UnuMondo, your stupidity amazes me

The BBQ Pit
1

[standard disclaimer]Ok, this is a lame rant, but someone had to do it, and I couldn’t address this properly in the original thread[/standard disclaimer]

In this thread, Hermann Cheruscan has a good question about the EP-3 downing in 2001.

I do my best to give people the most accurate answers I can and to dispel some pretty strange rumors. I fly in these aircraft for a living. I know what they’re supposed to do, what they can do, and what they can’t do.

Enter the idiot UnuMondo with this misguided post:

**Now, the only thing remotely true is the idea of “cataloguing” radars. But the part about the linguist, the part about what they were or weren’t focused on, and the part about “lighting up” Chinese radars is complete bullshit. Due to classification reasons, I can’t discuss linguists or mission focus, but I can at least address your silly radar assertion. Are you seriously dumb enough to think the Navy would send a big, slow turboprop plane with 24 people on board to “light up” another country’s radar? WTF? Do you have any idea how dangerous this would be? Also, just so you know, a radar “lights up” or illuminates a target, not the other way around.

Anyway, what really bugs me is that he’s not asking about it… he’s throwing it out there like it’s an established fact in GQ.

An hour later he posts this gem:

What the hell is your problem with the U.S. conducting reconnaissance missions? What the fuck is so “dispicable” about what we do?

I hate to point this out to you, but most countries have some sort of armed force to protect its boundaries, people, and interests. Those armed forces need intelligence in order to function effectively. They need to know who and what to be concerned with, what type of threats they may face, what the enemy is doing, etc. Not just for hostile nations, but for nations which are suspected to one day be hostile. The EP-3 is one mechanism for obtaining that intelligence.

You must have some preconceived (and downright wrong) notion of what we do in order to come to this conclusion. Maybe I can help educate you on the invaluable function this plane serves. If not, then defend your remark.

2

He’s spouting more bullshit about the intell community in this thread.

3

Corrected Lucretia’s link

4

Well…you’d think I’d read the link first. But I didn’t. That’s the wrong thread.

5

Oh, durnit. I don’t know how that happened. Okay, the old fashioned way, then.

This thread:http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=163391&pagenumber=4

6

By Any Means Necessary – William E. Burrows

Great book.

EP-3
Jane’s on the EP-3’s capabilities.

7

Sorry, I’m not too interested in a pit thread with people who support a reprehensible job.

As soon as I went through DLI and found out the real nature of the job, I asked for and received honorable discharge as a conscientious objector. Intelligence gathering violates privacy, is often a tool of special interest instead of legitimate national security, and America’s is quite hypocritical (do we let China fly surveillance flights off the West Coast?). The fact that other countries do a little eavesdropping doesn’t matter, I object to that as much as I do to the U.S. It just happens that the U.S. has a infrastructure to do a whole lot more violation of privacy than other countries.

UnuMondo

8

“AS soon as you found out the real nature of the job?” Sugar, whatever did you think military linguists DO? And you received an honorable discharge as a conscientious objector? I’ll let the military Dopers point out the specifics, but I’m calling bullshit here.

9

The Pit Thread is about you spouting lies and innuendo. It is well established what your position is, and that you were privy to actions and knowledge that sickened you in your job. Fine. Not everyone is cut out for military service, and I am honestly happy for you that you got a C.O. status, that is hard to get, but it fit in your case. You have a little bit of knowledge and a whole shitload of bitterness and vitriol. Because you saw people taking a shit on the world with intelligence assets doesn’t mean it happens every day.

A C.O. has demonstrated a legitimate moral opposition to military service. Normally it would have been nice if they had figured that out BEFORE signing up, but it can rarely be granted to an active service member after serious inquiry. Taking his short service and schooling at his word, it sure is possible.

10

AFAIK China does not have the assets available that would allow them to do that. But the Soviet Union did. They flew recon flights near the U.S. all the time. We intercepted them. I am not aware of any collisions, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out there were some. U.S. and Soviet submarines bumped into each other occasionally. Ever hear of a Soviet “fishing trawler”? They’d come right up and surveil us. I remember many years ago when a “fishing trawler” caught fire or one of the crew became seriously ill near San Diego (one of the Navy’s most important bases). The Coast Guard went out and performed a rescue.

