E.g. Squads vote for their leader. The leader then gives orders. Disobeying orders during combat is punished as it would be now.
How would privates (or any junior enlisted) decide which candidate would be competent and fit for leadership? Privates have very little experience in the military and an extremely limited grasp of military doctrine, they would be incapable of determining whether or not a candidate for promotion would be sufficiently knowledgeable. They would vote for the candidate that was the most charismatic, and treated them the best.
There are times when a private may feel mistreated because of the amount of corrective training he receives. Corrective training is necessary in order to instill discipline and respect in new privates and it is the corner stone of the resocialization process that new recruits in basic training endure. Corrective training would disappear with the advent of a democratic selection process, and it would be impossible to maintain discipline.
I was trying to find the right way to say what you said in the 2nd paragraph, and couldn't come up with it. :^:
I was reading The Cryptonomicon, I think, maybe it was Snow Crash, and it had a section about Military standards/bearing/etiquitte. It pointed out how the whole, "Im higher rank, now stfu and do what I say" thing can be totally bs and misused and abused but hey, you find a better method to teach a few thousand men how to kill, then put them in a high stress crowded environment for 3 years, and expect them to function well without killing each other.
Wow, no, being drunk does NOT make their arguements make any more sense
As an aside, hey Scalfin! Why don't you just out-and-out say you hate the military and everything it embodies?It's far better then your passive=aggressive sniping at everything anyone ever says that's positive about it and your constant need to bring up. literally, 200 year old stuff in every military thread ever
As soon as you admit your inability to differentiate the military from the pope.
What would be the tangible benefits of an elected squad leader vs. an appointed one? It seems like that would just create a big hassle every time the leadership changes. Do we really want people 'running' for shit like leader of a platoon or something?
Also, are people forgetting that the reason that officers are appointed from above in the first place is because, you know, in a war situation there's a good possibility the previous guy got killed and they need someone to fill his shoes immediately so the war can continue? I'm imagining a combat situation where you're losing people on a regular basis and every single time someone dies or gets transferred or whatever, there has to be an 'election'. This isn't just impractical, it's ridiculous.
We elect our government officials so they represent our interests for us (ideally, anyway). That doesn't translate to a military environment, where your 'interests' are handed down from you from on high in the form of objectives and duties. What is an elected military leader going to have as their platform? "Vote for me and we'll take that building/hill my way?" Are we going to hold elections for high-ranking officers like generals?
This is a completely absurd proposal. I'm not even in the military and it's exceedingly obvious even to me.
Well, true. Maybe even more than 95% really, when you consider every single staffer, clerk, VA nurse, child protection worker, cop, and probably lots of other jobs I haven't even thought about.
Duffel on
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
As soon as you admit your inability to differentiate the military from the pope.
Say wha...
I don't even...
How did you....
Where the hell does that come from? It's not even in left field.
Infallibility. The contention is that there may be a better (more democratic, for instance) to run a military, and that may be getting disagreement. And/or this is part of a longer-term trend.
There's this really strange conflict going on in this thread that makes it relatively hard to follow, and the rhetoric is getting silly.
EDIT: Getting silly? It started silly. It always turns silly.
Linden on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Nice catholic sniping, goose
Of all my ill will towards you I never bought your Jewishness into the equation in a negative light
Nice that you couldn't keep it somewhat civil
Edit: To answer you question, my answer has always been to blame the leadership of the military, not the military itself. Sorta like blaming the Pope/Archbishops etc for the whole molestation issue, since you wanted to bring it to that crass level
As soon as you admit your inability to differentiate the military from the pope.
Say wha...
I don't even...
How did you....
Where the hell does that come from? It's not even in left field.
Infallibility. The contention is that there may be a better (more democratic, for instance) to run a military, and that may be getting disagreement. And/or this is part of a longer-term trend.
There's this really strange conflict going on in this thread that makes it relatively hard to follow, and the rhetoric is getting silly.
EDIT: Getting silly? It started silly. It always turns silly.
