-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
For all you Michael Moore fans out there...
- Thread starter Dave Shutter
- Start date
- Status
To all those that use the term "mindless war-mongerers" to represent right leaning people: BITE YOUR TONGUE!
Take a look at those who wanted no part of Iraq and then let's rewind to Kosovo. Take a WILD FREAKIN GUESS who was mongering for war then.
Take a look at those who wanted no part of Iraq and then let's rewind to Kosovo. Take a WILD FREAKIN GUESS who was mongering for war then.
No KEVIN really... you do all your questioning in the planning stage. Its good to question then. A good commander is going to welcome questioning among his staff in the PLANNING STAGE. But when it comes to execution, there is NO TIME to question. To question is to hesitate is to sacrifice tempo. We cannot sacrifice tempo, because to do this gives the enemy time to react. In "candidate terms" this means more of my Marines are going to become casualties, and mission accomplishment takes longer, and that ****'s just not gonna happen on my watch. This goes against the whole idea of maneuver warfare. That being said, I am not here to teach AWS phase one. Just want you to realize there are reasons why we do things the way we do.
ALSO... I am not going to bash candidates on this forum. Rather, I commend you and wish you luck in realizing your noble goals. However, there is NO EXCUSE for being disrespectful to those who have earned the title. This particular forum is all about debate, and thats fine. Hell, I disagree with just about everything Kimphil says, but at least he strives to stay well informed, and for the most part (haven't read all his threads) he seems fairly tactful. But when it becomes disrespectful (as in some of the other posters on the forum) you can just stand the **** by and get prepared for some higher authority to drop the hammer on your ass.
ALSO... I am not going to bash candidates on this forum. Rather, I commend you and wish you luck in realizing your noble goals. However, there is NO EXCUSE for being disrespectful to those who have earned the title. This particular forum is all about debate, and thats fine. Hell, I disagree with just about everything Kimphil says, but at least he strives to stay well informed, and for the most part (haven't read all his threads) he seems fairly tactful. But when it becomes disrespectful (as in some of the other posters on the forum) you can just stand the **** by and get prepared for some higher authority to drop the hammer on your ass.
You know, on the one hand I read some of the ridiculous posts from people still applying for officer programs and get all fired up.
But then I realize, it's some of the best entertainment you can get on the net, especially while sitting SDO.
That, and I'm sure I said some pretty dumb things before I was commissioned.
(shame we can't get a forum like this on SIPRNET to keep things professional)
But then I realize, it's some of the best entertainment you can get on the net, especially while sitting SDO.
That, and I'm sure I said some pretty dumb things before I was commissioned.
(shame we can't get a forum like this on SIPRNET to keep things professional)
For everyone concerned I am through arguing whether the Iraqi War was right or wrong. I opposed it before, and in hindsight it looks like an even worse idea. That's out there, and that's fair summary of what I believe. However, that wasn't the point of my previous post.
I was asking the obvious question--if our presence in Iraq is so good and righteous, then why does the administration sell the War to Congress and the American people on the bogus threat of a WMD attack on the American people?
People in this thread have tried to debunk this simple question by implying that the WMD threat to the US was real and the administration was responding to an emerging post 9/11 threat, and that conspiracy theories that ulterior motives are ridiculous. I'm not arguing that there is some vast right wing conspiracy to support the War, just that 1) The War was a foregone conclusion by administration months before the invasion, and 2) the prime reason given, the "imminent threat" to the US, wasn't credible. How do I know this, because the administration said so. A number of important people in the administation advocated regime change during their wilderness years (these are Republican bureaucrats out of work during the Clinton administration). Here are two letters signed by a number of people in the current Bush White House.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
Many reasons were given, none mention his ties to Al Qaeda terrorists or his desire to strike the American homeland.
You say the President has displayed great leadership in attacking Iraq; I say the President has diplayed poor leadership by 1) not being truthful about the threat of WMDs 2) Avoiding addressing the costs of the War and reconstruction, and 3) Poor planning that didn't prepare America for the protracted committment it is now involved in.
