Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

          

Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Women on Submarines
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 53 (view)
 
Women on Submarines
Posted: 11/16/2009 10:56:12 PM
If the Navy was 100% sincere about women serving on Submarines..

then let's just use 100% women only.. on one..in a make or break operation.
and see if they can make the commitment

I spent 10 years in the Navy, served with women..and aboard ships with them..

depending on the job..many were..just as good as men, and just as bad as men..

I have always been against the blatant sexist mindset that permeates our service.

there should be one standard for physical fitness in the service..Not a men's standard and a woman's standard..for combat ratings...

our enemies do not use different bullets..knives..missles..torpeados..one marked men..and others marked just for women..

also...I am current employed as a builder of Submarines..and although many of the systems are automated..the day to day operation is far from all push button..

candidates for submarine service..endure strenuous damage control training..

one that you can not opt out of..nor should not be gender compromised like the physical fitness standard currently in place...you either are physically capable to put the fire out..stop the burst pipe from leaking..or if necessary egress the Submarine ..using the equipment provided and the necessary training..

that being said..I am quite certain we can find enough woman capable both physically and with the necessary job skill sets to serve on board that 100% woman only vessel..

For those of you who think that this is harsh or unfair..when it comes down to life of death..do or not do..there is no room for political correctness....

on that same note..I have often wondered why the Navy has not commissioned an all women surface vessel...
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 30 (view)
 
When is it too soon?
Posted: 3/20/2008 7:19:04 AM
Id say the second date is fine.

If you had a connection, you both cant wait to talk or see each other..calling..charting.

go for it

if you make a guy wait..3 months..4 months..say..18 to 20 dates..he might start to feel.

well funny.

and i think also..your age plays a big part..

under 30..might be a goo idea to wait a few weeks, as a emotional physical bond...

might turn in to a unwanted or unexpected pregnancy.

over 40... Most people..know before dinners over,...what really might be for desert!
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 1028 (view)
 
ok Chris
Posted: 1/4/2008 10:52:16 AM
thaks ad I did what you said but Maybe I need more photos??

lok it over again when you have time

Thanks for the heads up..

Brian
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 1025 (view)
 
ok Chris
Posted: 1/4/2008 8:32:35 AM
OK went in and made some changes..lets see if its a improvement also all photos recent to this October..if that helps. I think Guys don't want to put 58 photos in there profiles

I mean me in a speedo? Me with my toys and stuff. and no photos of me and my kids please..I have them if she wants to see more photos I have them..

and guys who put in photos of there "cars", house, Motorcycles its looks like there saying here's what you can win...I mean if sh writes and want to kn the mileage on my car or the blue book on my bike..that just might be a red flag..

or is that house paid off???...

why not just sit on a big bag of money?

I think I'm gong to do that..

but give mine a look over see if I fixed it up better..

Brian
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 956 (view)
 
ok Chris
Posted: 12/30/2007 1:34:05 PM
I hope your busy with your break out script.

if you have the time

give mine a look over

I hope you can help

Brian
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 70 (view)
 
Bush Vetoes Kids Health Insurance Bill - Again
Posted: 12/29/2007 10:01:04 AM
I think its a show of how little people in the world (US) included are.

the bill did not go up as a single item.

the Democratic congress added so much pork (extra spending on pet programs)

that the president had no choice but to veto this bill.

you must realize that had the bill passed that tax payers would have had to cover the cost.

this is not a socialist county. yet.

the largest expense of that bill would have gone to cover illegal immigrants who already receive free health care

not the low income working families that many think.

had the bill gone up as a single line issue many parts of it would have passed
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 362 (view)
 
Who wants their profile rated?
Posted: 5/2/2006 11:11:56 AM
so how do i look now?

and what keg?

do i have a six pack?

maybe up untill 40 yeah now its just flat.

I swim two miles a day and work two jobs

lets see how hot you are at 46
 Pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Im all set Thanks POF
Posted: 1/3/2006 6:54:06 AM
well it took me 3 months... and i did find her..all i can say to you still looking is keep it Real.
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 7 (view)
 
History of ANWR
Posted: 11/23/2005 5:34:03 PM
DC

Buddy don’t get me wrong!
It looks like you have the world by the short hairs.
With your great out doors job! ( if you need another guide give me a call!!)

Be it republican or democrat both sides of the isle should stand up and use the clean power sources that we do have IE cold fusion..

How ever, they wont let it ever happen because of the big dollars in oil.

And all the Kyoto Accord does is allow the emerging world countries pollute while the world powers pay stiff fines.

BTW Bill Clinton wont sign the Kyoto accord during his presidency.
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 16 (view)
 
What about the UN Resolutions
Posted: 11/23/2005 5:03:57 PM
Non-compliance with "UN resolutions" (which were the only reasons for the end of the gulf war)--Iraq was in violation of 17 of them, noob, and this was after 12 years, and even one of them would be reason enough to resume hostilities..not including firing at our planes.

