The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
That's pretty dumb. The polls showed clearly which direction the public opinion went.
I would love to know what the military should've done in response
If the elected officials voted for it regardless, that's not our fault.
Because they just sorta seized control huh? You didn't vote them in or anything?
As for the military, here's my take on it: responsible military leaders would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
Shinseki, you fool
Also terror of the majority is a terrible argument to make, esp with warfare. What is right in war is very rarely what is popular
Maybe then we would have noticed that when both the president and the vice president (and god knows how many congressmen/senators) have assets that would massively benefit from a war in Iraq, that means corruption is rampant and we probably should fix it first before massively raping another country.
As for the military, here's my take on it: responsible military leaders would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
do you know what its called when the military decides that it knows the will of the people better than the officials that were elected to represent them?
As for the military, here's my take on it: responsible military leaders would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
do you know what its called when the military decides that it knows the will of the people better than the officials that were elected to represent them?
As for the military, here's my take on it: responsible military leaders would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
do you know what its called when the military decides that it knows the will of the people better than the officials that were elected to represent them?
It's called a coup d'etat.
just so we're clear here....
you're saying that the military should become a more independent entity with 'democratic' processes so that it can overturn the choices of their elected directors and instead enforce the will of the people based on polling information?
As for the military, here's my take on it: the President would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
Fixed that for who you should be having your beef with. Because he happens to be the guy in charge of the military. The one calling the shots. Telling us when and where we're going to war. We have no say in it besides advising him. Ultimately, it is his decision.
As for the military, here's my take on it: the President would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
Fixed that for who you should be having your beef with. Because he happens to be the guy in charge of the military. The one calling the shots. Telling us when and where we're going to war. We have no say in it besides advising him. Ultimately, it is his decision.
As for the military, here's my take on it: the President would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
Fixed that for who you should be having your beef with. Because he happens to be the guy in charge of the military. The one calling the shots. Telling us when and where we're going to war. We have no say in it besides advising him. Ultimately, it is his decision.
only congress can declare war.
Yes, I know this. But the war in Iraq was started by President Bush deciding to send troops in to Iraq without congressional approval for 90 days.
The intent of my post was to say that the President decides when and where the military gets sent. I didn't mean to say that the President can declare war by himself.
Reminds me of that 300 scene where the council guy tells the king the council hasn't approved a war yet, and the king is like "oh, my troops are just going a regular patrol, it just happens to be in the direction of the enemy..."
The military is already not subservient to the public will.
For example, the majority of the American public said we need to wait until UN inspections were over before launching an invasion on Iraq, yet we listened to the remaining 31% and went in anyway.
And the public has wanted us out since 2005-2006 and we still have troops there.
What the public thinks, what the public wills, has no bearing whatsoever. The military does whatever it wants to do. And whenever the public / congress questions it, all it has to say is "oh, those documents are top secret, sorry" or "sorry, this is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY LOL" and that's that.
The military yields a very dangerous amount of power. The fact that it is apolitical is even more dangerous since it makes them completely unpredictable.
Um, at least in connection with Congress, that's not the way it works at all. There are members of Congress on certain committees who can get access to any document they want, no matter how highly classified. Congress sets all the rules as to who can and cannot get access to classified information. They're the legislative branch- they write all the laws.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
As for the military, here's my take on it: responsible military leaders would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
do you know what its called when the military decides that it knows the will of the people better than the officials that were elected to represent them?
It's called a coup d'etat.
just so we're clear here....
you're saying that the military should become a more independent entity with 'democratic' processes so that it can overturn the choices of their elected directors and instead enforce the will of the people based on polling information?
Its sort of half worked for turkey. Whenever the government has gotten too anti-secular/Islamic they stage a coup. I think they've had 3-4 since WWII.
As for the military, here's my take on it: the President would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
Fixed that for who you should be having your beef with. Because he happens to be the guy in charge of the military. The one calling the shots. Telling us when and where we're going to war. We have no say in it besides advising him. Ultimately, it is his decision.
only congress can declare war.
And they haven't done so in about 70 years--what an age of peace we've been living in!
As for the military, here's my take on it: the President would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
Fixed that for who you should be having your beef with. Because he happens to be the guy in charge of the military. The one calling the shots. Telling us when and where we're going to war. We have no say in it besides advising him. Ultimately, it is his decision.
only congress can declare war.