Actually, the infallibility thing ends at the hostility that some people have to the idea that the miliatary can be or has ever been wrong.
Wow, no, being drunk does NOT make their arguements make any more sense
As an aside, hey Scalfin! Why don't you just out-and-out say you hate the military and everything it embodies?It's far better then your passive=aggressive sniping at everything anyone ever says that's positive about it and your constant need to bring up. literally, 200 year old stuff in every military thread ever
As soon as you admit your inability to differentiate the military from the pope.
There is this mentality that we should punish those that did what they could to keep America safe even though it seems wrong after the fact.
I fucking hate you, gig. You're a terrible excuse for a human being and you should be fucking ashamed of yourself for your justification of torture.
Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I'm a Specialist in the United States Army, currently serving a 12-month tour in Iraq.
When I raised my right hand and took my oath of enlistment, I swore to "protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic."
Now let me quote you a section of the Constitution, since you're obviously too dense to read it:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Did you read that? "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
There. It's right there. The Constitution outlaws torture. It is illegal. It is fucking wrong. And we become much, much worse than the people we are fighting if and when we use it.
Not that you get that, so let me be selfish for a moment. You know what happens when Iraqis learn about the US torturing Middle Easterners, right? They get fucking pissed. And when they get fucking pissed, they decide to kidnap soldiers, because hey, we're the closest representation to America they have! Then soldiers get tortured, and killed, and beheaded, because hey! America did it first, so it's all good right?
So if you're at all in "support of the troops", you should be against torture because when America tortures, the grunts in the sandbox bear the brunt of the brutality. But you're for torture, so I can only assume you are at best indifferent to the suffering, torture, and murder of the troops deployed here.
I joined the Army, got deployed, because I believed in this country. I believe what it stands for. I love the ol' U.S. of A. Despite the unpleasantness being here, I'm happy to serve my country and do what needs to be done. Supporting torture weakens what America stands for, weakens my oath, the oath of enlistment I took upon joining, that every servicemember takes. I, personally, would be more than happy laying my life on the line for the protection of the Constitution, of the ideals it espouses, of the essential liberty it grants to every man, woman, and child born in this great country which I serve- because that's what I pledged to do. That's what it means to be a soldier, serving something greater than yourself. And it's people like you, you horrendous excuse for a human being, that destroy all of that.
You just don't get it, do you? That sometimes, it's not about you. It's about your country and what it stands for, you fuck.
He hasn't emailed me in a while now, so I don't wanna go that route unless he does it again. I'm not exactly a vengeful person.... but as I said before, if he emails me again with more graphic details of their sexcapades, then I'll involve higher authorities.
Alyce, this is kind of a...dumb position to take, no offense
It's not about vengeance, it's about public perception of the military and about higher standards.
Speaking as a fellow servicemember, I don't want to have to say "I wear the same uniform as a sex offender". I mean, I know that statement is literally true regardless of whether or not you ex-bf gets shit on by the military, but I'm telling you that we should as a military and as a nation be willing to root out every instance of criminality in our military.
Did you know that there are 3 million people in the military? That's less than 1 percent. Less than 1 percent of everyone in the US is in the military. By raising my right hand and taking the oath to enlistment I put myself at a higher standard than literally everyone else in the nation. The comparatively tiny minority of people who are servicemembers places the onus on us to perform better. We're protecting your rights from harm both figurative and literal, we should be ensuring in every way, shape, and form that we're acting within the law.
Already we have to deal with greater restrictions on our rights. I can't go to political rallies. I can't decide to go down on a dude if the mood ever strikes. I couldn't phonebank for Obama back in 2008. We have free speech restrictions.
And I am okay with that. It is both necessary and important for the apoliticality of our military that such restrictions be put into place. This helps with our public perception as the weapon of the government. A sword, for instance, makes no personal judgements- it simply performs as a killing machine, a surprisingly powerful and well-suited one, in fact. Of course, the government is the one ultimately culpable for our actions- which is how it should be, the government is accountable to you, the voting civilian.