Do we let China make surveillance flights off the West Coast? We wouldn’t stop them if they had the capability and they tried. But we would intercept them and make sure they didn’t violate our airspace, just as China does.

11

gobear: Those who become conscientious objectors get a discharge from the military service if their objection is such that even being a member of the military violates that objection. If the character of the service performed up to the point of the discharge was honorable, then the DD214 has the word “honorable” placed in the block provided to indicate such. Feel free to check out the procedures involved in that as provided in the MILPERSMAN, available from http://www.bupers.navy.mil.

As for UnuMondo’s comments:

And many of us aren’t too interested in unfounded and ignorantly-formed opinions. Yes, everyone’s entitled to an opinion; however, there are such things as well-formed opinions. Your comments indicate that yours do not fall into the category of well-formed.

DLI isn’t the place where you “find out the real nature of the job.” It’s where you learn the basic language skills required for one part of the job. The Recruiter’s office is where you were informed what the “real nature of the job” is. If you decide to tell me that you weren’t informed of that, I feel safe in saying that you are telling a lie. You could not have been enlisted without your permission. That permission is indicated on your DD4 with your signature and with your initials indicating that you read and understood what you were getting yourself into. The basic “nuts and bolts” of the CTI rating is taught, not at the DLI-FLC at the Presidio of Monterey, but at the training school at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas.

Incorrect. What you did was request an Administrative Separation on the grounds of being a Conscientious Objector. The character of the service performed up to that point, as determined by your Commanding Officer and your service record is what the character of service is predicated upon. It has exactly zero to do with what you want or what you request.

No. It does not. What it does violate is the security procedures the intelligence target has in place. More precisely, it circumvents them. The targeted nation does not have a right to privacy. At any rate, the intelligence gathered is used for a specific purpose–national security–not for an attempt to prosecute the target for a crime committed in China.

Got any proof? Be advised that given your lack of credibility as demonstrated by your previous comments, your word does not cut it with me. Any proof you provide must be verifiable.

There’s no “let” involved. If the People’s Republic of China so desires and has the capability, they are more than welcome to attempt surveillance on this nation from outside the United States territorial limits, even from the West. What they must realize, though, as our military does, is that they will be monitored. Kind of like how our military realizes that we are monitored when our military performs surveillance flights of China from the East outside of China’s territorial limits.

Again, countries do not have a right to privacy.

A final note: I graduated from DLI and was fully aware of what I was getting myself into. I did not graduate from the 98G course in San Angelo, although I did attend it for approximately 1/2 of the course. I went back to working in the MOS (I was in the Army on my first enlistment) I had prior to attending that course, said MOS being 75B (that’s the equivalent of PN). After fulfilling my obligated service, I enlisted into the US Army Reserves for one year (the “try one” program–mighty fine idea) and upon completion of that year, enlisted into the US Navy as Personnelman. I retired as a PN1 in February of 2000. Do not attempt to BS me as to what the procedures are for enlistment, reenlistment, or ADSEP. I know far more than you do what those procedures are, and I know (as prove above) where to get the information on what they are currently.

And just in case this escaped your notice, I did just call you a damn liar.

12

Thanks for the info and the correction, Monty.

13

No problem, gobear. As I said, I’d check the latest and greatest version of the MILPERSMAN at school. Since I just finished with my homework, I went ahead and got the latest info.

Go the link I provided above for BUPERS and then click on the instructions link on the left. Then click on MILPERSMAN. The articles relevant to this discussion are contained in Section 1900 {note: a few years ago, BUPERS got really smart and went ahead and renumbered all the articles in the MILPERSMAN by the SSIC (Standard Subject Identification Code) so folks could find what they need to find}.

[ul][li]1900 Enlisted Separations[/li][li]1910-010 ADSEP Policy and General Information[/li][li]1910-100 Reasons for Separation[/li][li]1910-300 Guidelines on Characterization of Service[/ul][/li]Article 1910-308 informs me that an Entry Level ADSEP does not get a characterization of service other than “ELS” (for “Entry Level Separation”) unless the character of the member’s service was, shall we say, less than desirable, in which case, the OTH or other characterization, as appropriate, would appear.