And they haven't done so in about 70 years--what an age of peace we've been living in!
while its not a formal declaration of war, congress did authorize the engagements.... even if not right away.
As for the military, here's my take on it: the President would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
Fixed that for who you should be having your beef with. Because he happens to be the guy in charge of the military. The one calling the shots. Telling us when and where we're going to war. We have no say in it besides advising him. Ultimately, it is his decision.
only congress can declare war.
And they haven't done so in about 70 years--what an age of peace we've been living in!
Right, but the conflicts we've been involved in have not been the military's fault.
Korea: UN Resolution
Vietnam : Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution(Congress)
Desert Storm: UN Resolution
Afghanistan & Iraq: Bush + Congress(resolutions authorizing use of force..)
tinwhiskers on
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
As for the military, here's my take on it: the President would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
Fixed that for who you should be having your beef with. Because he happens to be the guy in charge of the military. The one calling the shots. Telling us when and where we're going to war. We have no say in it besides advising him. Ultimately, it is his decision.
only congress can declare war.
And they haven't done so in about 70 years--what an age of peace we've been living in!
Right, but the conflicts we've been involved in have not been the military's fault.
Korea: UN Resolution
Vietnam : Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution(Congress)
Desert Storm: UN Resolution
Afghanistan & Iraq: Bush + Congress(resolutions authorizing use of force..)
That's exactly what everyone in this thread except Protein Shakes has been saying.
So what's the deal with this thread, anyway. Is this like Monday's episode of 24 or something? THERE IS NO SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
I'm watching you.
Protein Shakes was derailing the Don't Ask Don't Tell thread with this nonsense, so we created a new thread specifically to deal with his 'the military is evil!' tangent.
So what's the deal with this thread, anyway. Is this like Monday's episode of 24 or something? THERE IS NO SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
I'm watching you.
Protein Shakes was derailing the Don't Ask Don't Tell thread with this nonsense, so we created a new thread specifically to deal with his 'the military is evil!' tangent.
but you don't understand.... the military is evil because they don't stage coups....
So what's the deal with this thread, anyway. Is this like Monday's episode of 24 or something? THERE IS NO SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
I'm watching you.
Protein Shakes was derailing the Don't Ask Don't Tell thread with this nonsense, so we created a new thread specifically to deal with his 'the military is evil!' tangent.
but you don't understand.... the military is evil because they don't stage coups that would be in support of his political views....
Now extrapolate that. What would be those numbers if the military's female-male ratio was the same as that of the general population?
1/20 divided by 15 multiplied by 50. Oh look, 16%. 3.2 people out of 20. Compared to the general population, which is only 1/12 = 1.6 people out of 20.
What if we armed all our soldiers with king kong dildos and made them beat the terrorists with them, what then? What would that mean? How about if we made them all double dildos? Would that mean we have to also have ham sandwiches on Thursdays? What would that do to the peanut butter jelly enthusiasts?
how they simply will chafe at commands greatly without understanding the whys and wherefores (or at least, being partially given the whys and wherefores)
Cause we're being shot at.
There are times when understanding is good, and critical thinking is good. But, sometimes.. you just gotta take that fucking hill because everyone else is counting on you to take that fucking hill, and with everything else having razor's edge timing, we can't stop for story time.
That being said, no one gets screamed at for asking what their part is in the machine and if there's anything they can do to make it better, if it's done in an appropriate manner and at the appropriate time.
The military is already not subservient to the public will.
For example, the majority of the American public said we need to wait until UN inspections were over before launching an invasion on Iraq, yet we listened to the remaining 31% and went in anyway.
You're right. The military invaded Iraq on it's own volition. Bush disagreed, but we told Bush, "No, we're going to invade anyway. Fuck you, old man. We have dildos, and we will swing them. All you need to do is deliver the mayonaise."
So what's the deal with this thread, anyway. Is this like Monday's episode of 24 or something? THERE IS NO SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
I'm watching you.
Protein Shakes was derailing the Don't Ask Don't Tell thread with this nonsense, so we created a new thread specifically to deal with his 'the military is evil!' tangent.
but you don't understand.... the military is evil because they don't stage coups....
This is where I am stuck at in this debate.....
If you take a brief glace through the history books you will find there are good reasons to not give the military political power (or political freedom, democracy, whatever you want to call it).