Now, some of the worst case scenarios are occurring. This War is enormously expensive; America is forced to garrison large number of troops that it can't spare long-term; Instead of fighting the US military head-on, the Republican Guard took their uniforms and are now the Guerillas attacking the UN, Red Cross, and US Army; terrorists are entering from bordering countries joining in on the attacks; We are paying the reconstruction, not the Iraqis.
However, the most unexpected thing occurred--we invaded because of WMDs (the public stance), and we didn't find them. Now the President looks like a liar, and now enjoys less trust from both the Congress and the American people. Without this trust, the public won't support a long term presence in Iraq, and we will lose.
Interpreting this as questioning orders is bull****. I question Bush's role as President to gain the support of the American people, not as CinC or our millitary to prosecute the War. There's a difference, whether anyone here sees that.
As far as questioning orders, that's bull**** too. Questioning orders because you're afraid to fight is unsat; Questioning the efficacy of an order is done all the time. When Colonel Berndt (Commander of the 24th MEU) accompanied his Marines to rescue Scott O'Grady in 1995, he was criticized by officers junior to him in the Marine Corps Gazette for doing so.
Expecting your orders be followed because you outrank someone is a poor excuse for leadership; And wow, putting someone on the deck, well that's a great way to motivate someone to follow you into the gates of Hell (not!). You don't have to be in the military to know that's not a particularly effective way to lead.
I was asking the obvious question--if our presence in Iraq is so good and righteous, then why does the administration sell the War to Congress and the American people on the bogus threat of a WMD attack on the American people?
People in this thread have tried to debunk this simple question by implying that the WMD threat to the US was real and the administration was responding to an emerging post 9/11 threat, and that conspiracy theories that ulterior motives are ridiculous. I'm not arguing that there is some vast right wing conspiracy to support the War, just that 1) The War was a foregone conclusion by administration months before the invasion, and 2) the prime reason given, the "imminent threat" to the US, wasn't credible. How do I know this, because the administration said so. A number of important people in the administation advocated regime change during their wilderness years (these are Republican bureaucrats out of work during the Clinton administration). Here are two letters signed by a number of people in the current Bush White House.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
Many reasons were given, none mention his ties to Al Qaeda terrorists or his desire to strike the American homeland.
You say the President has displayed great leadership in attacking Iraq; I say the President has diplayed poor leadership by 1) not being truthful about the threat of WMDs 2) Avoiding addressing the costs of the War and reconstruction, and 3) Poor planning that didn't prepare America for the protracted committment it is now involved in.
Now, some of the worst case scenarios are occurring. This War is enormously expensive; America is forced to garrison large number of troops that it can't spare long-term; Instead of fighting the US military head-on, the Republican Guard took their uniforms and are now the Guerillas attacking the UN, Red Cross, and US Army; terrorists are entering from bordering countries joining in on the attacks; We are paying the reconstruction, not the Iraqis.
However, the most unexpected thing occurred--we invaded because of WMDs (the public stance), and we didn't find them. Now the President looks like a liar, and now enjoys less trust from both the Congress and the American people. Without this trust, the public won't support a long term presence in Iraq, and we will lose.
Interpreting this as questioning orders is bull****. I question Bush's role as President to gain the support of the American people, not as CinC or our millitary to prosecute the War. There's a difference, whether anyone here sees that.
As far as questioning orders, that's bull**** too. Questioning orders because you're afraid to fight is unsat; Questioning the efficacy of an order is done all the time. When Colonel Berndt (Commander of the 24th MEU) accompanied his Marines to rescue Scott O'Grady in 1995, he was criticized by officers junior to him in the Marine Corps Gazette for doing so.
Expecting your orders be followed because you outrank someone is a poor excuse for leadership; And wow, putting someone on the deck, well that's a great way to motivate someone to follow you into the gates of Hell (not!). You don't have to be in the military to know that's not a particularly effective way to lead.
