"Senate Bill (97-3) passed to remove Bill of Rights when war is on U.S. Soil."

[Smartass]

Right, and that isn't the case.  We piss away money on the military budget, but spending money on domestic things like education and health care?  Nope.

I agree with you in some parts (and I say that loosely). The United States spent the most on their military compared to every other country; and there were many things that they could have done differently. I'm not going to be judgemental of my superiors because it's not my place and I honor the rank system within the military; but one thing that I don't like... is how we have someone as the "top dog" leading us when he has absolutely no military experience, whatsoever. I'm a firm believer that in order to lead something, you must first go through with it and experience it.

[pikachu]

Some how this didn't show up on recent threads.

The military works for the people.  It was designed that way on purpose.  We, as civilians, are your "bosses."  I would much rather have a real leader running our country and military than someone who "honors the rank system."  I fundamentally oppose systems that require blind obedience.

[Smartass]

Some how this didn't show up on recent threads.

The military works for the people.  It was designed that way on purpose.  We, as civilians, are your "bosses."  I would much rather have a real leader running our country and military than someone who "honors the rank system."  I fundamentally oppose systems that require blind obedience.

So you want a leader with no military intelligence to run your country in the time of war? That's blasphemy. In a world built around technology, I would bet that in the future the people of our great nation are going to realize that a leader with a military background and common sense is more valuable than a leader with common sense and no military experience at all.

As for "honoring the rank system," every individual in the military abides by it and honors it; the government as well. Every leader knows that in every organization there is a rank structure, a foundation; ie: employees, managers, etc etc. If you appoint a leader who has no concern for that, then I honestly wouldn't see much change come from that person and he/she shouldn't be in a leadership position in the first place.

It's not "blind obedience," it's structured obedience. Loyalty, if you want to call it that.

[Judor]

Some how this didn't show up on recent threads.

The military works for the people.  It was designed that way on purpose.  We, as civilians, are your "bosses."  I would much rather have a real leader running our country and military than someone who "honors the rank system."  I fundamentally oppose systems that require blind obedience.

So you want a leader with no military intelligence to run your country in the time of war? That's blasphemy. In a world built around technology, I would bet that in the future the people of our great nation are going to realize that a leader with a military background and common sense is more valuable than a leader with common sense and no military experience at all.

As for "honoring the rank system," every individual in the military abides by it and honors it; the government as well. Every leader knows that in every organization there is a rank structure, a foundation; ie: employees, managers, etc etc. If you appoint a leader who has no concern for that, then I honestly wouldn't see much change come from that person and he/she shouldn't be in a leadership position in the first place.

It's not "blind obedience," it's structured obedience. Loyalty, if you want to call it that.

You mean discipline?

[Smartass]

That could apply too. I used loyalty because if you have dedication to something and/or a purpose to live for (ie: goal), then you would be loyal to those who are in charge of you and those who are below you, too, to ensure that equality is spread thoroughly and ensure that it is accomplished. Discipline just makes someone feel obligated to do what their told, no questions asked, and to do what your told. But that shouldn't be how an organization is run; the "Do as I say" and not "Do as I do" concept. I, for one, despise that type of leadership.

[pikachu]

I think you're missing the point.  Someone who has been obedient their entire life, and rises to the top, will have the same ingrained set of values.  No change will come from that.  I'll give you an example.  You know how they recently overturned don't-ask-don't-tell?  That would never have happened if you had some meat head fundamentalist who believes that's the right thing because it's been forced down his throat his entire life leading.

Do you think George W. Bush would have supported that?  Fuck no.  Your argument is basically that someone who has loyalty will be a good leader for change.  That makes no sense because they have loyalty to the thing we need to change.  Your logic is weak, son.

[Smartass]

Lol, pianka, at times you're almost impossible to argue with. :p I'll agree with you on this one.

pianka: 1
Smartass: 0

[pikachu]

and that's lunch!

[Smartass]

Haha, I'll buy next time.

[Judor]

I think the fucking world just ended.

[Myst]

loyalty to country <> loyalty to political beliefs.   In the Army our creed is,
"I am an American Soldier, I serve the people of the United States and live the Army values...[cont]"
Loyalty is not blind obedience.  We are loyal to our country, our people.  That's what loyalty is.  Loyalty isn't following orders, its not about being obedient.  It's about the allegiance we have to our country, the underlying values of it as a whole and the people in it & To the battle buddies to your left and right. And when one says country, it's not about the political beliefs of the current party in power or the ideological nature of the current government.  It's about the actual people, the actual communities , that you are apart of.
You may think that all these soldiers overseas are part of the ideology of these politicking parties.  Well that's not the case.   
It's easy to type stuff on bnetweb about all this, when you never experienced any of it or know the players involved. It becomes just monday quarterbacking.
I've been around and part of the military for 7 years now and this new generation of soldiers are not nazi blind obedient.  The rank system isn't blind obedience, soldiers are more educated than they ever were before, and there are checks and balances in place within a troop/platoon/company/battalion, etc.  There's always an avenue of sanctum, if there ever need be. And that's a case by case basis that is prevalent in all work forces and other branches of everyday life.
This idea of civilians being the "boss" of military, no, everyone is paying taxes, down to the fuckin soldier who you think you're a boss of.  Taxes go into a multitude of various avenues, not solely a soldiers salary.  That;s like saying you're the boss of the fucking dipshit fuckhead in prison serving 10years, just because you pay taxes that go into the maintenance of the prison system.   No, being a Boss means you have influence over them, you have a direct say in what they do and what happens to them.
So quit being a monday quarterback.
No matter how arrogant or ignorant you are, I, a soldier, and the rest of my brother and sister in arms, will still protect you and give our lives for you.

I could go on but I got beer to drink

-1LT Myst

[Loud]

It's important we spent billions fighting an enemy that can barely muster millions to combat us.

What if we matched their (Al Queda) military spending, and put the rest toward education?

[Smartass]

What if we matched their (Al Queda) military spending, and put the rest toward education?

We'll have a nation filled of piankas.

[pikachu]

We'll have a nation filled of piankas.

Pfft, I'm one of a kind.

[Crisis]

[7:06:46 PM] x0.pianka#2 joined using Diablo II (Open character) with a latency of 15ms