- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Generally Speaking, In all Contexts...
Posted by Rob Clarke Regular Army Clown???? from Orleans ON Canada on April 19, 1999 at 21:44:17:
In Reply to: Re: "Holier-than-thou, no-one-loves-the-military-more-than-me bull" posted by Ken Newans on April 19, 1999 at 20:22:23:
Thanks for providing some interesting opinions about my last post. Do you agree or disagree with a military that follows the rules it imposes on its members? Keep Somalia in mind when you answer. It is my opinion that it was the leaders who expounded your generalized "theory" on the enforcement of rules that lead to this folly. Please note that in most cases these fellows were "Regular Army Clowns" who did not enforce the necessary discipline. It started with the smallest of things and grew out of control. Are you advocating a repeat of this or similar incidents?
What part of military discipline do you find so useless? Do you pick and choose your favourite parts?
Do you switch discipline off and on to suit your fancy? What kind of military do you have in mind?
If you were a leader in the military, would you pass a fault? Would you forgive someone who returned late from leave, or spoke a racial slur, or conducted a hazing ritual? Would you cover up for a soldier who does drugs or has a drinking problem in civie life? How about a soldier who did not get his hair cut for parade? Would you ignore any of these problems, or would you exercise at least a degree of leadership and sort these problems out? Ignoring the problem is not an option.
Your pro-British stand is interesting as well. In your extreme "logic" you suggest that Gen Montgomery knew all the first names of all of the men under his command. Talk about general statements...pun intended. You are saying that this is what separated the good from the bad generals. Im looking forward to an explanation of the theory behind that statement. Jules, you can have this one.
As for the Canadian generals not using their first names, where did you get this rather interesting piece of news? Did you know some of these generals to whom you so loosely refer? Please let me know their names just in case I may know of one or two and I will ask them their opinion on this issue. Yes, there are still some around.
As for your statement "Referring to him in passing with his full rank, appointment, and decorations is plain moronic." I can‘t agree with you more on that point, his rank and name should do. By the way, thanks for supporting my argument.
There is one odd thing I noticed in this string when you consider that some contributors use their rank when they post messages to this site, you would think that the use of rank would be important to them.
You may have guessed by this point that I don‘t support your vision of a "pick and choose" type of military discipline. It just does not work. It takes leadership in all of its iterations to instill that sense of undying discipline that will enable a soldier to perform his or her duty in all weather conditions and all situations.
Do you want a challege Ken? Provide an example of a successful professional organization where it is acceptable to ignore problems.
Posted by Rob Clarke Regular Army Clown???? from Orleans ON Canada on April 19, 1999 at 21:44:17:
In Reply to: Re: "Holier-than-thou, no-one-loves-the-military-more-than-me bull" posted by Ken Newans on April 19, 1999 at 20:22:23:
Thanks for providing some interesting opinions about my last post. Do you agree or disagree with a military that follows the rules it imposes on its members? Keep Somalia in mind when you answer. It is my opinion that it was the leaders who expounded your generalized "theory" on the enforcement of rules that lead to this folly. Please note that in most cases these fellows were "Regular Army Clowns" who did not enforce the necessary discipline. It started with the smallest of things and grew out of control. Are you advocating a repeat of this or similar incidents?
What part of military discipline do you find so useless? Do you pick and choose your favourite parts?
Do you switch discipline off and on to suit your fancy? What kind of military do you have in mind?
If you were a leader in the military, would you pass a fault? Would you forgive someone who returned late from leave, or spoke a racial slur, or conducted a hazing ritual? Would you cover up for a soldier who does drugs or has a drinking problem in civie life? How about a soldier who did not get his hair cut for parade? Would you ignore any of these problems, or would you exercise at least a degree of leadership and sort these problems out? Ignoring the problem is not an option.
Your pro-British stand is interesting as well. In your extreme "logic" you suggest that Gen Montgomery knew all the first names of all of the men under his command. Talk about general statements...pun intended. You are saying that this is what separated the good from the bad generals. Im looking forward to an explanation of the theory behind that statement. Jules, you can have this one.
As for the Canadian generals not using their first names, where did you get this rather interesting piece of news? Did you know some of these generals to whom you so loosely refer? Please let me know their names just in case I may know of one or two and I will ask them their opinion on this issue. Yes, there are still some around.
As for your statement "Referring to him in passing with his full rank, appointment, and decorations is plain moronic." I can‘t agree with you more on that point, his rank and name should do. By the way, thanks for supporting my argument.
There is one odd thing I noticed in this string when you consider that some contributors use their rank when they post messages to this site, you would think that the use of rank would be important to them.
You may have guessed by this point that I don‘t support your vision of a "pick and choose" type of military discipline. It just does not work. It takes leadership in all of its iterations to instill that sense of undying discipline that will enable a soldier to perform his or her duty in all weather conditions and all situations.
Do you want a challege Ken? Provide an example of a successful professional organization where it is acceptable to ignore problems.