Our public perception is quite important. The military has a long, sordid history of sexism, racism, and sexual offenses. As a result the military is pursuing and persecuting sex offenders with a zeal unmatched by modern times. We need to change people's opinions of us, and the only way we can do that is if the proper authorities have the information they need to pursue such cases. And again, if your ex-bf continues to commit an illegal and highly offensive act whilst wearing a uniform, he not only reflects poorly on himself but he reflects poorly on the military as a whole, he reflects poorly on me.
Let me put it to you another way. If and when your ex-bf gets caught (the dude is having sex with 16-year-olds on the docks? Yeah, he's gonna get caught), there will be an investigation. There will more than likely be articles about the event. And I guarantee you there will be a set of morally outraged parents who will wonder how the U.S. Army "allowed one of their one to rape my little girl". His company/battery commander will never advance in his career again, through no real fault of his own (but the Army will be in full damage control and assign blame to him first). His first line supervisor will never advance in his career again, if he keeps his current rank (big if). Most of the NCOs in his unit will have their files reviewed and if deemed "capable of finding and preventing this", will have this put on their NCOER (a death knell for their career). By not reporting this, you will have severely fucked over the lives and careers of countless numbers of people in his unit, people who had no possible way of knowing and preventing what happened-without your help.
And yes, it will be partially your fault. But that's not important. The most important reason you need to report this is is that if you don't report this and he gets away with it, he will be more likely to commit statutory rape again. And maybe he'll decide to cross the line next time and decide to go through with it whether or not she resists. For the safety of anyone else he decides to fuck, you need to get this creep off of the streets.
tl,dr;
If you don't feel comfortable reporting this information, you can pass it to me. I'll report him for you.
Ah, but this doesn't fit into your stereotyping of people in the military as ignorant, douchebag fuckwits
I was reading The Cryptonomicon, I think, maybe it was Snow Crash, and it had a section about Military standards/bearing/etiquitte. It pointed out how the whole, "Im higher rank, now stfu and do what I say" thing can be totally bs and misused and abused but hey, you find a better method to teach a few thousand men how to kill, then put them in a high stress crowded environment for 3 years, and expect them to function well without killing each other.
Sounds about right. Even though there are problems, sometimes severe ones, the U.S. military functions pretty effectively. As such, nobody is really rushing to overhaul it; considering the potential cost of doing so, especially doing so uninformed, I don't think that they should. (Note I am not talking about reforms to cut down on abuses, etc. I mean overhaul, as in for example changing the entire system to try and function as a democracy).
If somebody comes up with a new system that can be empirically shown to work better than the current system, I think most people would support it; however, currently from a logical standpoint a democratic military system where people vote for superior officers directly above them...well it just sounds like a terrible, terrible idea all around. Not only that but development of a new system and proper empirical testing of that system would take a very long time and cost a lot of money. And we have a lot more bills than we have surplus cash right now, so I really don't see it happening.
Oh hey, I just got back from going to Midnight Chow at our DFAC. The new improvements started today.
Improvements by military members protesting through the official channels: filing complaint/request forms, dorm council meetings, bringing up gathered complaints to the 1st Sergeants, etc. Oh and hey, it worked! And changes requested were done!
You must not be in ACC, they slapped down our requests so hard it was painful.
E.g. Squads vote for their leader. The leader then gives orders. Disobeying orders during combat is punished as it would be now.
Thing is, we've actually done this - read up on the structure of state militia units in the Civil War era and prior, for example. We instituted the National Guard system because that system failed miserably.
E.g. Squads vote for their leader. The leader then gives orders. Disobeying orders during combat is punished as it would be now.
Thing is, we've actually done this - read up on the structure of state militia units in the Civil War era and prior, for example. We instituted the National Guard system because that system failed miserably.
Ah see, now that's an interesting thing to say.
How did the state militia units fail and is it easy to be sure that it was because of this structure?
