h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A lot to reply to...

Math: You actually helped me make my point. Why would the navy take the time to present dossiers of atrocities in the Falklands? It's because they needed your support and commitment.

"No wonder that they are now so confused when they find that not only were they not seen as liberators, but as colonial invaders by a large proportion of the populace." - So who were all those people defacing Saddam statues and paintings, waving cheerfully at the tanks as they rolled by? Why is it that the Iraqi police had no credibility, but the occupying force was getting respect? http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/aid/story/886540p-6177417c.html

Large proportion, perhaps. But certainly not nearly a majority. The language of most of the protests against the occupiers tells the real story. They're asking why the occupiers aren't keeping them safe from crime, and why they aren't restoring basic services quicker. Underlying that language is an acceptance of the occupiers and their authority.

"Can you quote one occasion when the forces of a modern democracy has unvolunteered itself? I have briefly looked back over the records of conflicts in the last 60 years and can find not one instance." - The Vietnam War. 30,000 men fled to Canada to avoid the draft. Over 65,000 soldiers deserted by 1970, roughly four division's worth. And here's a good source on other internal resistance, including sabotage and the murder of bad officers: http://www.altpr.org/apr15/keating.html


Madent: "The TV programmes have demonstrated that irrespective of their background, training and level of intelligence that the modern soldier is a capable of committing atrocity as any other soldier in the history of warfare. Some of the young men sent to Iraq appear to have been so unstable that they should not even have been shown a handgun, let alone equipped with automatic rifles."

I was speaking in general terms. Just because they're better than they've ever been, doesn't mean they're ready to teach ethics and philosophy. These are still people from poor backgrounds who decided they wanted to shoot people for a living, for a variety of reasons that include disturbing ones. And as Math said, they're also under pressures that we can't fully appreciate. TV programs tend to focus on the worst, because that's what drives ratings. There are going to be bad examples, but I don't think they're representative of the force at large. Civilians cheering the occupiers (see link above) and jeering their own police seems to be an indication that the kinds of acts you've mentioned are not widespread.

Pattern-chaser: You in Britain are not the only ones who were lied to. The good news is that, here in the US, the evidence of lying is mounting. All those spooks who supplied the intelligence are coming out and saying that Dubya deliberately misinterpreted it all. I'm sure there won't be any punishment, because he's the president, and they get away with anything, but at least it's known. And at least we can trash his reputation and his re-election chances (not a given, though, since this retarded two-party system might leave the retarded voters with a highly undesirable alternative from the Ass Party). So there are *some* consequences... as Nixon would attest, if he could.

Queex: I'm not really sure what military you are talking about, what the subject was for your television programs, or why you think military life is brutal. I can say from my own experiences in the US Navy that there once was an element of brutality, in the form of hazing. And over the last ten years or so, the command-level authorities have been dedicated to eradicating it. I found some of the hazing amusing (and I've got my Golden Shellback's card to prove it), but since some of it was clearly NOT cool, the entire military was compelled to adopt a zero-tolerance position on it. That process was fairly recent, though... probably beginning with the Tailhook scandal in the early 90's, and evolving from there.

Hi Blatherskite .

Yes but the information they fed us was all lies. Hardly the attitude you'd expect from a democracy is it.....well maybe .

I think if you had seen the footage we have been treated to over here in recent weeks you would realise that the scenes of cheering crowds and waving children were very carefully edited to give the good propaganda impression. The reality on the ground is that as much as many Iraqi's hated Saddam they trust us less. Our actions since our invasion haven't helped either, i.e. protecting the administrative centres of the Oil Industry, while down the street hospitals are being looted. This is in contravention of the responsibilities of an occupying force, but it does belie the real motivations of both our governments.

The news is now coming out here that in fact there probably weren't any WMD's at all, and certainly none that could be deployed in the famous '45 minutes'. Therefore our government's didn't have the legal basis for this pointless war at all and thousands of lives have been sacrificed for what? We're back to greed, power and self-interest again.

I would say of the draft-dodgers that as they weren't part of the professional army the army did not unvolunteer itself. From what little research I can find the majority of the deserters were from amongst the conscript troops, not the professionals. I do know of the fragging of officers etc. Again it was most prevalent amongst young conscript units where professional officers tried to maintain military discipline. Thus the Vietnam War cannot stand as an example of unvolunteering.