"Expecting your orders be followed because you outrank someone is a poor excuse for leadership"
No, you're wrong. That is EXACTLY why you should expect your orders to be followed. Now, RESPECT, is something you earn and shouldn't demand.
"And wow, putting someone on the deck, well that's a great way to motivate someone to follow you into the gates of Hell (not!)."
If you question my orders, getting off the deck will be the least of your worries! Because it'll be the MP's that help you up! You're finished! I would be making an example of you, ensuring that EVERYONE understands that that type of behavior is unacceptable.
"You don't have to be in the military to know that's not a particularly effective way to lead."
Correct. If it gets to the point where my men are comfortable questioning my orders, then somewhere I have made a mistake in leadership. But, swift, certain, and severe punishment will be an effective deterrent for the future!
Kimphill, some of the crap you have written leads me to believe you must be an idiot...I'm not talking about everything I've responded to, that's just experience and a live and learn deal. But, you've got to be ONE of the most narrowminded people I've come across on this website! I don't know where to begin picking apart the crap you've just posted and frankly, not really worth my time considering you're so convinced you're right and the American Government is wrong (what's the word I'm looking for? conceit, arrogant, selfrighteous....should I go on?).
"For everyone concerned I am through arguing whether the Iraqi War was right or wrong."
Thank God! Praise Allah! All hail the mighty Lizard King!
No, you're wrong. That is EXACTLY why you should expect your orders to be followed. Now, RESPECT, is something you earn and shouldn't demand.
"And wow, putting someone on the deck, well that's a great way to motivate someone to follow you into the gates of Hell (not!)."
If you question my orders, getting off the deck will be the least of your worries! Because it'll be the MP's that help you up! You're finished! I would be making an example of you, ensuring that EVERYONE understands that that type of behavior is unacceptable.
"You don't have to be in the military to know that's not a particularly effective way to lead."
Correct. If it gets to the point where my men are comfortable questioning my orders, then somewhere I have made a mistake in leadership. But, swift, certain, and severe punishment will be an effective deterrent for the future!
Kimphill, some of the crap you have written leads me to believe you must be an idiot...I'm not talking about everything I've responded to, that's just experience and a live and learn deal. But, you've got to be ONE of the most narrowminded people I've come across on this website! I don't know where to begin picking apart the crap you've just posted and frankly, not really worth my time considering you're so convinced you're right and the American Government is wrong (what's the word I'm looking for? conceit, arrogant, selfrighteous....should I go on?).
"For everyone concerned I am through arguing whether the Iraqi War was right or wrong."
Thank God! Praise Allah! All hail the mighty Lizard King!
I figured I better come back and explain/clarify something I've said in the last couple of posts. Considering a lot of the people frequenting this site are prospective military and not wearing the uniform yet and unable to see the analogy.
When I say "if someone questions my order, they're going to find themselves on their back", understand that this is in the most dire of circumstances. You don't just hit someone for questioning you, but I do want you to understand how very BAD it is for your subordinates to think that type of behavior is acceptable. Garrison or wartime, it's habit forming and spreads like disease. You've got to put a stop to it IMMEDIATELY (squash it like a bug, nip it in the bud, yaddayadda). The bigger deal YOU as a leader make it out to be, the better EVERYONE understands. As one of the sim instructors told me "If you equate mistakes you make with a traumatic event, you are less likely to make those mistakes in the future." He was referring to something stupid I did in the sim and a flurry of profanities you would need to shield your ears from clear across base. And he was right. I didn't make that mistake again. In the sim, a mistake isn't fatal. You make those mistakes in the sim so you don't in the real airplane. Well, the sim that Commanders have access to is training. In combat, mistakes kill, so you learn those lessons beforehand. Now, my analogy of hitting someone, is in a combat setting. In garrison, I wouldn't strike someone (well, it would have to be under extreme circumstances), but I WOULD make an example of them and the situation would dictate what steps I took....but, be rest assured, it would be 'traumatic' enough to ensure that mistake wouldn't be made again (and all JO's would witness it and be involved).