Also, I did say that squads voting for their leader was just one particular option of many.
E.g. Squads vote for their leader. The leader then gives orders. Disobeying orders during combat is punished as it would be now.
Thing is, we've actually done this - read up on the structure of state militia units in the Civil War era and prior, for example. We instituted the National Guard system because that system failed miserably.
Ah see, now that's an interesting thing to say.
How did the state militia units fail and is it easy to be sure that it was because of this structure?
Also, I did say that squads voting for their leader was just one particular option of many.
Yet despite multiple requests from me and others in this thread, you fail to outline any other options. So we've been pointing out why that one is a terrible idea, because you haven't given us anything else.
If there are, as you said, many other options, what would they be? It is your burden to point those out to us, since you made the claim. We're making the claim that the military is fine as it is. You need to show us why it isn't. Stop avoiding the argument.
I was reading The Cryptonomicon, I think, maybe it was Snow Crash, and it had a section about Military standards/bearing/etiquitte. It pointed out how the whole, "Im higher rank, now stfu and do what I say" thing can be totally bs and misused and abused but hey, you find a better method to teach a few thousand men how to kill, then put them in a high stress crowded environment for 3 years, and expect them to function well without killing each other.
I'll see if I can find the quote.
I'm sure the professional fiction author is super eloquent (in fact I know he is). I rather like Stephenson, but I have to say that words he wrote in a novel are not solid arguments in a thread like this. They're just very shiny assertions.
Anyway, I've been out all day, but the thread still seems kind of stuck on "electing leaders", on which topic I have to ask, were those of you advocating such dropped on your head by the midwife? Or did your mothers perhaps do a lot of crack while gestating you? Promotion via merit is the only valid approach to keeping a dynamic and functional military. Promotion by other means, primarily social class, have been tried in history and they've been complete sodding disasters. A vote is not appropriate.
Revamping military command structure, to my mind, involves a focus on the way one person is often in charge of non-combat decisions. Most of the military's social problems we've talked about in thread after thread here stem from one person inappropriately suppressing reports of abuse or fuckery, or people being too afraid to report such because of threat of reprisal. Neutralising those problems is where talk about reform efforts should be focused, because no-one should have to put up with being treated dishonourably while serving their country.
That turns promotion into a popularity based system.
Promotions are already a popularity contest.
"Dick-Sucking for Rank" is also a term that should be noted.
Yes, but they're only sucking a few dicks. Not everyone's dick. Do you know how much time it'd take to suck off an entire platoon? Shit, it took Annabel Chong a couple of hours. My Congressmen still hasn't come by.
The same reasons that it ever makes sense to vote for anyone, whether in civilian life or military.
The country that you live in has a strong rhetoric of the benefits of democracy, so you are already aware of these reasons.
Ok, let's take this back a little bit. So... do you think in if you're in a corporation, hell even a small business, that you should vote for your boss? Your CEO? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Do you think all the students should vote for the school principal?
Does "no non-Christians allowed in the air force academy" count as a standard?
This is a legitimate gripe. Whether you're dropping bombs for Jesus, Allah, Yaweh, Legba, or a stick of Juicy Fruit shouldn't mean shit if you're conducting yourself professionally. While I understand the desire for decorum, there are some places where the military could use a good spanking.
The "peerage" system is also a big problem. I realize that's more of a British term (and what I'm going to say here applies very much to the military of the UK as well... probably even more, so the term is being used for a reason), but general nepotism and "I served with your father" or "my family is a military family" shit as a basis for promotions in a military career, which sidesteps the very idea of a meritocracy, is complete bullshit. I don't give a shit if that butterbar's daddy is a full bird, he's making some really bad fucking decisions and he needs to be taken aside. I know it's "tradition" and shit, but for fucks sake, if they can't cut it, they can't cut it.
Actually, the infallibility thing ends at the hostility that some people have to the idea that the miliatary can be or has ever been wrong.
Oh no, it can be quite wrong, on a lot of different levels, both in the interest it takes in the personal lives of its soldiers to the way it prosecutes wars.