If you are not happy with the current political system of checks and balances that is fair enough, but the military isn't really the place the reforms need to occur. The military does what the government tells it to, you can change the process by which the government jumps through hoops to initiate military action, but you can't just put the military in charge of making that decision.
The idea that the military should be rigidly authoritarian in structure is a totally conventional idea.
I have no evidence either way, but it seems sensible that we should question and test any idea that has become so orthodox.
Have there ever been wargames trying the two different command styles?
If there haven't, my spidey-sense starts making me suspicious. Usually when a group totally refuses to entertain a new idea, there is something unhealthy going on with the group's sociology.
In this entire thread, only this man gets it. That's pretty phenomenal.
"Support to" rarely equates to "is", as you know. What works in theory isn't working so well in practice.
So you're saying the military should instead ignore both congress and the president and every person in it should decide for themselves what they think the military should do. Wow.
The idea that the military should be rigidly authoritarian in structure is a totally conventional idea.
I have no evidence either way, but it seems sensible that we should question and test any idea that has become so orthodox.
Have there ever been wargames trying the two different command styles?
If there haven't, my spidey-sense starts making me suspicious. Usually when a group totally refuses to entertain a new idea, there is something unhealthy going on with the group's sociology.
I'm not sure what the alternate command style would be, secret ballot group vote? But as for war games, there are numerous leaderless rag tag groups throughout history that were ground into dust by actual armies. The British empire was created on troops exchanging volley fire standing shoulder to shoulder, across from another line of people doing the same to them.
And just to cut off the American Revolution arguments: French navel support, the logistics and cost of supplying an army on the other side of an ocean, using sailing ships, and conventional battles, were much more relevant to winning than whatever Mel Gibson contributed.
In this entire thread, only this man gets it. That's pretty phenomenal.
Maybe if we hadn't gotten onto a 3 page long ramble on rape, followed by numerous post extolling the exceptional handling of Blackwater, and then discussed removing civilian control of the military, we could have gotten to your [strike]foolish[/strike] clearly articulated point sooner.
The military is an authoritative bureaucracy, not a democracy. It would cease to function properly if it became a democracy.
You cannot ensure that subordinates are disciplined and respectful of their chain of command if they expect to always play an important role in the decision making process. A leader should not have to consult with his less knowledgeable, and less experienced subordinates before making decisions (especially those of a tactical nature); such a scenario would end in disaster.
Taranis on
0
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited April 2010
are you talking about MIL-STDs? cause those things can be a pain in the ass. Like, 50 pages on zippers? I'm sorry, I mean "slide fasteners".
As for the military, here's my take on it: responsible military leaders would have looked at public opinion, then looked at congressional votes, then would have said "wait a minute, there is a huge discrepancy between the two, wtf is going on here?" and refused to go to war until investigations took place.
do you know what its called when the military decides that it knows the will of the people better than the officials that were elected to represent them?
It's called a coup d'etat.
just so we're clear here....
you're saying that the military should become a more independent entity with 'democratic' processes so that it can overturn the choices of their elected directors and instead enforce the will of the people based on polling information?
Its sort of half worked for turkey. Whenever the government has gotten too anti-secular/Islamic they stage a coup. I think they've had 3-4 since WWII.
It's worked out pretty horribly in Burma, Bolivia, Libya, Argentina, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Chile, Greece, Haiti, Thailand, Peru, etc.
I'm inclined to take my chances and retain civilian oversight.
The idea that the military should be rigidly authoritarian in structure is a totally conventional idea.
I have no evidence either way, but it seems sensible that we should question and test any idea that has become so orthodox.
Have there ever been wargames trying the two different command styles?
If there haven't, my spidey-sense starts making me suspicious. Usually when a group totally refuses to entertain a new idea, there is something unhealthy going on with the group's sociology.
In this entire thread, only this man gets it. That's pretty phenomenal.
So uh what is your point again
I am very confused here
Mostly you've rambled, gotten your facts wrong about the military, and compared Blackwater of all organizations favorably to us
I just don't even get what you're arguing, you never argue a specific point longer than for a couple of posts and you've been ignoring 90% of all criticism thrown at you to focus on like one or two guys
I mean okay, are you in favor of a more democratic military? Are you trying to demonize the military? Are you saying they're culpable for the Iraq War? What the hell is going on here?