I hope this is as clear as mud! I just don't want some of you gullible types thinking that if you're assigned a menial task and question the correct procedures to accomplish it, your Commander is going to black your eye! Like I mentioned before, there is a time and place for questions, but a fine line between being inquisitive and insubordinate.
When I say "if someone questions my order, they're going to find themselves on their back", understand that this is in the most dire of circumstances. You don't just hit someone for questioning you, but I do want you to understand how very BAD it is for your subordinates to think that type of behavior is acceptable. Garrison or wartime, it's habit forming and spreads like disease. You've got to put a stop to it IMMEDIATELY (squash it like a bug, nip it in the bud, yaddayadda). The bigger deal YOU as a leader make it out to be, the better EVERYONE understands. As one of the sim instructors told me "If you equate mistakes you make with a traumatic event, you are less likely to make those mistakes in the future." He was referring to something stupid I did in the sim and a flurry of profanities you would need to shield your ears from clear across base. And he was right. I didn't make that mistake again. In the sim, a mistake isn't fatal. You make those mistakes in the sim so you don't in the real airplane. Well, the sim that Commanders have access to is training. In combat, mistakes kill, so you learn those lessons beforehand. Now, my analogy of hitting someone, is in a combat setting. In garrison, I wouldn't strike someone (well, it would have to be under extreme circumstances), but I WOULD make an example of them and the situation would dictate what steps I took....but, be rest assured, it would be 'traumatic' enough to ensure that mistake wouldn't be made again (and all JO's would witness it and be involved).
I hope this is as clear as mud! I just don't want some of you gullible types thinking that if you're assigned a menial task and question the correct procedures to accomplish it, your Commander is going to black your eye! Like I mentioned before, there is a time and place for questions, but a fine line between being inquisitive and insubordinate.
kevin
Registered User
more strong language from my respected superior. as intimidating as all this is, i still have to stand by what kimphil said about questioning orders. although i think my previous point was a little misconstrued. my main point was about questioning orders of war in terms of being there. if a war erupts and the u.s. decides to attack and i feel morally reprehensable (ie, my religion flat out states it is immoral, which by the way hasnt happened yet) then i will take my dishonorable discharge and walk away with my head held high. once i have gone to war the situation changes as ive accepted responsibility of being there. however if an order comes down which is starkly immoral (ie the example of "line those people up and shoot them") then rest assured i will cause a problem, regardless of the consequence (yes jboomer, even if it means being ass raped by you). now if that is out of line, then military service isnt for me. however, considering all the many people in the military who have come and gone that i respect, i highly doubt that's the case. nevertheless, i find it amusing that the word moron, etc is being thrown around here regarding (specifically) political stuff like whether the administration is good or not, considering that this is an opinion based subject with no concrete answers. and to call someone (kimphil) an idiot for questioning the american government (jboomer, looking at you) seems rather "narrowminded" to me....no offense of course. i wouldnt want you nipping me in the butt. granted i know virtually nothing about you except that you are an sna in meridian, you pretty much seem like one of those jackasses who's going to get off on ordering others around who would otherwise beat your ass if it wasnt the military. but like i said, just a guess. now let me get my kleenex out and dab my eyes cause i feel like im losing precious friends here.
I have never felt such a compelling need to wiegh in on a forum. I read them just for fun, but kimphil seems to have lit a fuse. First off, I don't think you are and idiot. I think you to have a very strong grasp on the situation. However, your the underlying issue here is not your liberal stance, it runs far deeper than that as Boomer seems to have discovered. Since no one else here wants to say it, I will reach back to my days as an Marine NCO and tell you straight up, your attitude sucks, and if you expect a career in the military, it had better change. You are entitled to your opinions, but if you ever question the orders of your superiors in the manner you are attacking the president, you can stand the hell by. If you senior doesn't set you straight, you can be sure that a senior SNCO or CPO will break a foot off in your $#@.