Wow, no, being drunk does NOT make their arguements make any more sense
As an aside, hey Scalfin! Why don't you just out-and-out say you hate the military and everything it embodies?It's far better then your passive=aggressive sniping at everything anyone ever says that's positive about it and your constant need to bring up. literally, 200 year old stuff in every military thread ever
As soon as you admit your inability to differentiate the military from the pope.
There is this mentality that we should punish those that did what they could to keep America safe even though it seems wrong after the fact.
I fucking hate you, gig. You're a terrible excuse for a human being and you should be fucking ashamed of yourself for your justification of torture.
Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I'm a Specialist in the United States Army, currently serving a 12-month tour in Iraq.
When I raised my right hand and took my oath of enlistment, I swore to "protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic."
Now let me quote you a section of the Constitution, since you're obviously too dense to read it:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Did you read that? "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
There. It's right there. The Constitution outlaws torture. It is illegal. It is fucking wrong. And we become much, much worse than the people we are fighting if and when we use it.
Not that you get that, so let me be selfish for a moment. You know what happens when Iraqis learn about the US torturing Middle Easterners, right? They get fucking pissed. And when they get fucking pissed, they decide to kidnap soldiers, because hey, we're the closest representation to America they have! Then soldiers get tortured, and killed, and beheaded, because hey! America did it first, so it's all good right?
So if you're at all in "support of the troops", you should be against torture because when America tortures, the grunts in the sandbox bear the brunt of the brutality. But you're for torture, so I can only assume you are at best indifferent to the suffering, torture, and murder of the troops deployed here.
I joined the Army, got deployed, because I believed in this country. I believe what it stands for. I love the ol' U.S. of A. Despite the unpleasantness being here, I'm happy to serve my country and do what needs to be done. Supporting torture weakens what America stands for, weakens my oath, the oath of enlistment I took upon joining, that every servicemember takes. I, personally, would be more than happy laying my life on the line for the protection of the Constitution, of the ideals it espouses, of the essential liberty it grants to every man, woman, and child born in this great country which I serve- because that's what I pledged to do. That's what it means to be a soldier, serving something greater than yourself. And it's people like you, you horrendous excuse for a human being, that destroy all of that.
You just don't get it, do you? That sometimes, it's not about you. It's about your country and what it stands for, you fuck.
He hasn't emailed me in a while now, so I don't wanna go that route unless he does it again. I'm not exactly a vengeful person.... but as I said before, if he emails me again with more graphic details of their sexcapades, then I'll involve higher authorities.
Alyce, this is kind of a...dumb position to take, no offense
It's not about vengeance, it's about public perception of the military and about higher standards.
Speaking as a fellow servicemember, I don't want to have to say "I wear the same uniform as a sex offender". I mean, I know that statement is literally true regardless of whether or not you ex-bf gets shit on by the military, but I'm telling you that we should as a military and as a nation be willing to root out every instance of criminality in our military.
Did you know that there are 3 million people in the military? That's less than 1 percent. Less than 1 percent of everyone in the US is in the military. By raising my right hand and taking the oath to enlistment I put myself at a higher standard than literally everyone else in the nation. The comparatively tiny minority of people who are servicemembers places the onus on us to perform better. We're protecting your rights from harm both figurative and literal, we should be ensuring in every way, shape, and form that we're acting within the law.
Already we have to deal with greater restrictions on our rights. I can't go to political rallies. I can't decide to go down on a dude if the mood ever strikes. I couldn't phonebank for Obama back in 2008. We have free speech restrictions.
And I am okay with that. It is both necessary and important for the apoliticality of our military that such restrictions be put into place. This helps with our public perception as the weapon of the government. A sword, for instance, makes no personal judgements- it simply performs as a killing machine, a surprisingly powerful and well-suited one, in fact. Of course, the government is the one ultimately culpable for our actions- which is how it should be, the government is accountable to you, the voting civilian.