Professional forces do as they are told by their government even when the orders are practically suicidal or genocidal. How else can you justify the US Air Force's carpet bombing of civilian targets in the Vietnam War, or the continued use of US Special Forces in politically-motivated Black Op's missions. Before you think that I am Yankee-bashing, my government is no better (we just don't let people know about it - no Freedom of Information here).

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

"Queex: I'm not really sure what military you are talking about, what the subject was for your television programs, or why you think military life is brutal."

I was taking the British Army as typical for the armed forces of the first world, although maybe the generalisation was wrong. I was thinking in terms of the discipline. Documentaries (even those without a specific agenda) have shown brutal behaviour on the part of officers when it comes to disciplining troops. Then there's the usual officer trotting out the tired, tired old chestnut that they must learn respect their superiors and learn ot obey their orders. Respect for the chain of command may be good, major, but sadism is not the way to promote it. One of the agenda-based documentaries was about a military prison in Britain. Because of the archaic way military justice is operated, with no accountability for the officers concerned, soldiers could find themselves in the prison for nothing more than their commanding officer taking a dislike to them. And once in, there is no fixed term.

"I can say from my own experiences in the US Navy that there once was an element of brutality, in the form of hazing."

Seconded. It seems to be part of the culture of bravado that pervades things like the military and rugby teams. I don't have any problem with them as long as they are danger-free and entirely optional on the part of the participant. There isn't much of it about in the UK, probably less than in the States (am I right here?). I'd put it down to the lack of frat houses.

Again, sorry I haven't been able to chase up these replies before now. I am sure you will be glad that the "Albaus Quarterly Gazette" is only a pamphlet this time

>Albaus,

I believe that's 'toe the line' not 'tow the line'. sorry but I couldn't find anything else to disagree with.

F

No worries F, though I would have to say I believe that's "Sorry", not "sorry"

To return to Pattern Chaser, re your post:

>There is a recurring theme I'm starting to see here. I see words such as "delusions" or "imaginary" or "made-up" to describe the views of believers. I see all believers being assigned the worst features of religion: dogmatic, evangelistic. I see veiled personal insults. And so on.

As you have not mentioned me specifically nor mentioned anything I have said specifically I am not sure if you are referring to me here. If you were referring to my posts, perhaps you might like to point out what, particularly, upset you?

> On the contrary, mutual respect is the price we pay to be able to express our own beliefs loud and clear without offering offence.

Absolutely, I agree one hundred percent with respecting one's right to hold a differing belief. That does not mean respect for each belief though. I respect a person's right to believe that the earth is flat, but I won't be planning my holidays to Scotland around it. Although I may like and even respect a person, I do not therefore necessarily respect their beliefs - although I definitely respect their right to hold them and to state them.

>Finally, if you feel this post is unnecessary, say so ... with courtesy.

No, perhaps it was needed, and if you feel I was an offender, please enlighten me. This is an excellent forum and I would definitely like to keep it that way.

And on that note....

Regards

Albaus, thanks for the query. To be honest, I don't remember and don't care exactly who prompted me to write what I did.

I'm sure it's obvious that, in such a situation, the last thing you wish to do is to name the person(s) you're 'aiming' at, e.g. "Pattern-chaser is a total w***er, and should post with more courtesy." All that gets you is loads of abuse, and the user(s) concerned will be so offended that they won't take any notice at all of what you wrote. So you may as well have not bothered.



And so say all of us!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Queex: I had an opportunity to mingle with some Royal Navy blokes in the Persian Gulf. My impression of their discipline was quite the opposite, especially after they invited us to have Guinness with them at their ship's bar!

I can say that in the US military, there is quite a bit more accountability on the part of officers. To send any service member to jail would require a whole lot more than an officer not liking them. They have to prove their case in a court martial. Even non-judicial punishment (or NJP, the type a captain/colonel can give out) involves judicial procedures, and they can't give out prison. If a junior officer decides he dislikes a service member, that officer can make that member's life uncomfortable, but they can always appeal to a higher authority.

Even NJP can be appealed to the general/admiral.

I'm not exactly military material, having an independent streak a mile wide. I used to annoy senior enlisted and officers (but not the captain or XO, I'm not suicidal) on a regular basis, and I never got stuck with anything worse than a couple hours' worth of extra duty when everyone else was off. And that only happened a couple of times in six years. My immediate supervisors were tolerant of (and often, overtly or covertly, amused by) my attitude because I did my job very well.

