Here i present a picture of USA General David Petraeus handing over a well deserved bronze swimming certificate to some army chappy who looks very pleased with himself. Ma, Pa, throw away those water wings.Now i guess it is fair to say that America has been involved in a few wars and conflicts down the ages. Therefore, it is also fair to say that whatever company is hired to make the army uniforms has a pretty sweet plum and have had since Thomas Jefferson left off impregnating the slave girls long enough to help pen the declaration of Independence.
With all that experience of sewing buttons and badges onto millions of uniforms, i think someone should point out to the General that his particular uniform contains a flaw.
Noticed it? Look on the Generals sleeve. Yep, the flag is back to front.
Maybe there is a reason for this that some military expert can explain but i cannot think what possible operational purpose having the flag around the wrong way on your uniform can have unless it is a sneaky ploy to get the enemy to stop shooting at him while they try and work out why he has his countries flag sewn on the wrong way on his uniform.
Anyway, i am putting it down to a deliberate error and in some sweatshop there are a group of workers gurgling like drains everytime the General comes on TV with his back to front sleeve flag.
And well done to that certificate owner and i hope that you succeed in your attempt at the Silver 50m award.
24 comments:
It's not a mistake, Flag etiquette says that the stars should be closest to the heart, that patch is made to be worn on the right shoulder. This also from Wikipedia
"The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, firefighters, police officers, and members of patriotic organizations. (Note that on Army uniforms, where the flag is put on the sleeve of the uniform, the flag patch is displayed with the stars facing forward, in the direction the wearer is facing. This is done to give the impression of the flag flowing in the wind while being carried forward across the battlefield. This is known as the "Reverse Field Flag.") Flag lapel pins may also be worn."
I hope this helps
LOL! I thought this post was going to be about wiping someone's butt with that certificate. My bad. Tee hee.
Thanks Cody, that does help. I saw it on TV this morning and thought that there must be an explanation but really i hoped someone had just goofed up.
It looks as if that certificate is mounted on a wooden board miz uv, not exactly quilted.
"The stars should be closest to the heart!" Isn't that touching? Almost brings a tear to the eye, doesn't it?
If children are indoctrinated with this kind of rubbish from birth then it explains why they are so easy to manipulate when they become adults and why George continues to stomp all over them.
Cheers.
P.S. If this goes through it'll be the forth time I've tried!
smile, baby killers!
"If you don't have something good to say about someone, then say nothing".
That's 99% of all blogs out of business then!
That's unfair Q. I have nothing but respect for anyone that gains a bronze swimming certicate.
Annie, that was classless and ignorant.
that's your opinion, cody.
and i have the right to mine.
are you saying the military doesn't kill babies? oh right, we call that collateral damage. oh, how i wish i were ignorant. life would be much less painful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071300336.html
that's a link to an article about dead iraqi children, from the washington post.
Annie, without knowing what that soldier's story is, or why he's being honored, you have no idea if he's a baby killer. Or any kind of killer. A great deal of military personnel never fire their weapon at anyone, let alone kill anyone, let alone kill a baby. For all we know, he could have saved a bunch of kids from a potential suicide bomber. Or he could have dropped a bomb that killed babies. Point is, just because he's wearing a uniform doesn't mean he's a baby killer. And no, I don't think the U.S. should be in Iraq, should have ever invaded Iraq, and should continue to be in Iraq. It's a bullshit occupation lead by a frightening leader of a powerful country, and it's resulted in thousands upon thousands of needless loss of life. But your comment was ignorant.
Thanks Jefe, you put it better than I ever could.
silly me, i believe in free speech. did you ever think that any of your views might actually seem ignorant or thoughtless to ME? regardless, i have never questioned your right to have them and share them. have i? and trust me, we are vastly different.
i hate this war, and what it's done to all of us. i never wanted it in the first place. did you?
This is a bit of a curly one for me. While I realise that many in the military would be conducting themselves with honour (within what is a fundamentally dishonourable situation) and doing 'a good job' in as far as they are able to, I can also see Annie's point about the effect of this war.
Personally I don't abuse servicemen when I see them in the street, but for the people who do, I can see where they're coming from.
This is what happens when you're in the wrong. After all, the occupying German forces didn't get a good reception (from anyone, even their own) after they were kicked out of the occupied territories.
Sure they were "only doing their jobs" but when it's such a sick and duplicitous enterprise, then I guess they should expect to take some of the heat. I daresay they knew that - or should have known that - when they joined up. It's not like they were conscripted or anything.
