It's a problem when you don't know...

Sardondi · September 18, 2012, 12:08:09 PM

..how to recognize not just your nation's naval vessels, but your country's military aircraft as well.

The Democrats, who usually do a superb job with their media presentations, made a huge gaffe with mainstream America when they put out a military montage at the convention made of massive military fail. It's understandable that the Democrats felt they needed to make a show of patriotism to establish some military bona fides: many Americans view the Democrats as a party of people (Senator John Kerry and former Senator Bob Kerrey notwithstanding) who not only have no military service or experience, but even have no understanding of the military ethos and the intense sense of duty which drives so many who serve. The problem is that many current and former military members feel the Democrats as a party do not value their service or even the sacrifices they all too often made.

Going back at least to the Clinton White House and up through the current Obama Administration, there have been numerous embarrassing incidents in which various Democrat officials or staff members have expressed, some with considerable hauteur, a dismissive or hostile attitude toward, even contempt for members of the military. Clearly it's a problem which the President's campaign managers want to alleviate if not fix.

With this in mind the Democrats had a convention event in which they honored some 51 veterans onstage, and ran a military-themed video behind them on the big screen at the convention center. But then it turned out that folks who the Dems used to produce their video used file shots of RUSSIAN naval vessels sailing in mighty splendor. http://www.navytimes.com/mobile/news/2012/09/navy-russian-warships-displayed-dnc-veterans-tribute-091112. It was a pretty big embarrassment, and an apology had to be made. The Democrats blamed it on "vendors" which is certainly true, but leaves unaddressed the question of why no one in the Democrat Party thought it was important to check on something like that.

But now it turns out that not only were the Democrats showcasing the Russian Navy (actually some ships shown were Soviet vessels, which was going all the way back to 1991 or so), they also portrayed TURKISH Air Force warplanes as American fighters. http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/17/fighter-jets-in-democratic-conventions-military-montage-were-turkish-not-american/

Here's the difference in the Turkish and American "roundels", which are logos all countries use to visually identify their military aircraft. These unique markings along with others are generally used on wings, fuselage and/or tail by countries to mark their planes so that their nationality can be visually confirmed.

Turkish military aircraft marking

US military aircraft marking

Or course these are mistakes, and no one thinks this is some passive/aggressive way to insult the military. I'm not even saying that the ships or aircraft should have been immediately recognizable to non-veterans. To me the point is that no one in the Democrat hierarchy knew enough about being in the military to realize that there would be perhaps thousands of veterans who would be able instantly recognize any American ships, aircraft, submarines, helicopters, tanks, trucks, Humvees, rifles, machine guns or any other US military equipment depicted in the video. And no Democrat of the hundreds who would have worked on and viewed the video before it was shown at the convention understood that because of a veteran's intimate familiarity with whatever equipment was to be used in the video, that special care need be taken to ensure that everything was authentic. Because any mistakes would be caught immediately. Which is about the way it happened.

What made these errors so embarrassing was not the mistakes themselves, which were fairly minor actually. But the mistakes highlighted and emphasized the Democrats' unfamiliarity with things military. What was supposed to fix or at least ease the problem instead was the equivalent to someone getting on a PA system and announcing, "Hey! We Democrats are obviously ignorant of what the military is all about. Because we never cared about it in the past; and we still don't care enough to learn anything about what life is like for all you persons in the military. Screw you."

Of course it's not true, and not fair. But who said life is fair? (Try being a conservative or a Republican and see if you like how you're depicted in not only politics but by the people who create so much of our popular culture.) So the mistakes about the ships and planes will hurt. You just have to grin and bear it and try not to let anything like it happen again.

PB the Deplorable · September 18, 2012, 12:38:02 PM

They know what food stamps and welfare checks look like

BigDave · September 18, 2012, 06:15:12 PM

Quote from: Sardondi on September 18, 2012, 12:08:09 PM
..how to recognize not just your nation's naval vessels, but your country's military aircraft as well.

The Democrats, who usually do a superb job with their media presentations, made a huge gaffe with mainstream America when they put out a military montage at the convention made of massive military fail. It's understandable that the Democrats felt they needed to make a show of patriotism to establish some military bona fides: many Americans view the Democrats as a party of people (Senator John Kerry and former Senator Bob Kerrey notwithstanding) who not only have no military service or experience, but even have no understanding of the military ethos and the intense sense of duty which drives so many who serve. The problem is that many current and former military members feel the Democrats as a party do not value their service or even the sacrifices they all too often made.