And we were tired on the corrupt UN not enforcing their own rules?
Can you say "paid off" via Oil for Food program? And were talking BILLIONS of dollars.

Here is the list..we didn't need a declaration of war. The rest are the resolutions.

Fact Sheet
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of UNSCRs
Over the past 12 years, Iraq has violated more than seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) and remains in material breach of disarmament obligations. The Iraqi regime has also sought to circumvent economic sanctions. The UNSCRs required that Iraq declare and divest itself, under international supervision, of weapons of mass destruction and related programs, delivery systems and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; not commit acts of international terrorism, or allow others who commit such acts to operate in Iraqi territory; account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and end repression of the Iraqi people.
Saddam Hussein is in violation of the following United Nations Security Council Resolutions:
UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
Found that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its disarmament obligations.
Gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply.
Demanded that Iraq submit a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and related programs within 30 days.
Demanded that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally and actively with the UN inspections.
Decided that false statements or omissions in Iraq's declarations and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution would constitute further material breach.
Recalls that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities. Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
(end fact sheet)
Now please send me 25 US dollars for the history lesson to:

IM a stupid Noob
at P.O. box
Shut the F**k up
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Why Are Americans Pissed off at the French
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:46:54 PM
this is a good link sorry that you had to look for it

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101&o=DIB004
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Military Service
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:40:53 PM
I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


A soldier is required to disobey an unlawful order. In the case where a soldier is not sure that the order is or is not unlawful, they should request a written order. They should still pursue getting a legal opinion about the order. If a superior refuses to give a written order, you can pretty much guess you are on good ground. I ran into this exactly once. I had a senior officer ask me to purchase something in my capacity as a contracting officer that was clearly outside the guidelines. He knew it was. He knew I knew. And he let me know that this sort of thing was going to happen from time to time over a career and we had to learn to work with it. I told him, give me a written order, please. He threw me out of his office. My boss had to go and fly top cover for me when it came time for fitness reports. He did. I survived. But I did what I did not knowing whether or not my boss would take care of me. I did it because I was supposed to.


You take a risk when you refuse an order you believe to be illegal. Goes with the territory, and is all part of the integrity thing. If you refuse, and the determination is made that the order was legal - any number of Bad Things can happen to you, depending on the consequences of your refusal to obey. On the flip side, you may work for someone who recognizes you were trying your best to do what was right, have learned that not all circumstances match your conceptions, and all is right with the world. Reality is, the fallout will fall somewhere between the two extremes, depending on the who, what, where, why, and results.
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 5 (view)
 
History of ANWR
Posted: 11/23/2005 9:33:23 AM
ANWR has its beginnings in 1923 when 23 million acres of land were set aside as an oil reserve for national security. This reserve was known as the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4, which would later be called the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. In 1952-53 a group of scientist released “The Last Great Wilderness”. During the Second World War, this northeastern region of Alaska was used exclusively for military purpose. This article released findings that had been made that concluded that the Northeastern corner of Alaska would be ideal for a wildlife protection area. As a response to this report, the United States Government decided to create two distinct areas in northeastern Alaska. The North Slope area along Prudhoe Bay was set aside for oil and gas production. This was in addition to the original National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska area. The second area was an 8.9 million acre wildlife reserve in the coastal plain region of Northeastern Alaska. This area became the Artic National Wildlife Range, later called the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. After vast amounts of oil were found in Prudhoe Bay, attempts at opening up the protected wildlife refuge were begun (http://arctic.fws.gov/). However, in 1980 the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act was passed. This act increased the size of the reserve to 19 million acres total. Specifically, it set aside 8 million acres for wilderness areas, 9.5 million acres for a wildlife refuge and 1.5 million acres for a Coastal Plain Study Area (http://www.anwr.org/). This 1.5 million acre study area was designated under section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (http://arctic.fws.gov/). This specific section of the wildlife reserve is where the current controversy is occurring.


Link http://www.unc.edu/~money/geography/history.html
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 4 (view)
 
ANWR Oil Reserves and The Kyoto Accord
Posted: 11/23/2005 9:12:13 AM
First the facts

The Administration firmly believes that we can develop energy at home while protecting the environmental values we all hold dear," Secretary Norton said. "The Coastal Plain of ANWR's 1002 area is the nation's single greatest onshore oil reserve.

The USGS estimates that it contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. To put that into context, the potential daily production from ANWR's 1002 area is larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any of the lower 48 states."

Secretary Norton reiterated the Interior Department's support for energy production in the far Northern Coastal Plain of ANWR - the area set aside for possible oil and gas production in 1980 by President Carter and a Democratically-controlled Congress.

Energy production in Alaska's Northern Coastal Plain will reduce dependence on foreign oil; will create new jobs; is strongly supported by organizations that represent working men and women; and will protect wildlife with the toughest environmental regulations ever applied.