Our public perception is quite important. The military has a long, sordid history of sexism, racism, and sexual offenses. As a result the military is pursuing and persecuting sex offenders with a zeal unmatched by modern times. We need to change people's opinions of us, and the only way we can do that is if the proper authorities have the information they need to pursue such cases. And again, if your ex-bf continues to commit an illegal and highly offensive act whilst wearing a uniform, he not only reflects poorly on himself but he reflects poorly on the military as a whole, he reflects poorly on me.
Let me put it to you another way. If and when your ex-bf gets caught (the dude is having sex with 16-year-olds on the docks? Yeah, he's gonna get caught), there will be an investigation. There will more than likely be articles about the event. And I guarantee you there will be a set of morally outraged parents who will wonder how the U.S. Army "allowed one of their one to rape my little girl". His company/battery commander will never advance in his career again, through no real fault of his own (but the Army will be in full damage control and assign blame to him first). His first line supervisor will never advance in his career again, if he keeps his current rank (big if). Most of the NCOs in his unit will have their files reviewed and if deemed "capable of finding and preventing this", will have this put on their NCOER (a death knell for their career). By not reporting this, you will have severely fucked over the lives and careers of countless numbers of people in his unit, people who had no possible way of knowing and preventing what happened-without your help.
And yes, it will be partially your fault. But that's not important. The most important reason you need to report this is is that if you don't report this and he gets away with it, he will be more likely to commit statutory rape again. And maybe he'll decide to cross the line next time and decide to go through with it whether or not she resists. For the safety of anyone else he decides to fuck, you need to get this creep off of the streets.
tl,dr;
If you don't feel comfortable reporting this information, you can pass it to me. I'll report him for you.
Ah, but this doesn't fit into your stereotyping of people in the military as ignorant, douchebag fuckwits
Carry on then
You were offended by Avatar because some of the villains were in the military at some point in time.
Oh hey, I just got back from going to Midnight Chow at our DFAC. The new improvements started today.
Don't ever talk about the DFAC in a positive light ever again. That place can never be improved.
The omelettes / biscuits and gravy.
When I went to a Joint Command in south east asia for a few months I had my first DFAC experience. My first comment was "WTF is a DFAC?". You see, I am used to Galley's, Mess Decks, and Wardrooms, not the DFAC the unwashed masses use.
I kid! I Kid! The DFAC was run by local nationals and the food wasn't half bad. Breakfast was always the best though (as it is in the NAVY)
Greg USN on
FFXIV Petra Ironheart Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
Oh hey, I just got back from going to Midnight Chow at our DFAC. The new improvements started today.
Don't ever talk about the DFAC in a positive light ever again. That place can never be improved.
The omelettes / biscuits and gravy.
When I went to a Joint Command in south east asia for a few months I had my first DFAC experience. My first comment was "WTF is a DFAC?". You see, I am used to Galley's, Mess Decks, and Wardrooms, not the DFAC the unwashed masses use.
I kid! I Kid! The DFAC was run by local nationals and the food wasn't half bad. Breakfast was always the best though (as it is in the NAVY)
Yeah, breakfast is the best just because of eggs-to-order, but nothing makes me happier than Triangle fish day. God I love triangle fish, such a versatile food. You can make a sandwich, eat it plain, wipe off all the grease and put it in a salad, anything.
I don't think you have your facts straight. We passed the bill that made private personnel operating in foreign countries accountable in 2007. We banned Blackwater from Iraq in 2008. This means that the reason we banned them was NOT because accountability did not exist for them (since it did, at the time we banned them), but because they had committed far too many war crimes.
Oh hey, I just got back from going to Midnight Chow at our DFAC. The new improvements started today.
Don't ever talk about the DFAC in a positive light ever again. That place can never be improved.
The omelettes / biscuits and gravy.
When I went to a Joint Command in south east asia for a few months I had my first DFAC experience. My first comment was "WTF is a DFAC?". You see, I am used to Galley's, Mess Decks, and Wardrooms, not the DFAC the unwashed masses use.