The military is an authoritative bureaucracy, not a democracy. It would cease to function properly if it became a democracy.
You cannot ensure that subordinates are disciplined and respectful of their chain of command if they expect to always play an important role in the decision making process. A leader should not have to consult with his less knowledgeable, and less experienced subordinates before making decisions (especially those of a tactical nature); such a scenario would end in disaster.
Especially when you take into consideration situations in which an officer/NCM must order his subordinates to take actions which will likely kill them. No one wants to die, and given the option, I doubt the majority are going to elect to.
You know, seeing as America is ripping itself apart because one set of ass-hats with a unrelenting set of principles versus another set of ass-hats with equally adamant principles, we are starting to see one of the worse parts of democracy. Nothing gets done.
If the military bickered like the Left-Wing and Right-Wing do, it'd get nothing done. We already have enough cluster-fucking in the service; we don't need people with opinions to make it more of a cluster-fuck.
On the side, and this is aimed at any other service members (or anyone knowledgeable on the subject): do any of you believe that the stricter and stricter military standards are starting to affect operational efficiency?
The idea that the military should be rigidly authoritarian in structure is a totally conventional idea.
I have no evidence either way, but it seems sensible that we should question and test any idea that has become so orthodox.
Have there ever been wargames trying the two different command styles?
If there haven't, my spidey-sense starts making me suspicious. Usually when a group totally refuses to entertain a new idea, there is something unhealthy going on with the group's sociology.
I'm not sure what the alternate command style would be, secret ballot group vote? But as for war games, there are numerous leaderless rag tag groups throughout history that were ground into dust by actual armies. The British empire was created on troops exchanging volley fire standing shoulder to shoulder, across from another line of people doing the same to them.
And just to cut off the American Revolution arguments: French navel support, the logistics and cost of supplying an army on the other side of an ocean, using sailing ships, and conventional battles, were much more relevant to winning than whatever Mel Gibson contributed.
In this entire thread, only this man gets it. That's pretty phenomenal.
Maybe if we hadn't gotten onto a 3 page long ramble on rape, followed by numerous post extolling the exceptional handling of Blackwater, and then discussed removing civilian control of the military, we could have gotten to your [strike]foolish[/strike] clearly articulated point sooner.
It's telling, to me, that your idea of the alternatives to the current state are ragtag anarchy and secret ballots.
Non-authoritarian power structures are not the same as anarchy.
Frankly this thread is full of incredibly simplistic ideas about political possibilities.
E.g. Squads vote for their leader. The leader then gives orders. Disobeying orders during combat is punished as it would be now.
Posts
Scalfin, is that you?
Because they just sorta seized control huh? You didn't vote them in or anything?
Shinseki, you fool
Also terror of the majority is a terrible argument to make, esp with warfare. What is right in war is very rarely what is popular
Again, congress/executive != military
do you know what its called when the military decides that it knows the will of the people better than the officials that were elected to represent them?
It's called a coup d'etat.
just so we're clear here....
you're saying that the military should become a more independent entity with 'democratic' processes so that it can overturn the choices of their elected directors and instead enforce the will of the people based on polling information?
Fixed that for who you should be having your beef with. Because he happens to be the guy in charge of the military. The one calling the shots. Telling us when and where we're going to war. We have no say in it besides advising him. Ultimately, it is his decision.
only congress can declare war.
Yes, I know this. But the war in Iraq was started by President Bush deciding to send troops in to Iraq without congressional approval for 90 days.
The intent of my post was to say that the President decides when and where the military gets sent. I didn't mean to say that the President can declare war by himself.
Rigorous Scholarship
Its sort of half worked for turkey. Whenever the government has gotten too anti-secular/Islamic they stage a coup. I think they've had 3-4 since WWII.
And they haven't done so in about 70 years--what an age of peace we've been living in!
while its not a formal declaration of war, congress did authorize the engagements.... even if not right away.
Right, but the conflicts we've been involved in have not been the military's fault.
Korea: UN Resolution
Vietnam : Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution(Congress)
Desert Storm: UN Resolution
Afghanistan & Iraq: Bush + Congress(resolutions authorizing use of force..)
That's exactly what everyone in this thread except Protein Shakes has been saying.
Protein Shakes was derailing the Don't Ask Don't Tell thread with this nonsense, so we created a new thread specifically to deal with his 'the military is evil!' tangent.
but you don't understand.... the military is evil because they don't stage coups....