Now, to qualify that, the officer side of me will say, "yes, there are times when it is neccessary to tactfully question an order." but only when in private and only to clarify the instruction or offer insight that might be relavent. But if the order stands, shut you mouth and carry on.
I feel better now. you all have a nice day, and keep up the entertainment.
Semper FI
Now, to qualify that, the officer side of me will say, "yes, there are times when it is neccessary to tactfully question an order." but only when in private and only to clarify the instruction or offer insight that might be relavent. But if the order stands, shut you mouth and carry on.
I feel better now. you all have a nice day, and keep up the entertainment.
Semper FI
slasher
OCC 186 Bound
You know, I really shouldn't get into this cat-fight but I will anyway. I am in no way taking sides because that's irrelevant.
When in the Fleet, I remember it being drilled into my head that there were 2 types of obedience: Blind and Reasoned. The former where you carry out the order without hesitation and question because its clearly legal and justified, and the latter being where you question a questionable order. I think its important to maintain that perspective because sometimes Commanders make mistakes, etc. and some orders shouldn't be carried out.
Obviously in combat there's less room for that sort thing--either you act or you're dead. But sometimes the subordinates need to keep the superiors honest by calling them on any B#*$s%*t they may pull. I thought this "discussion" needed an objective opinion-here it is, but I don't wish to be flamed. I'm out.
When in the Fleet, I remember it being drilled into my head that there were 2 types of obedience: Blind and Reasoned. The former where you carry out the order without hesitation and question because its clearly legal and justified, and the latter being where you question a questionable order. I think its important to maintain that perspective because sometimes Commanders make mistakes, etc. and some orders shouldn't be carried out.
Obviously in combat there's less room for that sort thing--either you act or you're dead. But sometimes the subordinates need to keep the superiors honest by calling them on any B#*$s%*t they may pull. I thought this "discussion" needed an objective opinion-here it is, but I don't wish to be flamed. I'm out.
I think what everyone is getting at, and I wouldn't think would be inconsistent with the Navy, is that the Navy doesn't want blind order following robots, but leaders. If it's a matter of personal tastes it is your duty to carry orders out weather you like them or not, but when it comes to illegal orders, it is good practice to think before acting. I'm sure that 99.9% of orders are legal and should be carried out without your questioning your superior. I'm a civilian right now, but that's how I see it from here.
"yes, there are times when it is neccessary to tactfully question an order." but only when in private and only to clarify the instruction or offer insight that might be relavent. But if the order stands, shut you mouth and carry on."
Well put. And I agree 100%.
" you pretty much seem like one of those jackasses who's going to get off on ordering others around who would otherwise beat your ass if it wasnt the military. "
I'm not a sadist. I don't take pleasure in pushing people around. All of my examples were 'to the extreme' (don't ANYONE start spouting Vanilla Ice lyrics) side of the issue. Generally speaking, questioning orders and the like, are not something that frequently happens and something Commanders experience day to day. But, you kevin seem to be someone whom has a problem with authority and a bad attitude. Bad combination. I feel better knowing that others visiting this thread notice it too and I'm not being a total prick. But, you can see it's something I take VERY seriously, hence my attitude. I'm not explaining myself to you to benefit you, but for everyone else to understand me.
Well put. And I agree 100%.
" you pretty much seem like one of those jackasses who's going to get off on ordering others around who would otherwise beat your ass if it wasnt the military. "
I'm not a sadist. I don't take pleasure in pushing people around. All of my examples were 'to the extreme' (don't ANYONE start spouting Vanilla Ice lyrics) side of the issue. Generally speaking, questioning orders and the like, are not something that frequently happens and something Commanders experience day to day. But, you kevin seem to be someone whom has a problem with authority and a bad attitude. Bad combination. I feel better knowing that others visiting this thread notice it too and I'm not being a total prick. But, you can see it's something I take VERY seriously, hence my attitude. I'm not explaining myself to you to benefit you, but for everyone else to understand me.
- Status