I kid! I Kid! The DFAC was run by local nationals and the food wasn't half bad. Breakfast was always the best though (as it is in the NAVY)
Yeah, breakfast is the best just because of eggs-to-order, but nothing makes me happier than Triangle fish day. God I love triangle fish, such a versatile food. You can make a sandwich, eat it plain, wipe off all the grease and put it in a salad, anything.
Sunday's were sweet in our camp because the local made us BBQ. All kinds of meats and sausages!
No veggies for me sunday BBQ days.
Greg USN on
FFXIV Petra Ironheart Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
I don't think a single person is a representation for the entire military. So one person protesting, even if in uniform, is not the same as the army protesting something.
Quid wanted me to post my opinion on this in here.
I don't think a single person is a representation for the entire military. So one person protesting, even if in uniform, is not the same as the army protesting something.
Quid wanted me to post my opinion on this in here.
People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.
An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.
I'll reiterate this as well. A military is not a democracy for a reason. People can just as easily protest the wrong things and end up costing lives because of it.
Did you reply have anything to do with my comment? A military is not a democracy, I understand that. That doesn't mean that a single member of a group is indicative of the whole, and I fail to see how not being a democracy has anything to do with my post.
Did you reply have anything to do with my comment? A military is not a democracy, I understand that. That doesn't mean that a single member of a group is indicative of the whole, and I fail to see how not being a democracy has anything to do with my post.
I'll reiterate this as well. A military is not a democracy for a reason. People can just as easily protest the wrong things and end up costing lives because of it.
Posts
Don't ever talk about the DFAC in a positive light ever again. That place can never be improved.
I'll see if I can find the quote.
As soon as you admit your inability to differentiate the military from the pope.
Say wha...
I don't even...
How did you....
Where the hell does that come from? It's not even in left field.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
we elect certain government officials.
95% of federal government officials are selected.
Is it a question of fallibility?
Infallibility. The contention is that there may be a better (more democratic, for instance) to run a military, and that may be getting disagreement. And/or this is part of a longer-term trend.
There's this really strange conflict going on in this thread that makes it relatively hard to follow, and the rhetoric is getting silly.
EDIT: Getting silly? It started silly. It always turns silly.
Of all my ill will towards you I never bought your Jewishness into the equation in a negative light
Nice that you couldn't keep it somewhat civil
Edit: To answer you question, my answer has always been to blame the leadership of the military, not the military itself. Sorta like blaming the Pope/Archbishops etc for the whole molestation issue, since you wanted to bring it to that crass level
I certainly wasn't calling Stanley A. McChrystal a pedophile...
Okay, I was.
Actually, the infallibility thing ends at the hostility that some people have to the idea that the miliatary can be or has ever been wrong.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
Oh because I didn't write this
Or this
Ah, but this doesn't fit into your stereotyping of people in the military as ignorant, douchebag fuckwits
Carry on then
Sounds about right. Even though there are problems, sometimes severe ones, the U.S. military functions pretty effectively. As such, nobody is really rushing to overhaul it; considering the potential cost of doing so, especially doing so uninformed, I don't think that they should. (Note I am not talking about reforms to cut down on abuses, etc. I mean overhaul, as in for example changing the entire system to try and function as a democracy).
If somebody comes up with a new system that can be empirically shown to work better than the current system, I think most people would support it; however, currently from a logical standpoint a democratic military system where people vote for superior officers directly above them...well it just sounds like a terrible, terrible idea all around. Not only that but development of a new system and proper empirical testing of that system would take a very long time and cost a lot of money. And we have a lot more bills than we have surplus cash right now, so I really don't see it happening.
You must not be in ACC, they slapped down our requests so hard it was painful.
Thing is, we've actually done this - read up on the structure of state militia units in the Civil War era and prior, for example. We instituted the National Guard system because that system failed miserably.
Ah see, now that's an interesting thing to say.
How did the state militia units fail and is it easy to be sure that it was because of this structure?
