• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Just a rant

phrogdriver said:
Oh, that. Rings a very old bell for me.

I thought he was saying there was some bizarro Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds-type double meaning that only seasoned aviators would understand. Which would be strange, since I think it was written before airplanes were a thing.
Click to expand...

Yup, it was just a SERE reference.
 
In regard to cliches, don't forget "flinging poo on the wall" and "house of cards" :rolleyes:

(although neither of these are the the mainstream media vernacular... yet)
 
helolumpy said:
Wink stated he hated the term "boots on the ground". R1 asked him if he had a problem with the word "boots".
My post was to simply suggest a reason that he may hate the term "boots" is that poem we were forced to listen to.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it was "Puss in Boots?"

Pussboots.jpg
 
So this morning I hear a Daily Mail reporter referring to a Pentagon analysis conducted for Congress some months ago. The question was, what would it take to physically secure chemical weapons in Syria, if it became necessary. Noting the report, the said it would take "75,000 troops or 150,000 boots". I shit you not!! There was not a hint of humor in his voice. The interviewer just let it go.

My problem with "b0ots on the ground" is that it is cliché well over done. It is imprecise, inarticulate and possibly a bit insulting. Why do our combat troops have to be reduced to "boots"? Call them what they are and refer to their capabilities. I could see someone using the term in a planning cell as short hand when the participants actually know what sort of units and capabilities they are talking about. But the media and congress use the term incessantly with no specificity.
 
wink said:
My problem with "b0ots on the ground" is that it is cliché well over done. It is imprecise, inarticulate and possibly a bit insulting. Why do our combat troops have to be reduced to "boots"?
Click to expand...
Which brings us to one of my favorite words:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
only partly because it sounds very similar to my hometown.

Why do our combat troops have to be reduced to "boots"? Call them what they are and refer to their capabilities. I could see someone using the term in a planning cell as short hand when the participants actually know what sort of units and capabilities they are talking about. But the media and congress to use the term incessantly with no specificity.
Click to expand...
Maybe because the media either think the average citizen doesn't usually appreciate the wide diversity of skill sets in the military, or they're just dumbing it down, or they're trying to keep it short to accommodate the ever-increasing incidence of ADD in the general populace.
Like has already been said, I think it's just one of those many cliches, metaphors, etc. that journalists use all the time for some reason, but it doesn't bother me all that much. I don't believe that when people hear it, they start imagining it only in terms of the infantry marching into battle or something like that. Although maybe it might suggest an emphasis on certain services like the Army or Marines, but like I said, it's just a saying to me.
Just saw your bit on Congress saying it as well. That I agree with; surely they can come up with something less archaic to say. But my previous point stands WRT the media.
 
wink said:
My problem with "b0ots on the ground" is that it is cliché well over done. It is imprecise, inarticulate and possibly a bit insulting. Why do our combat troops have to be reduced to "boots"? Call them what they are and refer to their capabilities.
Click to expand...
Concur... to me "Boots on the ground" conjures up memory pictures of a company of Navy recruits (aka 'Boots'), marching out of step, tripping over each other, on one of 3 huge asphalt marching fields called "grinders". This was Boot Camp, Aspiring Sailor recruits were called Boots, referring to their tan canvas leggings [spats], worn at all times to identify them as humble potential Sailors (see thumbnails). White 'boots' were worn for special events i.e., ceremonial color guards, drill teams, recruit choir performances, etc.
Boot Camp Leggings.jpgBoot Camp Spats (Boots).jpg

*SR Busy Bee w/ HS 'Sweetie', on Boot Camp pre-graduation visitors day - Co. 332, NTC Bainbridge, MD - Dec. 1953... now those are "boots on the ground"!:p
Boot Camp.jpg
BzB

.
 
Tycho_Brohe said:
Maybe because the media either think the average citizen doesn't usually appreciate the wide diversity of skill sets in the military...
Click to expand...
Yes...
Tycho_Brohe said:
...or they're just dumbing it down
Click to expand...
Yes again...
Tycho_Brohe said:
...or they're trying to keep it short to accommodate the ever-increasing incidence of ADD in the general populace...
Click to expand...
I'm starting to repeat myself...
Tycho_Brohe said:
Just saw your bit on Congress saying it as well. That I agree with; surely they can come up with something less archaic to say. But my previous point stands WRT the media.
Click to expand...
Roger. Good luck with Congress trying to "up-smart" the dialogue…then they run the risk of someone asking: "Congressman, what did you mean by that?"
 
BusyBee604 said:
Concur... to me "Boots on the ground" conjures up memory pictures of a company of Navy recruits (aka 'Boots'), marching out of step, tripping over each other, on one of 3 huge asphalt marching fields called "grinders".
Click to expand...


"Grinders" are still alive and well, and so is the term "boot" for a recruit or someone fresh out of boot camp. I thought about making a joke about how a war in Syria was only going to be fought by E-2s and up but couldn't make it work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top