Cause we're being shot at.
There are times when understanding is good, and critical thinking is good. But, sometimes.. you just gotta take that fucking hill because everyone else is counting on you to take that fucking hill, and with everything else having razor's edge timing, we can't stop for story time.
That being said, no one gets screamed at for asking what their part is in the machine and if there's anything they can do to make it better, if it's done in an appropriate manner and at the appropriate time.
You're right. The military invaded Iraq on it's own volition. Bush disagreed, but we told Bush, "No, we're going to invade anyway. Fuck you, old man. We have dildos, and we will swing them. All you need to do is deliver the mayonaise."
This is where I am stuck at in this debate.....
If you take a brief glace through the history books you will find there are good reasons to not give the military political power (or political freedom, democracy, whatever you want to call it).
If you are not happy with the current political system of checks and balances that is fair enough, but the military isn't really the place the reforms need to occur. The military does what the government tells it to, you can change the process by which the government jumps through hoops to initiate military action, but you can't just put the military in charge of making that decision.
In this entire thread, only this man gets it. That's pretty phenomenal.
So you're saying the military should instead ignore both congress and the president and every person in it should decide for themselves what they think the military should do. Wow.
I'm not sure what the alternate command style would be, secret ballot group vote? But as for war games, there are numerous leaderless rag tag groups throughout history that were ground into dust by actual armies. The British empire was created on troops exchanging volley fire standing shoulder to shoulder, across from another line of people doing the same to them.
And just to cut off the American Revolution arguments: French navel support, the logistics and cost of supplying an army on the other side of an ocean, using sailing ships, and conventional battles, were much more relevant to winning than whatever Mel Gibson contributed.
Maybe if we hadn't gotten onto a 3 page long ramble on rape, followed by numerous post extolling the exceptional handling of Blackwater, and then discussed removing civilian control of the military, we could have gotten to your [strike]foolish[/strike] clearly articulated point sooner.
You cannot ensure that subordinates are disciplined and respectful of their chain of command if they expect to always play an important role in the decision making process. A leader should not have to consult with his less knowledgeable, and less experienced subordinates before making decisions (especially those of a tactical nature); such a scenario would end in disaster.
thats what I thought when I first saw the thread title too.
32 pages on how to make bricks.
which is referenced in a 47 page document on how to make a brick wall out of those bricks.
Your grout test chamber must consist of an apparatus capable of blah blah blah...
Are we talking about stuff like, "Our unit voted not to get on the boat"?
Like Blackwater.
Obviously not, but nice trolling.
It's worked out pretty horribly in Burma, Bolivia, Libya, Argentina, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Chile, Greece, Haiti, Thailand, Peru, etc.
I'm inclined to take my chances and retain civilian oversight.
so aside from over throwing the government of the united states and being run based on polling data, what does this democratic army do?
So uh what is your point again
I am very confused here
Mostly you've rambled, gotten your facts wrong about the military, and compared Blackwater of all organizations favorably to us
I just don't even get what you're arguing, you never argue a specific point longer than for a couple of posts and you've been ignoring 90% of all criticism thrown at you to focus on like one or two guys
I mean okay, are you in favor of a more democratic military? Are you trying to demonize the military? Are you saying they're culpable for the Iraq War? What the hell is going on here?
Especially when you take into consideration situations in which an officer/NCM must order his subordinates to take actions which will likely kill them. No one wants to die, and given the option, I doubt the majority are going to elect to.
If the military bickered like the Left-Wing and Right-Wing do, it'd get nothing done. We already have enough cluster-fucking in the service; we don't need people with opinions to make it more of a cluster-fuck.
On the side, and this is aimed at any other service members (or anyone knowledgeable on the subject): do any of you believe that the stricter and stricter military standards are starting to affect operational efficiency?
It's telling, to me, that your idea of the alternatives to the current state are ragtag anarchy and secret ballots.
Non-authoritarian power structures are not the same as anarchy.
Frankly this thread is full of incredibly simplistic ideas about political possibilities.
E.g. Squads vote for their leader. The leader then gives orders. Disobeying orders during combat is punished as it would be now.
There are dozens of other obvious examples.
Here are two books on the subject:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Model-Army-Adam-Roberts/dp/0575083638
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0602091h.html