Page 4 of 7 [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

20 Jul 2009, 9:47 am

People wonder why I hate Donald Rumsfeld, it was his "Principal over commen sense" philosophy, or better yet, his illogical hatred for people working under him, even Bush had to replace him because of his gross mismanagment of the DOD and that's saying something.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Jul 2009, 4:29 pm

MDD123 wrote:
People wonder why I hate Donald Rumsfeld, it was his "Principal over commen sense" philosophy, or better yet, his illogical hatred for people working under him, even Bush had to replace him because of his gross mismanagment of the DOD and that's saying something.


Yeah, I remember him. "Rummy" had the President's full support, until the day after the election.

By the way, the US military has to be the dumbest institution on Earth, so maybe Secretary Rumsfeld's hatred was justified.



MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

22 Jul 2009, 6:20 pm

I wouldn't say it's THE dumbest, but it isn't far off. Getting through with them was a learning experience, but I can tell you that not thinking for yourself was encouraged a little too strongly (not a good thing to tell an AS).



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

22 Jul 2009, 7:46 pm

MDD123 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's THE dumbest, but it isn't far off. Getting through with them was a learning experience, but I can tell you that not thinking for yourself was encouraged a little too strongly (not a good thing to tell an AS).


That's really inaccurate. Our military is among the most skilled and best trained in the world.

The problem is that the military environment demands people who can do what they are told without question, and it has a "dumbing down" effect. One of us would go crazy with the wasteful BS that goes on, but that's the way they run things, and they want people who can cope with it being that way.



MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

22 Jul 2009, 8:31 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
That's really inaccurate. Our military is among the most skilled and best trained in the world.

The problem is that the military environment demands people who can do what they are told without question, and it has a "dumbing down" effect. One of us would go crazy with the wasteful BS that goes on, but that's the way they run things, and they want people who can cope with it being that way.


That's a much better way of putting it. You'll see a smart guy look like an idiot, and a complete numbskull know exactly what he's doing. Then you get smart people who like the army and dumb people who hate it. I have pretty strong sociology skills, but my personal psychology is pretty lame, so I was just an oddball who knew how to keep his head down :( (and not complain about bs)



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

22 Jul 2009, 8:48 pm

MDD123 wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
That's really inaccurate. Our military is among the most skilled and best trained in the world.

The problem is that the military environment demands people who can do what they are told without question, and it has a "dumbing down" effect. One of us would go crazy with the wasteful BS that goes on, but that's the way they run things, and they want people who can cope with it being that way.


That's a much better way of putting it. You'll see a smart guy look like an idiot, and a complete numbskull know exactly what he's doing. Then you get smart people who like the army and dumb people who hate it. I have pretty strong sociology skills, but my personal psychology is pretty lame, so I was just an oddball who knew how to keep his head down :( (and not complain about bs)


The inherent problem with any super disciplined organization is that tactics and strategies are devised by central control groups that are not required to share their thinking with those who do the actual action. It is not unusual for groups of soldiers to be consciously sacrificed or put in situations in which they are unlikely to survive and probably would revolt if they fully understood what is going on. To send people on suicide missions for the greater good of the rest of the army is an unfortunate consequence of war and individual initiative is not necessarily helpful in such a situation. This is not to justify the stupidity of the central control groups but to indicate that war is not necessarily sympathetic to the individual participant.



Last edited by Sand on 23 Jul 2009, 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

22 Jul 2009, 11:55 pm

^ A much better explanation, you can either let me explain it two ar three times, or read it once from Sand.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Jul 2009, 1:44 am

This is wandering away from the gay discussion but it might be an interesting if problematic experiment for soldiers, the guys who have their lives on the line, to have some forceful democratic feedback to the top military planners when unnecessary numbers of troops are sacrificed in badly thought out and executed military operations. I doubt it has ever been tried and of course the macho spirit of military leaders would fight it all the way but if I have a good chance of being killed I would appreciate being able to emit a scream of dismay.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

23 Jul 2009, 7:47 am

Sand wrote:
This is wandering away from the gay discussion but it might be an interesting if problematic experiment for soldiers, the guys who have their lives on the line, to have some forceful democratic feedback to the top military planners when unnecessary numbers of troops are sacrificed in badly thought out and executed military operations. I doubt it has ever been tried and of course the macho spirit of military leaders would fight it all the way but if I have a good chance of being killed I would appreciate being able to emit a scream of dismay.