Also, I did say that squads voting for their leader was just one particular option of many.
Yet despite multiple requests from me and others in this thread, you fail to outline any other options. So we've been pointing out why that one is a terrible idea, because you haven't given us anything else.
If there are, as you said, many other options, what would they be? It is your burden to point those out to us, since you made the claim. We're making the claim that the military is fine as it is. You need to show us why it isn't. Stop avoiding the argument.
I'm sure the professional fiction author is super eloquent (in fact I know he is). I rather like Stephenson, but I have to say that words he wrote in a novel are not solid arguments in a thread like this. They're just very shiny assertions.
Anyway, I've been out all day, but the thread still seems kind of stuck on "electing leaders", on which topic I have to ask, were those of you advocating such dropped on your head by the midwife? Or did your mothers perhaps do a lot of crack while gestating you? Promotion via merit is the only valid approach to keeping a dynamic and functional military. Promotion by other means, primarily social class, have been tried in history and they've been complete sodding disasters. A vote is not appropriate.
Revamping military command structure, to my mind, involves a focus on the way one person is often in charge of non-combat decisions. Most of the military's social problems we've talked about in thread after thread here stem from one person inappropriately suppressing reports of abuse or fuckery, or people being too afraid to report such because of threat of reprisal. Neutralising those problems is where talk about reform efforts should be focused, because no-one should have to put up with being treated dishonourably while serving their country.
Thank you.
Ok, let's take this back a little bit. So... do you think in if you're in a corporation, hell even a small business, that you should vote for your boss? Your CEO? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Do you think all the students should vote for the school principal?
This is a legitimate gripe. Whether you're dropping bombs for Jesus, Allah, Yaweh, Legba, or a stick of Juicy Fruit shouldn't mean shit if you're conducting yourself professionally. While I understand the desire for decorum, there are some places where the military could use a good spanking.
The "peerage" system is also a big problem. I realize that's more of a British term (and what I'm going to say here applies very much to the military of the UK as well... probably even more, so the term is being used for a reason), but general nepotism and "I served with your father" or "my family is a military family" shit as a basis for promotions in a military career, which sidesteps the very idea of a meritocracy, is complete bullshit. I don't give a shit if that butterbar's daddy is a full bird, he's making some really bad fucking decisions and he needs to be taken aside. I know it's "tradition" and shit, but for fucks sake, if they can't cut it, they can't cut it.
Oh no, it can be quite wrong, on a lot of different levels, both in the interest it takes in the personal lives of its soldiers to the way it prosecutes wars.
You were offended by Avatar because some of the villains were in the military at some point in time.
When I went to a Joint Command in south east asia for a few months I had my first DFAC experience. My first comment was "WTF is a DFAC?". You see, I am used to Galley's, Mess Decks, and Wardrooms, not the DFAC the unwashed masses use.
Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
Yet it's the only one you've focused on even after people pointed out how bad of an idea it is.
Yeah, breakfast is the best just because of eggs-to-order, but nothing makes me happier than Triangle fish day. God I love triangle fish, such a versatile food. You can make a sandwich, eat it plain, wipe off all the grease and put it in a salad, anything.
Sunday's were sweet in our camp because the local made us BBQ. All kinds of meats and sausages!
No veggies for me sunday BBQ days.
Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
Quid wanted me to post my opinion on this in here.
Boy that was easy.
Did you reply have anything to do with my comment? A military is not a democracy, I understand that. That doesn't mean that a single member of a group is indicative of the whole, and I fail to see how not being a democracy has anything to do with my post.
You've also made it clear you don't care if it costs lives, destroys families, and gives people severe mental trauma.
That's pretty heartless.
Edit: And yes, when in uniform you do in fact represent the military.
Hahahahahahahaha
I disagree.
You can disagree the sky's blue too, you'd still be wrong.
Except you can prove the sky is blue. Whereas you can't prove that one soldier's actions = entire army opinion.
Mostly because the second one isn't true.