breather and think, words *come* from somwehre you know.

Not only is a cross walk for christian people it also represents Christ's walk carrying the cross.


--philipm

Duh (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 09:21:47 AM PST
A "cross walk" is also a place to cross the street. Man, WHY are people reading so much into all this crap? What a waste of time (yess, including the 2 minutes it took me to write this message).


 
Flying high in the friendly skies (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 03:51:45 PM PST
Thought that song was about cocaine or heroin, not marijuana.


 
Your analysis is bad (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by John Milton on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 07:51:46 PM PST
I think your getting this all wrong. You were so close with "sexy young people," but you missed the obvious. These are standard military advertising techniques. The military is an instrument of the patriarchy. It is appealing to the rape minded young conservatives who seek nothing, but the enslavement of women. War is the extension of rape by other means.

This is largely the conservative response to feminism and its liberating influence in America. Although the conservatives will say elsewise, war is the primary method the patriarchy uses to maintain its dominance. While liberals have accepted the increasing role of women and acquiesced to their desire for respect, conservatives, on the other hand, have used wars as a method of restocking their diminishing population of victims. With war comes the war brides. Unable to find the meek slaves that they require from western sources, the conservatives trump up wars as paltry excuses for their rape and conquest games. Wars are a method of conservative control on society. If you don't believe me, let's examine the universal effects of war.
  • Sharp increase in patriotism
  • Increased support for conservative agendas such as public prayer in school
  • Abundance of war brides from countries with low expectations of women's rights
  • Public backlash against criticism of political figures
  • Free hand in genoci...er...military policy
  • I could go on, but I think I've made my case firm


When one reconsiders Air Force adds in light of this, the meanings become clear. "No One Comes Close" is synonymous with "Don't touch this." This emphasizes the freedom and unaccountability for which the Air Force is known. It's says don't worry. No matter what heinous acts you commit, your an American and a Christian. You aren't going to be held responsible. We know what side your on. It also is a subtle play on the conservative fetish for younger less willing women. Military service is a free ticket to many unknown harbors were rape is still considered justifiable with a small dowry, and underage prostitutes abound.

"Cross Into The Blue" is somewhat enigmatic, but still recognizable. This is an appeal to the repressed homosexuality that most conservatives feel. It's saying "Hey! Come join the Air Force. We shower together, and there's nothing wrong with it." Although this may seem strange coming from a conservative institution, it's actually very common for conservatives to have closet homosexual relationships. Military service allows them to justify these relationships through long periods of sexual deprivation and the guise of brotherhood. The military is really the only place where conservatives feel comfortable revealing their "blue" leanings. That's why most officers remember their tours of duty quite fondly despite the death surrounding them.


-John Milton

 
We're missing the point: (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 12:23:16 AM PST
That the poster is a complete loon. No, the government is not launching a campaign to wipe out Islam. Yes, our current opponents happen to be Islamic.

The problem is, while Islamic extremists have a bothersome tendency to kill people and blow things up, Christian, Jewish, and Buddhist extremists don't. Therefore, when the U.S. becomes involved in operations against religious extremists, they're usually Muslims.




Excuse me? (none / 0) (#33)
by Mendax Veritas on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 12:50:25 AM PST
The problem is, while Islamic extremists have a bothersome tendency to kill people and blow things up, Christian, Jewish, and Buddhist extremists don't.
You call other people loons and then you post that raving nonsense?

The form of homicidal insanity commonly mislabeled "religious fundamentalism" is the same regardless of what costume it's dressed up in. I admit I can't recall any cases of Buddhist terrorism offhand (a monk setting himself on fire as a protest doesn't really count, does it?), but the other two, no problem. Here in the USA, we have Christian lunatics who bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors; in Israel and surrounding countries, Jews, Muslims, and Christians have all contributed to the senseless slaughter and suffering of the past fifty years. One might note the 1982 slaughter of hundreds of Palestinian refugees in two Israeli-controlled refugee camps performed by Christian militiamen while the Israeli military sat back and watched. The evidence is quite clear that Christians and Jews can be just as insanely dangerous as Muslims or anyone else.

Perhaps what you really meant is that when religious extremists shoot at USians, the extremists are usually Muslim; but that's hardly what you wrote, and it's dreadfully self-centered to think that religious violence is only a problem when it's aimed at US citizens.


reprisal. (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 07:21:49 AM PST
>One might note the 1982 slaughter of hundreds of Palestinian refugees in two Israeli-controlled refugee camps performed by Christian militiamen while the Israeli military sat back and watched

A deserved (not fair, or just, or christian, but i don't care) reprisal for the ottoman empire's marginalization and elimination of Christians.