So I don't see barbarism in the US military in that regard. I can't speak for the UK, though.

In fact, there's a couple areas where they've gone over the top in protecting rights. One in particular is in boot camp. One of the purposes of boot is to put you through sleep deprivation and a high-stress environment, because it gives the service member confidence that when it's for real, they can handle it (and weeds out those few who can't). Only now, recruits in the navy have a "stress card" that they can pull out whenever their company commander (or whatever they're called nowadays) is yelling at them too much, and they can't handle it. The CC is supposed to stop whenever that happens.

How sissified is that? Though I understand peer pressure keeps them in the pockets, and I also understand that the CC's reserve a special form of hell for those who misuse them. But I only speak from hearsay... they didn't have these things when I went through.

Very silly. Boot camp was designed to train people to be able to cope with being in the middle of a war zone. Being able to tone it down if you're too stressed doesn't give a realistic simulation (not that anything really can, but some things are going to be closer than others I would imagine).

Certainly you should be able to back out of the whole thing if it's way too much for you, but that should mean you have to restart it at some later date, IMO.

I couldn't do it though.

Albaus,

>...............................................
>Albaus,

I believe that's 'toe the line' not 'tow the line'. sorry but I couldn't find anything else to disagree with.

F

No worries F, though I would have to say I believe that's "Sorry", not "sorry"
................................................. <





F

" I had an opportunity to mingle with some Royal Navy blokes in the Persian Gulf. My impression of their discipline was quite the opposite, especially after they invited us to have Guinness with them at their ship's bar!"

Maybe it varies with the force you're on. I imagine the more technical branches of the military (such as the air force and the navy) are a different kettle of fish to the army. I suppose there must be a great deal of variation between regiments, too. I guess there's always going to be _some_ places where superiors abuse their position. I think the problem is maybe not so much how frequently this happens as the organisation's reluctance to stop it when it does.

"Only now, recruits in the navy have a "stress card" that they can pull out whenever their company commander (or whatever they're called nowadays) is yelling at them too much, and they can't handle it."

Sounds grim.

Mind you, I've always thought the 'put the recruits through hell' school of battle preparation isn't possibly the best method. After all, you'll never get the real panic of battle in training. I would have thought priming recruits so that their analysis-action loop is so deeply ingrained that it remain even in battle might be a better approach. After all, if you want to cure someone of stage fright you don't make them as nervous as possible in rehearsal. You make their role second nature so even if they lock up on stage it's their pre-programmed response.

Looking at what I've heard about the military, it does seem to conform to the 'lions led by jackasses' pattern. High command (at least in the British armed forces) seems to have succumbed to the same attitude as the Catholic Church when it knew about its paedophile priests; we know what they're doing is wrong, but they're good men at heart and they do a good job so we won't do anything.

I guess there's one article in the UK papers a month about someone in the armed forces leaving due to discrimination/abuse and winning a court case. Plus those dodgy 'suicide' verdicts and whatnot.

There seems to be an absolute lack of accountability at the top levels of the military, fueled by the anachronistic belief that the military is the most important part of the country.

Ok, time to get off my pacifist fencepost.

Armies without discipline lose wars. Discipline does not mean punishment but a strongly-adhered to way of working. Discipline does not have to be brutal but is has to be unflinching and unremitting.

The reason new recruits are put through 'hell', is not to toughen them up for combat, or to get them to work as automata, but to weed out those who are unsuitable for the stress of the life of a soldier, sailor or airman. It takes total commitment to get through the training as a recruit. Single-minded determination and strength of character.

Once you have shown this you are then taught to think independently, you are taught all the useful skills and how to handle yourself in stressful conditions.

This is what I was taught in my NCO training. If we let people through that do not have this strength of character and focus, if we let up for an instant and replace stern discipline with compassion then we are risking the lives of all the 'weaker' recruit's future comrades. The time for compassion comes later, once selection is complete. Then you build up the empathy needed to lead a man or woman through the lessons that will save their lives and those of others.

The "stress card" is the invention of bl**dy psychoanalysts and marketing men. It will endanger lives on the battlefield as recruits who don't have the right make-up get through to fighting units and ships.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think recruits who fail basic training are in some way stupid, useless or cowardly. Many will undoubtedly go on to lead successful lives and careers in other walks of life. They are just not suitable for the military.