The military regards people as a resource, an expendable one at that. No objective is impossible if you have enough bodies to throw at it.

I prefer Villa's statement on the matter (from Blake's7):

I'm not stupid.
I'm not expendable.
I'm not going.


:lol:



MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

23 Jul 2009, 10:21 am

They're under some kind of obligation not to say anything negative about their chain of command. Nobody seems to enforce it though. I've only heard of one case in which someone was officially punished. They usually just pull you into an office and "highly discourage" you. But to be honest, nobody seems to monitor internet activity that well. OP is the only person on WP who's still in as far as I can tell.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

23 Jul 2009, 6:39 pm

Possibly our nation views gays as a non-expendable resource.



history_of_psychiatry
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,105
Location: X

24 Jul 2009, 1:19 pm

No offense, but anyone crazy enough to want to join the military should be allowed to join no matter who they are.


_________________
X


ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

24 Jul 2009, 1:45 pm

history_of_psychiatry wrote:
No offense, but anyone crazy enough to want to join the military should be allowed to join no matter who they are.


1. almost word by word from bill hicks

2. flawed logic really. the most insane people should be kept outside the military. remember, military are sent into crowded areas. dont want insane people w guns in crowded areas.


_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Jul 2009, 2:32 pm

history_of_psychiatry wrote:
No offense, but anyone crazy enough to want to join the military should be allowed to join no matter who they are.


Amen! The only thing that matters is the ability and willingness to undertake the mission.

The Spartan Hoplites were basically homosexually bonded. Each Hoplite covered his lover's back in every sense of the term. This isn't perversion! THIS IS SPARTA!

ruveyn



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

24 Jul 2009, 7:37 pm

But, anyway, soldiers today are complete pansies compared to the soldiers of past generations.

It used to be that soldiers pretty much expected to die, either by disease or combat.

A soldier wounded on the battlefield was left to die, and that was what was expected. A bayonet wound or a lead bullet wound, and that was that. A soldier who fell asleep while on watch would be hanged. Sure, they would get to loot, rape and plunder when the situation warranted. So, the risks were worth it for them.

The custom for the Roman army was that when a unit was defeated, then every tenth man of the remaining soldiers would be beaten to death.

Nowadays, soldiers who get wounded expect to be transported to a hospital. It is very rare for a soldier to be executed any more.

And, soldiers who are blind or crippled expect to be on the government dole for the rest of their lives.

Soldiers these days are basically spoiled pansies anyway. So, why not let gays in? As it is, modern soldiers are essentially spoiled momma's boys compared to the soldiers of previous generations.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

24 Jul 2009, 8:34 pm

pandabear wrote:
But, anyway, soldiers today are complete pansies compared to the soldiers of past generations.

It used to be that soldiers pretty much expected to die, either by disease or combat.

A soldier wounded on the battlefield was left to die, and that was what was expected. A bayonet wound or a lead bullet wound, and that was that. A soldier who fell asleep while on watch would be hanged. Sure, they would get to loot, rape and plunder when the situation warranted. So, the risks were worth it for them.

The custom for the Roman army was that when a unit was defeated, then every tenth man of the remaining soldiers would be beaten to death.

Nowadays, soldiers who get wounded expect to be transported to a hospital. It is very rare for a soldier to be executed any more.

And, soldiers who are blind or crippled expect to be on the government dole for the rest of their lives.

Soldiers these days are basically spoiled pansies anyway. So, why not let gays in? As it is, modern soldiers are essentially spoiled momma's boys compared to the soldiers of previous generations.


Your absolute delight in the basest sadistic brutality that humans can muster strikes me as mere viciousness of a disgusting order.