Going back at least to the Clinton White House and up through the current Obama Administration, there have been numerous embarrassing incidents in which various Democrat officials or staff members have expressed, some with considerable hauteur, a dismissive or hostile attitude toward, even contempt for members of the military. Clearly it's a problem which the President's campaign managers want to alleviate if not fix.

With this in mind the Democrats had a convention event in which they honored some 51 veterans onstage, and ran a military-themed video behind them on the big screen at the convention center. But then it turned out that folks who the Dems used to produce their video used file shots of RUSSIAN naval vessels sailing in mighty splendor. http://www.navytimes.com/mobile/news/2012/09/navy-russian-warships-displayed-dnc-veterans-tribute-091112. It was a pretty big embarrassment, and an apology had to be made. The Democrats blamed it on "vendors" which is certainly true, but leaves unaddressed the question of why no one in the Democrat Party thought it was important to check on something like that.

But now it turns out that not only were the Democrats showcasing the Russian Navy (actually some ships shown were Soviet vessels, which was going all the way back to 1991 or so), they also portrayed TURKISH Air Force warplanes as American fighters. http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/17/fighter-jets-in-democratic-conventions-military-montage-were-turkish-not-american/

Here's the difference in the Turkish and American "roundels", which are logos all countries use to visually identify their military aircraft. These unique markings along with others are generally used on wings, fuselage and/or tail by countries to mark their planes so that their nationality can be visually confirmed.

Turkish military aircraft marking

US military aircraft marking

Or course these are mistakes, and no one thinks this is some passive/aggressive way to insult the military. I'm not even saying that the ships or aircraft should have been immediately recognizable to non-veterans. To me the point is that no one in the Democrat hierarchy knew enough about being in the military to realize that there would be perhaps thousands of veterans who would be able instantly recognize any American ships, aircraft, submarines, helicopters, tanks, trucks, Humvees, rifles, machine guns or any other US military equipment depicted in the video. And no Democrat of the hundreds who would have worked on and viewed the video before it was shown at the convention understood that because of a veteran's intimate familiarity with whatever equipment was to be used in the video, that special care need be taken to ensure that everything was authentic. Because any mistakes would be caught immediately. Which is about the way it happened.

What made these errors so embarrassing was not the mistakes themselves, which were fairly minor actually. But the mistakes highlighted and emphasized the Democrats' unfamiliarity with things military. What was supposed to fix or at least ease the problem instead was the equivalent to someone getting on a PA system and announcing, "Hey! We Democrats are obviously ignorant of what the military is all about. Because we never cared about it in the past; and we still don't care enough to learn anything about what life is like for all you persons in the military. Screw you."

Of course it's not true, and not fair. But who said life is fair? (Try being a conservative or a Republican and see if you like how you're depicted in not only politics but by the people who create so much of our popular culture.) So the mistakes about the ships and planes will hurt. You just have to grin and bear it and try not to let anything like it happen again.

Damn right! The "experts" in the Obama administration can't chew gum and walk at the same time

onan · September 18, 2012, 07:21:51 PM

I will take the mistakes of who made what plane over "mission accomplished". I will suffer being shown non USN ships as our navy over "6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months."

Ben Shockley · September 18, 2012, 10:35:10 PM

I noticed Sardondi in another thread writing of informally polling his (delusionally, paranoiacally) anti-Obama friends.
With that interest in empirical data in mind, I have to wonder: what would you get if you surveyed all Gabbers who take part in the political threads for their 1) intended choice for Pres in Nov., and 2) whether or not they served in the U.S. military. Then do a chi-square or simple correlation test of Pres Choice and Mil Service. Or forget the stats and just eyeball it. See what kind of result you get.

Quote from: Sardondi on September 18, 2012, 12:08:09 PM
...highlighted and emphasized the Democrats' unfamiliarity with things military.

Wow, that's categorical! The certitude of that statement naturally suggests a contrast; a categorical familiarity by Republicans with "things military." Are you positing such?
Okay, I'll bite!

Next time one of you good manly Repubs wants to blister us whimpering, sorry Lib'ruls, why don't YOU

Quote from: Sardondi on September 18, 2012, 12:08:09 PM
...establish some military bona fides

by attaching a scan of your DD-214? Because you all have at least one, right? Hell, I have 2, and I'm just a fucking Obama-voting America-hater, right?

