Side by side

[Minister of Truth]

Let's just say you have a vested interest in defending anything he did on the military side.

How dat? Ike got us out of Korea, and kept us out of messy situations. Hell, he even refused to show up during the party at the Suez. But I'm forever critical of him for letting the CIA run amok in Nicaragua and Iran. Ike opposed many things we are accustomed to in the modern world, such as unilateral policing, dictating to the free world, and the collusion between the military and big business.

(Changing quotes is sexy.)

How's this for irony?

 

[Timshel]

Ike also helped to ensure space exploration did not become militarized. The effects of that will likely reach far further than his mistakes in Iran or elsewhere.

There are really no good Presidents, just no so bad one's. Ike is one of the best of a bad lot.

Ike has very little in common with modern Republicans.

 

[christiefan915]

How dat? Ike got us out of Korea, and kept us out of messy situations. Hell, he even refused to show up during the party at the Suez. But I'm forever critical of him for letting the CIA run amok in Nicaragua and Iran. Ike opposed many things we are accustomed to in the modern world, such as unilateral policing, dictating to the free world, and the collusion between the military and big business.



How's this for irony?

How dat? "Dat" being that you're on the officer track in the military and are probably going to hold back from criticizing their decisions, past or current.

 

[christiefan915]

Ike also helped to ensure space exploration did not become militarized. The effects of that will likely reach far further than his mistakes in Iran or elsewhere.

There are really no good Presidents, just no so bad one's. Ike is one of the best of a bad lot.

Ike has very little in common with modern Republicans.

I can go with that, based on his domestic policies anyway.

 

[Damocles]

Ike also helped to ensure space exploration did not become militarized. The effects of that will likely reach far further than his mistakes in Iran or elsewhere.

There are really no good Presidents, just no so bad one's. Ike is one of the best of a bad lot.

Ike has very little in common with modern Republicans.

Unfortunately.

 

[/MSG/]

How dat? "Dat" being that you're on the officer track in the military and are probably going to hold back from criticizing their decisions, past or current.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Minister of Truth]

How dat? "Dat" being that you're on the officer track in the military and are probably going to hold back from criticizing their decisions, past or current.

You just made me a little giddy there. As for officers, I'm not sure I can agree there. Certainly there are many officers that I serve under who I am less likely to criticize because of my close proximity to, such as my commander, and a few others that I hold in high esteem. That said, I find myself able to look at some of the things they do and say and be critical.

I am critical of great historical generals for the mistakes they made, such as Washington and Gates (they were pretty much the two best there) for their screw-ups during the Revolution, all the way up to Patton for his willful ignorance of the politics of his day, and MacArthur who acted childishly during the Korean War, detracting substantially from his prior record. Westmoreland cuts kind of a tragic figure, but I find it difficult to give him sympathy, regardless.

I'm not really upset by this challenge, because it made me think, and it helped make me happy about my future military career. Due to my basic training experience (think Private Pyle), I have always been a bit negative towards myself as an Airman, but I think I am getting better in this regard.

 

[christiefan915]

That doesn't make any sense at all.

I'm talking about cohesiveness and unity, isn't that what happens during basic training? You're re-formed, so to speak, in the military image and part of that means not speaking out against your superior officers. At least publicly.

 

[christiefan915]

You just made me a little giddy there. As for officers, I'm not sure I can agree there. Certainly there are many officers that I serve under who I am less likely to criticize because of my close proximity to, such as my commander, and a few others that I hold in high esteem. That said, I find myself able to look at some of the things they do and say and be critical.

I am critical of great historical generals for the mistakes they made, such as Washington and Gates (they were pretty much the two best there) for their screw-ups during the Revolution, all the way up to Patton for his willful ignorance of the politics of his day, and MacArthur who acted childishly during the Korean War, detracting substantially from his prior record. Westmoreland cuts kind of a tragic figure, but I find it difficult to give him sympathy, regardless.

I'm not really upset by this challenge, because it made me think, and it helped make me happy about my future military career. Due to my basic training experience (think Private Pyle), I have always been a bit negative towards myself as an Airman, but I think I am getting better in this regard.

My experience is that people in the military or those who are close to people in the military have a very strong sense of what you can say or do about the military. And any sort of criticism automatically brands the critic as a traitor. Admittedly, I didn't always have this viewpoint, but the eight years under bush influenced me negatively, having been a target of war supporters chanting "cheese-eating, terrorist supporting surrender monkey" or "if you don't support the war, you're not supporting the troops", and other slogans like that.

Just look at some of the recent threads on this board.

McChrystal. No matter that his and his subordinates' fast mouths got him an early retirement, people have still defended him to the utmost and blamed Rolling Stone for publishing interviews that McChrystal himself agreed to give.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No matter that prediction isn't fact, those who commented on the topic invariably agreed the bombing was justified. You brought up Tibbets. Tibbets went to his grave convinced of the rightness of his part in the bombing. Really, what other choice did he have? I imagine if he sat down and deeply contemplated the death and destruction caused by those bombings, the guilt would have been too much to bear. IMO very few generals and officers who are intimately connected with war's destruction will later come out and say it shouldn't have happened. In fact, the only person I can remember saying "we were wrong" was Robert McNamara, a Cabinet member and civilian.

You say about your COs "I find myself able to look at some of the things they do and say and be critical." But you're not critical to their faces, are you? Joining the military means you're prepared to abide by whatever decisions the higher-ups make, and that there's no walking off the job when the going gets tough.

