women discharged from the military...

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by msilverstein47, Apr 20, 2012.

  1. msilverstein47

    msilverstein47 BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 1999
    Country:
    United States


  2. crazypete13

    crazypete13 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Location:
    A walk from BMO
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Not that hard to believe, but truly pathetic abdication of responsibility.
  3. Mr. Warmth

    Mr. Warmth Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2000
    Location:
    The American Steppe
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Country:
    United States
    Welp,now that we're letting gays serve openly, no need for women in the Military.
  4. msilverstein47

    msilverstein47 BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 1999
    Country:
    United States
    the thing that I don't get is why this is not being widely reported...oh yeah I completely forgot for a second all about the "liberal" media


  5. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    Country:
    United States
    It's an extremely upsetting story. It reads like something out of a dystopic sci-fi novel, in which bureaucratic institutions hold all the power and the individual has no recourse for justice. They can say that day is night and 2 + 2 = 5, and by saying it they make it so.

    I'm impressed with the women who've come forward and distressed by the realization that it's probably not going to do much good.
  6. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    Want societal progress? Stop joining this archaic institution who's only goal is to destroy.
  7. HouseHead78

    HouseHead78 Member+

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Country:
    United States
    fyp :D
  8. HouseHead78

    HouseHead78 Member+

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Country:
    United States
  9. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    Country:
    United States
    They asked for it by wearing those uniforms...?
  10. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    You are asking for civility from an institution singularly designed to kill people and break shit. I have little sympathy for what happens to trained murderers whatever sex they might be.
  11. Belgian guy

    Belgian guy Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Location:
    Belgium
    Club:
    Club Brugge KV
    So you are in favor of the abolition of the armed forces? :confused:
  12. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    I'm in favor of maintaining defensive forces, not the murder brigade we have today.
  13. Belgian guy

    Belgian guy Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Location:
    Belgium
    Club:
    Club Brugge KV
    That's really a matter of semantics, your defensive forces will still essentially constitute a force of "trained killers", as you called them. So it seems to me you aren't really opposed to armed forces as much as you resent their deployment outside of your borders.
  14. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    The motive as to why you are killing makes all the difference. I said "trained murderers" for a reason.
  15. Mr. Warmth

    Mr. Warmth Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2000
    Location:
    The American Steppe
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Country:
    United States
    Would this be the same reason you spout all of your other obtuse shit?
  16. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    No, I do that because I have low self esteem and a mother who never loved me.
  17. Barbara

    Barbara Hail Grimes!

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2000
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    Crap. I was hoping no one would bite.
  18. dna77054

    dna77054 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Location:
    houston
    I agree, it should be a much bigger story.

    As for the "liberal media," I'll play. One could argue the following:

    Perhaps because this could end up reflecting poorly on Obama as it goes up the chain of command. (Not that Obama is in any way culpable, but he could, rightly or wrongly, be blamed for not taking action). Hard to push the GOP's "war on women", when the military, under a Democrat Commander in Chief, allows this to happen.

    This same media was rightfully all over the Tailhook scandal when Bush was in charge.

    To what do you attribute the disparate treatment of these heinous scandals?
  19. fatbastard

    fatbastard Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2003
    Location:
    Lincoln (ish), Va
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    the tailhook scandal took a long time for the media to jump into as well, it was quietly being dismissed by most of the armed services papers at the time, and only persistence finally got the media involved, then they were all-in. It sure as hell had nothing to do with who the commander in chief was at the time :rolleyes:

    The military is run very poorly, but very authoritatively - when I was in, it seemed the thing it most wanted to protect was itself; its chain of command and its budget - the public was secondary at best.

    When it does something wrong, it doesn't look to expose (or usually even fix) the actual bad parts, it looks to protect them instead. Friendly fire incidents such as Pat Tillman, Abu Ghraib, the various other bad things about Iraq's "mission", etc. Not to worry, they'll find a very low-ranking member or two to blame everything on, they usually do. A committee will be formed, a paper will be drawn up - a paragraph will be inserted in the Basic Training Manual.
    Any sort of personnel issues, especially with enlisted folks is usually ignored unless you can get a member of Congress interested, one in the majority at the time preferably.