Sort of what you might call the Chickenhawk test.

Quote from: onan on September 18, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
...I will suffer being shown non USN ships as our navy over "6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months."

BEAUTIFUL, Onan! I was thinking of that pearl of Neo-Con wisdom just yesterday!
Unfortunately, the right-wing postership in here have no idea what you're referring to, nor thus how badly you put their dicks in the dirt with that, because I'm quite sure that Faux "News" has never publicized that.

Zircon · September 19, 2012, 03:46:53 PM

Quote from: Ben Shockley on September 18, 2012, 10:35:10 PM
I noticed Sardondi in another thread writing of informally polling his (delusionally, paranoiacally) anti-Obama friends.
With that interest in empirical data in mind, I have to wonder: what would you get if you surveyed all Gabbers who take part in the political threads for their 1) intended choice for Pres in Nov., and 2) whether or not they served in the U.S. military. Then do a chi-square or simple correlation test of Pres Choice and Mil Service. Or forget the stats and just eyeball it. See what kind of result you get.
Wow, that's categorical! The certitude of that statement naturally suggests a contrast; a categorical familiarity by Republicans with "things military." Are you positing such?
Okay, I'll bite!

Next time one of you good manly Repubs wants to blister us whimpering, sorry Lib'ruls, why don't YOUby attaching a scan of your DD-214? Because you all have at least one, right? Hell, I have 2, and I'm just a fucking Obama-voting America-hater, right?

Sort of what you might call the Chickenhawk test.
BEAUTIFUL, Onan! I was thinking of that pearl of Neo-Con wisdom just yesterday!
Unfortunately, the right-wing postership in here have no idea what you're referring to, nor thus how badly you put their dicks in the dirt with that, because I'm quite sure that Faux "News" has never publicized that.

Well Ben ...

In 1972 and 1976 I voted for McGovern and Carter respectively. Decided not to vote in 1980 and then went with Reagan in 1984. In 1988 went with George Bush. In 1992 and 1996 I was an active member in the Ross Perot campaign and cast my votes for him in both cases. Went with Bush in 2000 and 2004, McCain in 2008 and will go with Romney in 2012.

As to my military service. I served in the United States Navy for ten years leaving as an E-6 (RM1) between 1968 and 1978. Am a Vietnam veteran (1969). Honorably discharged. My son is a former US Navy SEAL and now a senior accountant with a firm where we all live.

I was undecided whether or not to reenter the US Navy upon my college graduation (with my dual BS) and attempt to be trained in Naval Aviation as a radar intercept officer (back seat). I took the tests and qualified for OCS. Decided instead that the civilian life was probably a better choice in the long run considering all the deployments and that my wife was pregnant at the time and would deliver when I'd be in OCS. It has been.

I'm married 39 years with three children and three grandchildren.

jazmunda · September 19, 2012, 05:13:59 PM

How stupid are the Turks placing a big fat target on their aircraft?

Eddie Coyle · September 19, 2012, 05:35:37 PM

Quote from: jazmunda on September 19, 2012, 05:13:59 PM
How stupid are the Turks placing a big fat target on their aircraft?

Sponsorship deal. "Your air defense brought to you by Target. Don't forget your one stop shopping headquarters for Ramadan".

Sardondi · September 19, 2012, 07:07:09 PM

Quote from: jazmunda on September 19, 2012, 05:13:59 PM
How stupid are the Turks placing a big fat target on their aircraft?

Damn, who would do something like that?

Sardondi · September 20, 2012, 04:48:24 AM

Urg, I must say I'm surprised to find this posted. I don't know about you, although I doubt it's a problem for folks who have the wisdom and discipline to avoid putting up Wall O' Wordsâ,,¢ posts, but occasionally I'll actually reflect for an instant on what foolishness I'm about to commit. Sometimes I even reconsider and just hit the memory hole button...as I thought I had done with this. It seemed tedious, boring, the humor not immediately, if at all, apparent, and easily mistaken as a jab at jazmunda (it wasn't). Unfortunately I still think those things as I see it in the cold light of pre-dawn. Dunno how I can hit "Post" and not intend to, but there it is.

We now return to your regularly scheduled ephemera.