And could someone please tell me what business palestinian refugees had in lebanon? Perhaps they should have stuck to liberating the west bank which israel won't return to them rather than make pricks of themselves in lebanon.


 
You're missing the point (none / 0) (#41)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 06:08:16 PM PST
I never said there are no violent Christian extremists. But they've got neither the number nor the organization of Islamic militants. Look at organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and of course, Al Qaeda. How does a tiny handful of violent Christian extremists who bomb abortion clinics compare to that? And the same holds true not just in the United States or the 'Western World', but everywhere.


No, it doesn't (none / 0) (#42)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 06:18:27 PM PST
May I suggest for the future, that if you wish to comment on world events, you at least be marginally familiar with at least one or two events that took place outside the US?

For your information, there have been christian extremist groups as violent as islamic ones (with the exception of recent events) in various parts of the world for the last twenty years, in particular, in Beirut and in Ireland.


commin home (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 02:04:29 PM PST
I wish I knew where you lived so I could get you....



 
FYI (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 08:15:26 AM PST
When the US intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo, it was to save Muslims from persecution by a White/Christian power.


 
no one comes close (none / 0) (#40)
by johnny ambiguous on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 05:34:57 PM PST
Obviously they dropped that slogan in response to criticism that their vaunted "precision" bombing raids so frequently missed the target and fell upon civilians instead.

I mean, this mess here is a PR war after all. Now suppose then that the objects of all that PR, that is to say the Moslem world, that is to say a.) the oil-producers and b.) the potential bomb-throwers (the rest of the Moslems, let them think what they want, "we" don't give a fuck) come to the conclusion that the U.S.A. or as Osama so charmingly calls "us," "the Crusader/Zionist camp," are deliberately trying to slaughter them at random out of sheer Satanic meanness.

Of course what ever could possibly give them that impression. Perhaps the decade-long embargo upon water-purification chemicals "we" have imposed upon Iraq, with its vast death toll upon poor children and its absolutely zero imposition against Iraq's ruling elites, whom "we" affect to have targeted by it? No not that never. Perhaps the million or two or four or more Afghans who are scheduled, by both Dr. Rumsfeld in his hi-tek communication center and Osama in his cave, to starve to death this winter? Millions of our fellow sufferers, guilty of nothing else but involuntary participation in our common human tragedy, amidst bitter cold, to starve to death. Ugly, sure, but. Hmm, no way the Moslem rank-and-file could be so unreasonably blind to the realpolitikal facts of life, surely, no?

Anyhow in such a primarily PR-oriented war "we" might consider ourselves to have "lost" if the oil magnates and/or those wild-eyed Islamic kamikazis conclude that "we" are merely out to butcher their women-n-children. Therefore "we" must not even indirectly allude to the notorious inaccuracy of dumb iron bombs dropped from six miles high, and even less to the thoroughly effective terror such loose ordinance incites among the civilians it happens to hit.

Terror so deep and cruel that you'd almost assume that it had been the main plan all along.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net


Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen

 
I know it's satire. But do you? (none / 0) (#44)
by lowapproach on Sun Nov 11th, 2001 at 06:20:31 AM PST
The double meaning, though, evokes one of the chief ways the Air Force found recruits before September 11th: it cast itself as the service with the lowest mortality. If you're in the Air Force these days, you're usually in a plane, bombing villages from thousands of feet up. No one, literally, comes close. You'll be safe.

The Air Force doesn't target residential areas of any kind deliberately, if only because each bomb costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to manufacture and assemble, and the attack itself risks the lives of an entire aircrew and an airplane worth tens of millions of dollars. As much as possible, they try to limit the attack to targets of definite military value - which include joint-use airfields, power grids and railways. It does not include 'villages.'

In addition, thousands of feet up means usually three miles away or less. Missiles and guns on the ground pose a very real threat to the lives of American aircrews, and as such they tend to get special attention. If the opposition puts them on the parking lots of hospitals and daycare centers (or hides their ammunition in Red Cross warehouses in Kabul), it's because they know that we care more about their civilians than they do.