Far from reducing bullying or hazing, the stress card will increase it. Would you put your lives in the hands of a man or woman who everytime the going gets rough holds up a card? These people will be ostracised, teased unmercifully and eventually forced out of the line units and ships they move onto.

Bullying and hazing are wrong. In units where the CO is against it, and the NCO's are well-trained and motivated, it doesn't exist. But martinets do still exist in all arms and levels of the services. We need to concentrate on identifying and removing them, not on threatening necessary and life-saving military discipline.

Strangely at the same time as they introduce this ridiculous improvement they are slowly losing the only independant counselling service the armed forces have - the Chaplain. Many men and women who have found it difficult to cope have turned to the Chaplains. Not for religious succour, but intelligent and impartial advice.

It is all political correctness, psychobabble and the 'right to sue' movement gone quite mad.

Blessings,
Col.Matholwch /|\.

I have always thought that 'boot camp' existed to tear out the last bit of individuality a person felt so that they would become part of a 'UNIT' and not consider themselves important in any personal way.

I suppose this is 'necessary' in terms of applying discipline when the person involved might still feel like a human being who actually does not want to kill or otherwise commit various atrocities.

As they say - War is Hell.

az

Interesting how this, IMO, is the general view, while Matholwch's perspective is either denigrated, little known or misunderstood. I suppose this shows just how far the cult of the individual has taken control of our minds and hearts. I'll stop here, just before breaking into my sermon about the duties and responsibilities of citizens....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

What? I'm not being original???!

Well, never mind. Shall just go and soak my head.

Carry on lads . . . as you were!

az

It could be a combination of the two of course...

Well, yes, I think that Math's perspective is the ideal situation.

My perspective mostly comes from American movies.

So more than likely there is something in between that reflects the reality of the situation.

Still, the head soaking wasn't a bad idea since it's about 35º today. Was quite refreshing . . .

az

Queex: "I guess there's always going to be _some_ places where superiors abuse their position." - Not some places... these guys exist everywhere. The difference is in how much accountability they face themselves. They can only get away with so much abuse.

A lot of people join the armed forces because they want to boss people around, and want power. I call this Lunch Money Syndrome... these guys were the nerds who had their lunch money taken away every morning at school, and now they're getting even. The officer class (particularly academy grads) and the non-technical job fields are rife with them. I've found that in each situation where I've been confronted with a Lunch Money boss, there was someone both above and below that person in the chain of command that blunted their effect on the people at my level.

********

On the subject of individualism and the military... well, the US Army's newest advertising campaign slogan is "An army of one." When I was in boot camp, I did something to annoy my CC on the first day. He proceeded to push my buttons for the next two or three weeks, until one day I looked him in the eye and all but told him to go f**k himself (I did stop short of that... I wasn't suicidal then, either), after which he left me alone to finish my training. I got the distinct impression that he'd been waiting all along for me to do that.

That leads me to the conclusion that individualism and an ability to stand up to authority is something they're trying to teach in boot camp. Don't ask me why, though. I never pushed boots, and they never talked about that part of the training.

I can tell you for a fact that anyone on a ship needs to be able to think and act independently. You never know when you'll be the only one there to make that first crucial reaction to an emergency... and that includes peacetime... fires and flooding can happen without anyone firing a shot. And even in the daily tasks, the officers and senior enlisted often don't know enough about what the junior enlisted are doing to offer anything more than general guidance. Jobs are just too highly specialized, and the superiors haven't got the time to learn the new systems and equipment. The particulars of how to solve a problem are left to the tech.

Name:Inverted Solipsist (U234848)

Chair title:Head of the Department of Inverted and Exterior Solipsism

Any beliefs you'd like to list so we can make fun- er... discuss them:

You should have a lot of fun with this one--I believe that I don't exist.

Out of respect for your beliefs, I shall not extend a welcome to the FFFF forum. Not that anyone new has joined us, of course. ... So I've no need to respect the views of someone who isn't here. ... So, er, welcome anyway, whoever you are(n't).

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Shouldn't it be "out of respect for my lack of beliefs"?

After all, I can't believe something if I don't exist.

And, after argueing with Uncle Heavy about the subject, I am starting to doubt your existence.

Me too!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"