14

Monty, that was scary. One of the things that have always annoyed me about the military is all the weird laws, rules, regs and acronyms.

I don’t bother to remember any of it, but thankfully in my job I don’t have to.

Still, well done there.

15

Actually, the service members lost are not so forgotten or denied as is implied in that book. The National Cryptologic Museum has several displays and references to those cold war heros. I would urge anyone who is interested in the topic to go to the museum. It’s open to the public, and very educational.

16

I’m calling more than bullshit, I’m calling either coward or weasel, depending. Your craven userpment of the oportunities offered by the U.S. military and subsiquent departure from your obligations leads me to one of two conclusions:

#1. You are a coward. You went into the military knowing full well what was required of you and then chickened out when the time came for you to live up to your part of the agreement.

#2 You are an oportunistic whore. Frankly, this seems the most likely given your posts here on this board. You went in, got your training at the government’s expense, and then screamed “C.O.” to avoid your responsibility to serve your time. People don’t just become conscientious objectors overnight. As Monty said, you didn’t suddenly “learn the nature of your job”, that was there from the get go. You looked at the situation and thought “hey, how can I take advantage of this?” What you’ve done below reprehensible. It’s an insult to true C.Os out there and to those who serve in the U.S. military. Muhammad Ali refused to serve in the military at the cost of personal pain and hardship. You usurped a term for your convienence. Many have suffered and died to keep you free. You are too much of a craven coward to even take the chance that you might be injured or killed.

17

Lucretia, thanks for the link. For some reason it didn’t occur to me that those posts in the other thread belonged to Unu.

Monty, thanks for the help. You picked apart his post better than I ever could have.

I wholeheartedly agree with Weirddave. From what Unu says, I’m assuming he enlisted with the knowledge that he may well have to kill enemy troops. Or, in the case for the crippies, he may have to provide translations which may directly result in their death.

I can understand someone who joins and then backs out when it comes time to target the enemy. I don’t agree with it and I don’t think I’d respect anyone who’d do it, but I think I can at least understand it.

But it’s not death and destruction that bothers Unu. No, it’s privacy. Killing people? No problem, apparently. But heaven forbid we listen in on target nation military or government comms. Heck, those guys deserve privacy when they talk about, among other things, targeting U.S. forces or citizens.

What a load of shit. Personally, I don’t know how I’d live with myself knowing what a weasling coward I am. How do you do it, Unu? Maybe you could explain it to me over a beer some time… I should have plenty of free time coming up, as I plan to conscientiously object to all the flying they make me do. I mean, no one told me I’d actually have to fly when I took the Aviation Qualification Test. It’s reprehensible, I tell 'ya.

18

Actually, what Weirddave said I hadn’t even considered.

It isn’t an easy thing to go though the linguests’ school and they are a prized commodity. They serve an extremely important job – helping the US figure out who may want to do us harm and when – and the fact that Uno didn’t want to do this because “understanding other nation’s intentions toward us is reprehensible” to paraphrase, is idiotic.

Uno, you were there, training to perform an important part of maintaining the security and safety of the US, and you bugged out because you didn’t want to listen to other people’s conversations?

Dear God.

19

Why in the hell would China need to fly all the way across the Pacific? We are an open country. They already have plenty of personnel in the country, quite legally. Think they are not spying on US? Of course they are.

They spy on US, we spy on them. Heck we spy on our “allies” and our “allies” spy on us.

And its been going on for a long damn time. Without Ultra, winning WWII would have been alot damn harder. But, I guess losing a ton more lives would have been more honorable. How fricken stupid must UnuMondo be?

I noticed that since he had been called out, he hasn’t come back. Gee, what a shock.

20

I’m just guessing. I would imagine the rules of engagement would allow triple digit (in feet) distances between our planes and theirs so long as they stayed far enough out.

Was it “Wong Wei”? He flew like a barnstormer.