The war sure looks like an Air Force crusade. Thus far, it's mostly an air war. There are a few troops on the ground, but the majority of the campaigns are bombing raids from airplanes too high up for anybody to hit. In Afghanistan, like in Iraq, the Air Force acts like the hand of a capricious god, killing civilians by chance.

There hasn't been an aircraft too high for anyone to hit since 1960; the Soviets proved that with the U-2 piloted by Gary Powers. I again reiterate that it profits the Air Force nothing to bomb civilian targets, and bomb damage assessment photos clearly show that we have shown great selectivity in what we hit. It can never be perfect - finding the appropriate 100' x 100' bullseye from two or three miles up, moving at speeds in excess of 350 knots is a technical challenge, even today. But it is never capricious, and chance is necessarily reduced to the minimum because it makes no sense to waste the opportunity.

We're stepping up the war on every Islam-related front. Next, we're in the Phillipines fighting Abu Sayyaf, a group known for beheading American tourists (and, maybe, a few spies). We'll be in Brazil fighting the Party of God. We'll disrupt the private hawallah banks, and with them, the ordinary lives of millions of people in the U.S., Europe and the Middle East. We'll dry up the funding of Hamas, and with it the funding of social services for thousands in Palestine.

I would think most Muslims would shudder that their bravest champions and exemplars of true faith busy themselves with the mass murder of American civilians wherever convenient.

Also, in countries where some people live their entire lives without ever seeing a licensed physician or a functioning toilet in their homes, I bring into question the idea that Hamas and bin Laden are primarily social workers who dabble in bombing. From every report, the Taliban's preoccupation with beard length and other indicators of societal decency does not translate to much increase in standards of living for their citizens.

But, how do they look to the outside? And, more importantly, how do they look to potential Air Force recruits, the kind of people who shoot targets of Arabs at shooting ranges and on their computer screens?

We don't shoot targets of Arabs on the ranges; I have deployed twice in the last year and qualify only once yearly with the gun. In addition, we use Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional, like every other government office, meaning that we cannot download Shockwave Osama Blaster without administrator privileges, however much pleasure it might bring us.


Uh, yes. (none / 0) (#45)
by tkatchev on Sun Nov 11th, 2001 at 07:48:08 AM PST
"The Air Force does not target residential areas deliberately."

That's true, but that isn't the whole truth. The whole truth is that the Air Force doesn't target anything deliberately; their preferred tactic seems to be "saturate the area with the maximum amount of explosive per square foot". In reality, nothing changed since Vietnam. Do I really need to remind you the realities of the Vietnam War, or did you manage to goodthink your way out of your own country's history?


--
Peace and much love...




huh? (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 11th, 2001 at 12:24:16 PM PST
I think you meant to write was that "things aren't nearly as bad as when the USSR invaded Afghanistan."


huh huh (none / 0) (#47)
by tkatchev on Sun Nov 11th, 2001 at 12:31:16 PM PST
I'm sorry, d00d, what does that have to do with anything? Lord knows, I'm not one to defend the xUSSR or communism. I'm sorry, d00d, but I failed to grasp the point of your little tidbit of wisdom...


--
Peace and much love...




The point is obvious, cockboy. (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 11th, 2001 at 03:43:13 PM PST
'Fucked-up shit' usually happens when the bombs begin to drop. The degree to which shit get fucked-up depends on who is dropping what kind of shit-fucking-up bombs. Your comparison of laser-guided bombs (accurate or inaccurate as they may be) to the dropping of dumb bombs by intuition alone in Vietman is disingenuous and pointless. Population laden targets aren't carpet bombed, rather an attempt is made to achieve some amount of precision, otherwise according to your logic there's no point in even developing any type of guidance system in the first place. You claim that the point of bombing is to "saturate the area with the maximum amount of explosive per square foot." Well, is this true? Let's see. I guess whereever the bombs lands is pretty well saturated with explosives. But, seeing how buildings surrounding a bombed building often remain in tact, your accusation breaks down. Should they not fall as well if saturation bombing is the order of the day? What's occuring is targeted bombing with devastating explosive power. Explosive power is kept as concentrated as possible, not spread over a wide area as you posit.


You are ignorant of several key facts (none / 0) (#50)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Nov 12th, 2001 at 01:46:56 AM PST
Essentially, you have bought the US's "smart bomb" line hook, line and sinker. It is a known fact that smart bombs rarely hit their targets in the gulf war, and there is no reason to assume that they will in this one.