    Heck only knows how much stuff they got away with back when the media didn't dare ever question them at all; back in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (where some questions were finally starting to be asked after a while).
    1 person likes this.
  20. DoyleG

    DoyleG Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Club:
    FC Edmonton
    Never let facts get in the way of a rant.
  21. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Is any bureaucracy really any different? Anyone want to do anything that would achieve actual efficiency?
    Here's a proposal from a decade ago, to reduce a bloated total of officers:
    http://www.g2mil.com/shrinkofficers.htm
    A few years later: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/05/airforce_military_officers_051710w/
    "(during) Vietnam ... there was one general or flag officer for every 2,615 people in other ranks ... March 2010, the 1.4 million service members on active duty were being led by 950 generals and flags — or one for every 1,489 troops. ... 38 four-stars, 149 three-stars, 299 two-stars and 464 one-stars."
    "More than 20 years ago, astronaut and Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, was convinced the force had too many senior officers. ... calling it “brass creep.” “I am not sure it takes more generals to wage peace than to wage war”
    Ratios of general and flag officers to other troops over the years:
    • August 1945: 1 to 6,000
    • September 1967: 1 to 2,615
    • September 1994: 1 to 1,742
    • September 2000: 1 to 1,572
    • March 2010: 1 to 1,489
    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/promotions/l/blofficerprom.htm
  22. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    taos,nm
    There are three, no actually four, separate illusions operating to make this look like a terrible problem when it really is not.

    First, choosing August of 45 is surely choosing a peak rather than average point-- the slowdown as it became apparent that peace was at hand had not yet really kicked in, and the last year of the war involved the development of new units to operational readiness faster than they could be officered-- at a guess the realistic ratio would have been more like 1-5000 if the necessary promotions had had to take place.

    Second, as a standing army is reduced in strength during periods of reduced needs, only a fool would try to maintain a stable officer to enlisted ratio. The officer corps is the skeleton on which the flesh of any expansion will be hung when times of need return.

    Third, the ever-improving technology of slaughter tends to reduce the need for boots on the ground in favor of supporting fire almost to the vanishing point-- if it is going to be increasingly possible to defeat an enemy by drones and offshore rocketry, one wants the people controlling those things to be technicians, not grunts, and as much as possible career officers who have as big a picture in mind as possible.. So one would hope that modernization would contantly increase the effect complained of.

    Finally, extended periods of peace and quasi peace always increase the numbers of senior command, and for good reason-- officers are are aging and nothing but old age is killing them. The old guys need to be moved up and out of the way of the young men and women of initiative to keep the force effective. They can serve valid purposes in the beauracracy, but for the most part they need to be gotten out of the field, Occasionally there will be a Farragut who will be heroic at an advanced age, but in general you need to get the Winfield Scotts to positions where their experience can be an advantage, but they won't be holding back the Grants and the Shermans and Sheridans who actually have the energy needed to arrange for "the other poor bastard to die for his country instead."

    To discard men and women in their 60s who have made a career out of developing the knowledge and skills to protect the country is an awful breach of faith; it makes far better sense to move them up and out to desk jobs where they can top off their service constructively without constricting the opportunities of those just at their peak of energy and initiative.

    Inevitably you will add some topheaviness this way, and some of it will be in people who have been passed by by the profession; but it is better than the alternatives... and if one of them is Farragut or Scott you won't have lost him to General Motors or the Republic of Berzerkistan just when you really need him.
  23. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Location:
    Akron, OH
    So you've never heard of the Non-Aggression Principle?
  24. DoyleG

    DoyleG Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Club:
    FC Edmonton
    Never heard of reality?
  25. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Location:
    Akron, OH
    How deflectionary of you.

    Yes, that's a new word. May as well, since you're mailing in arguments.

Share This Page