Many in the military would be conducting themselves with honour...what utter bullshit!
Soldiers kill people! That's what they are trained to do! There's no honour in that!
Annie, you stick up for yourself! Don't let these victims of Western propaganda snow you!
Annie, I never said anything to the end of robbing you of your right to free speech. Feel free to say whatever you want. I just expressed my right to free speech that said your comment was classless and ignorant. No more no less.
"Soldiers kill people! That's what they are trained to do! There's no honour in that!"
And speaking of bullshit...
David: Of course there can be honour in killing people. My own uncles (and great-uncles) killed some Germans in North Africa and some Japanese in Burma. They didn't like doing it but they had to do it.
Why did they do it? Quite simply, because our fundamental liberties and way of life were being threatened. We had been attacked and were in danger. And many of the people who defended us acted with utmost honour.
My problem (and the problem of many other people) in the case of Iraq is that we were never in any danger from Iraq... certainly none that a military invasion and occupation could remedy. As you're aware, we were spun a web of lies about this - it was all about the control of resources.
Now, personally, at the time, I didn't believe a word of it. Others however, did believe it, and went off to do what they considered their duty. And tragically, some of them killed people. Lots of innocents died and continue to die. Needlessly.
You can blame the soldiers for believing these bullshit lies if you like, but personally, I lay 99% of the blame at the feet of the bullshitters.
I believe it's much more logical to blame people for moral flaws (i.e. evil) than for deficiencies of intelligence (i.e. being gullible and believing bullshit).
That was then though... back in 2003/04. After it was established beyond all shadow of a doubt - for everyone - that the war is a fraud, I reckon that any sensible occupier should have gotten out as soon as was humanly possible.
Many did of course... But for those who haven't, I think think their situation is now morally untenable.
But going back to your original point, David, about there never being any honour in war, that my friend, is a bunch of arse. It depends wholly on the situation.
Cheezy,
Touche. By the way, I have often belittled others - to my own detriment.
Q
Oh well, at least you didn't kill anyone, mate!
(I presume...)
Annie, I completely understand your hatred of this war and what it's done. But your comment is no different than if I'd have seen a picture of two Muslims and said "Say cheese, terrorists." Your freedom of speech argument (which might not even apply to you, depending on where you live) has nothing to do with making a comment some consider ignorant. Nor are we saying you are an ignorant person.
jeff:
"Your freedom of speech argument (which might not even apply to you, depending on where you live)"
you are correct in one respect-i am an american, born and bred. therefore, my freedom of speech argument DOESN'T apply. that fact is glaringly obvious.
Lucy, I apologize in advance for how long this comment will likely be. I promise I'll let Annie have the last word and move on.
Okay, when one person expresses an opinion, and another person disagrees or says it's ignorant or screams and yells or calls the other person nasty names or does anything other than reporting the first person to the authorities and having the first person arrested for illegal speech... that has nothing to do with free speech, Annie. Nothing.
And if you'd entirely read my first response to you rather than hiding behind the predictable yet misguided "i believe in free speech!" defense, you'd have seen that I preemptively answered your self-righteous question, "i never wanted it in the first place. did you?" I'll repeat it here:
"And no, I don't think the U.S. should be in Iraq, should have ever invaded Iraq, and should continue to be in Iraq. It's a bullshit occupation lead by a frightening leader of a powerful country, and it's resulted in thousands upon thousands of needless loss of life."
Honestly, Annie, I understand your passion and your pain as it relates to the war. I really do. But I also know that every soldier isn't a baby killer, just as every Muslim isn't a terrorist. My Grandfather fought in WWII. He got a Purple Heart because he was shot in France. I have a picture of him receiving his Purple Heart, and it's a hell of moving picture, especially because I know the story behind the picture. You know nothing about the soldier in this picture on Lucy's post, yet you made a horrible, vile statement about him that more than one of us found offensive. You're right -- you have every right to say it. But don't cry about your rights being violated when we let you know how we felt about it. That's not just judgmental, it's hypocritical.
I meant to say, "That's not just ignorant, it's hypocritical."
my point is that i have seen comments by various people here, there and everywhere that have offended or irritated me.and yet, i do not feel compelled to call people on their shit. why? because they have the right to their opinion, no matter how wrong, ignorant, or hypocritical i may find it. if i don't like it, i move along. but that's just me, obviously. sorry to have hit a nerve, but i stand by my comment.
i trust that this useless discourse
is now complete, since we see the situation differently.
Post a Comment