This is all slightly beside the point, since your most glaring misapprehension is that the US concentrates their explosives (as if that were even possible in anything other than a controlled situation). The US has begun to use the massive daisy-cutter bombs in Afghanistan. They are not confining their bombing to concentrated areas. The only use for a bomb that leaves five-stadium-length-wide craters is carpet bombing.

I foresee a small nuclear exchange before this is over, and I don't like it.


Nuclear exchange. (none / 0) (#51)
by tkatchev on Mon Nov 12th, 2001 at 05:06:05 AM PST
Well, as long as the U.S. keeps Pakistan on a short leash, the civilized world should be safe. I don't think any Muslim-sympathizer country except Pakistan has nuclear weapons.


--
Peace and much love...




 
To the contrary. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 12th, 2001 at 10:36:53 AM PST
I actually left the accuracy of smart-bombs open to debate. To quote my post: "Your comparison of laser-guided bombs (accurate or inaccurate as they may be) to the dropping of dumb bombs by intuition alone in Vietman is disingenuous and pointless." The discussion was over intent, rather than results anyway, so the accuracy of smart-bombs is irrelevant. The point was that smart-bombs are intended to hit very specific targets, say, a single building or even a specific, weak point of a building. They are _not_ intended to do as much damage to as large an area as possible.

The glaring misapprehension which must be addressed is your glaring misapprehension of my point. tkatchev claims that the military "doesn't target anything deliberatly." This is somewhat silly, as in order to accept this you'd have to consider all this talk of 'smart-bombs' to be conspiritorial in nature. The military spends lots of money to develop these guidance systems, tkatchev's claims essentailly says that these guidance systems do not, in reality, exist, or are simply not being used. Again, this is regarding the bombing of sensitive areas, like towns, cities, etc...

The daisy cutter bombs are another issue entirely. These are _not_ smart bombs. In fact, they have no guidance system. They're simply pushed out the back of a low-flying C-130. Here the intention is not to concentrate destructive power, but to spread it over a wide area. Daisy cutters are being used against Taliban military positions, not being dropped on cities, so there is no need to aquire a specific target.

The topic at hand is intent rather than results. Smart-bombs are not always accurate (a result-oriented concern). They are, however, intended to hit relevant, military targets...


 
Uh, no. (none / 0) (#49)
by lowapproach on Sun Nov 11th, 2001 at 09:27:40 PM PST
Although redundant somewhat to the point made below, 'saturat[ing] the area with the maximum amount of explosive per square foot' doesn't qualify as a sound use of weapons equipped with internal navigation sensors linked to secured GPS, which offers guidance within three feet of an actual point on the Earth's surface. It has less to do with courtesy toward noncombatants than the destruction of targets with the fewest sorties and weapons possible, but you take my point.

Incidentally, what realities of the Vietnam War applicable to the present am I ignoring? I await your cogent and thoroughly footnoted statement.


 
The Christian and American Way (none / 0) (#52)
by jandersen on Mon Nov 12th, 2001 at 06:29:13 AM PST
Yup, the American army is just doing their Cristian duty in Afganistan. Didn't Jesus say: 'Let the little children come to me'? - And he didn't say '... in one piece', did he?


sir, (none / 0) (#55)
by nathan on Mon Nov 12th, 2001 at 06:52:51 AM PST
your Trinitarian response is the greatest work of self-satire since Aristophanes.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
stupid... (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 21st, 2001 at 07:04:28 AM PST
'Those who doubt that the U.S. is going to war against Islam don't consider that even Pervez Musharraf, the military dictator of Pakistan and the most valuable "coalition" ally of the United States, has pressured the U.S. to stop operations during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. We're likely to ignore him.'

Well, this is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Let me spell this out for you: FUCK THEM. And fuck Syria and Libya too. These countries sponsor terrorist organizations that could just as soon turn against us, and we are in a coalition with them. This is completely ridiculous.

The whole middle east has proved to us again and again that it will never be at peace, and now it is extending its conflict to us. I'm no nationalist, but we need a solution that will cost the fewest american lives. Dropping nukes on every single country that sponsors terrorism (yeah, I know we do fucked up shit, but I never said I agree with that) is a possible solution. I know that will cost many innocent lives, and don't think that I can't appreciate that, but those lives are the responsibility of their governments, who are unwilling to compromise and live in peace for two goddamn minutes.

Sorry if it's harsh, but you can't "reason" or start to "understand" people like this if you try, and if that means fighting during their holy month, then so be it. It doesn't matter if its not polite.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.