Kyoto accord

-More than 15,000 scientists, [8/4/98: now about 17,000] two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, have now signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto (Japan) in December 1997.

the Accord, which would force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States. This is in line with the Senate Resolution, approved by a 95-to-0 vote last July, which turns down any international agreement that damages the economy of the United States while exempting most of the world's nations, including such major emerging economic powers as China, India, and Brazil.

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals.

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the near future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Support for the Kyoto Protocol has dropped 12 percentage points in Canada over the past six months, and a split in opinion has developed between the East and the West, a new poll suggests.

About 62 per cent of Canadians who are aware of Kyoto - two out of five have never heard of the accord - favor the environmental deal, but that's down from 74 per cent in May.

Well now, there are the facts.

I am sure you care, have you ever seen ANWR.

It is not some pristine forest with bambi playing in the flowers.

However, it should be carefully used.

One of the major problems is the refineing capability in the US.

In addition, as you might want to know the oil Recovered for the ANWR would not go into the US oil reserves
But into the world oil market.

Thus lowering the price worldwide.
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Why Are Americans Pissed off at the French
Posted: 11/23/2005 9:04:00 AM
We feel betrayed, that is why.

During the First World War America paid a horrible toll, more than a quarter million Americans died to win your county back for you
We also loaned your country (France), Millions of dollars
Did France pay their war dept? For the first would war. I’m not sure.

My grand father who fought in that war told me that the French bought the second war on themselves.
Had they (the French) not been so harsh on the Germans (.By taking so much valuable land from them.)

It was from that harsh economic strife that sprung the twisted evil that was Hitler.(many French loved Hitler)

Then the same thing happened during World War 2.

America sent there sons to save Frances ass and we lost a lot of young men.
Have any of you American bashing French ever been to the D Day memorial in Normandy?
I’ve been there, all those crosses .....it’s a awesome site.

Yesterday, I saw some French troll put down the war death total from our war on terror
I wonder why Americans did not protest the loss of American life during the First or Second World War?

Yet, you French have to throw the death toll in our face when we help someone else. (Iraq, Afghanistan)


What about the war dept from that war?, were we ever paid back? I'm not sure about this .

Now comes the betrayal part

You would have thought that after all that.. France might have a dept of honor to the United States.
However, when we asked them ( the French)to allow our bombers to fly over France to attack Libya. (This was in the 1980’s) they said no!
In addition, ever since anytime when we asked the France for anything there reply is. NO (they sent a token force during the first gulf war}(and they ****ed the whole time)

In the United States, we keep our friends close and our enemy’s closer,
That is why we do not like you France.
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Things We Didn't Know Before The Iraq War
Posted: 11/23/2005 8:55:56 AM
What you do not know.

Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation.
Consider these shocking facts:
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the "No-WMD Myth" (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media.

Link http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520691/posts
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 31 (view)
 
Tatoos on a women turn on or turn off
Posted: 11/22/2005 6:22:24 PM
I got my tattoos during my time in the military

Each one have special meaning and mark a time in my life that I am tremendously proud of.
(None of which I got while intoxicated.)
They all marked a specific accomplishment. Some of which were so difficult very few people ever in their lifetime ever achieve.

In addition, you know that if my grandchildren ever ask me about them or why I have them they are in for a good story.

If you get a tattoo for no reason or on a dare, because you were drunk or mad a your parents I feel a little sorry for you.

I see so many young people with “art” with no purpose

Finally Its your body, your choice
My body my choice, If your foolish enough to look down your nose at me
Because of the ink, I have. I do not want you anywhere near me
Because you are to shallow and narrow minded to be in my life.
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 233 (view)
 
Who wants their profile rated?
Posted: 11/17/2005 5:49:01 PM
i sent in a new photo.
Keg huh?

First off the vast majority of men over 40 don’t have wash board abdominal’s

I did when I was your age and single.
However that takes a lot of time and commitment to maintain.
Like a week long. Gym commitment
don’t you think the guys on Pof showing their wash boards for the ladies seem a little odd?
If they are so perfect .. What are they doing on a dating site?
Would they change their rutine to even have a woman in their lives?

Id rather spend time working and playing with my teenage children
than doing crunches.

And by the way. I don’t look bad without my shirt on
I can see my belt and my clothes fit well.

And as stated ..I have nothing to prove.
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 157 (view)
 
Who wants their profile rated?
Posted: 11/6/2005 4:39:15 PM
I would like you to look it over and tell me what you think.
Brian
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 113 (view)
 
Who wants their profile rated?
Posted: 11/4/2005 4:59:46 AM
It seems that I need some help.. is something missing? or is thier a red flag in it i dont see?
 pearnbran
Joined: 10/4/2005
Msg: 188 (view)
 
Let me rate your profile...
Posted: 10/25/2005 8:30:37 PM
ok tell me what i need to do!
 
Show ALL Forums