You say you're critical of some mistakes made by Washington, Gates, Patton, etc. Okay, that's fair. However those people are so far in the past that historians have had a chance to sort out their actions and look at the ramifications. Would you criticize Petraeus, Mattis, Odierno or some of the current generals? Or are these people off-limits until history lends some perspective?

 

[Minister of Truth]

My experience is that people in the military or those who are close to people in the military have a very strong sense of what you can say or do about the military. And any sort of criticism automatically brands the critic as a traitor. Admittedly, I didn't always have this viewpoint, but the eight years under bush influenced me negatively, having been a target of war supporters chanting "cheese-eating, terrorist supporting surrender monkey" or "if you don't support the war, you're not supporting the troops", and other slogans like that.

I'm the guy who currently wears a uniform that is being phased out. Even when I get issued my new boots, I have made it clear that I will continue wearing the old one until they are officially phased out. There's a lot of people like me in the Guard, which is a relaxed environment compared to Active Duty. On a more serious level, consider how many members of the armed forces would fight the government if it ever ordered us to turn on the people. We are citizen soldiers who vote and discuss politics in the break room.

Just look at some of the recent threads on this board.

McChrystal. No matter that his and his subordinates' fast mouths got him an early retirement, people have still defended him to the utmost and blamed Rolling Stone for publishing interviews that McChrystal himself agreed to give.

Note that Billy, a young vet, and me, a service member ripped McChrystal to pieces for being a retard. All of his support comes from civillians, just like MacArthur and his tinkertape parades and whatnot.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No matter that prediction isn't fact, those who commented on the topic invariably agreed the bombing was justified. You brought up Tibbets. Tibbets went to his grave convinced of the rightness of his part in the bombing. Really, what other choice did he have? I imagine if he sat down and deeply contemplated the death and destruction caused by those bombings, the guilt would have been too much to bear. IMO very few generals and officers who are intimately connected with war's destruction will later come out and say it shouldn't have happened. In fact, the only person I can remember saying "we were wrong" was Robert McNamara, a Cabinet member and civilian.

Psychologically, its easy to drop bombs from 20,000 feet. Its difficult to bring the reality of this to a pilot, but considering that Tibbets got to see much coverage of his actions and still supported them, I think you have your answer.

If you think that an obliterated Japan, occupied in the north by fucking Soviets and a communist puppet regime, and a south that would be incapable of economic recovery and unwilling to ever reach out again to the US for a bloody massacre of an invasion would have been better for the Japanese, I'm just going to assume you never considered this situation, or you just don't care, because atomic weapons are evil.

You say about your COs "I find myself able to look at some of the things they do and say and be critical." But you're not critical to their faces, are you? Joining the military means you're prepared to abide by whatever decisions the higher-ups make, and that there's no walking off the job when the going gets tough.

In matters other than policy, there's plenty of room for voicing dissent. In terms of military policy, you can always utilize the chain of command for disagreements. My unit created an absolutely retarded schedule for the active forces a couple of years ago. Now the schedule has reverted back to mostly the old one but with accomodations for people who can manage an alternate one. It got changed because people were very vocal through the chain of command that they were underwhelmed.

You say you're critical of some mistakes made by Washington, Gates, Patton, etc. Okay, that's fair. However those people are so far in the past that historians have had a chance to sort out their actions and look at the ramifications. Would you criticize Petraeus, Mattis, Odierno or some of the current generals? Or are these people off-limits until history lends some perspective?

Sure, if they fuck up, you'll hear people all throughout the military calling them retards, but they still can't publish those sentiments like McChrystal did of Obama. If one were in a position to talk to Patraeus, and they actually understood field tactics and strategy, I'm sure if they explained their vision to him and were polite, he'd let them talk about it.

 

[christiefan915]

I'm the guy who currently wears a uniform that is being phased out. Even when I get issued my new boots, I have made it clear that I will continue wearing the old one until they are officially phased out. There's a lot of people like me in the Guard, which is a relaxed environment compared to Active Duty. On a more serious level, consider how many members of the armed forces would fight the government if it ever ordered us to turn on the people. We are citizen soldiers who vote and discuss politics in the break room.

Note that Billy, a young vet, and me, a service member ripped McChrystal to pieces for being a retard. All of his support comes from civillians, just like MacArthur and his tinkertape parades and whatnot.

Psychologically, its easy to drop bombs from 20,000 feet. Its difficult to bring the reality of this to a pilot, but considering that Tibbets got to see much coverage of his actions and still supported them, I think you have your answer.

If you think that an obliterated Japan, occupied in the north by fucking Soviets and a communist puppet regime, and a south that would be incapable of economic recovery and unwilling to ever reach out again to the US for a bloody massacre of an invasion would have been better for the Japanese, I'm just going to assume you never considered this situation, or you just don't care, because atomic weapons are evil.

In matters other than policy, there's plenty of room for voicing dissent. In terms of military policy, you can always utilize the chain of command for disagreements. My unit created an absolutely retarded schedule for the active forces a couple of years ago. Now the schedule has reverted back to mostly the old one but with accomodations for people who can manage an alternate one. It got changed because people were very vocal through the chain of command that they were underwhelmed.

Sure, if they fuck up, you'll hear people all throughout the military calling them retards, but they still can't publish those sentiments like McChrystal did of Obama. If one were in a position to talk to Patraeus, and they actually understood field tactics and strategy, I'm sure if they explained their vision to him and were polite, he'd let them talk about it.

I can't really disagree or argue with most of this, but re: your paragraph on Japan, see my post #345 on the "Why is BP taking all the blame?" thread.