Nice safe world we live in...

[BoarSpear]

. Guess in some cases you just have to take it square on the chin and in the balls if you wan't to keep your honor...

Honor is the only thing no one else can take from you, you have to make the decision to give it up.

[BoarSpear]

You're right there, Boar. And I agree, but damn its hard to disagree with management.

In the field the indians outnumber the chiefs by a LOOOOONG shot, "management" isn't that tough to deal with, they're terrified of the spotlight over sensitive issues, it might hurt their promotion chances, never mind their life expectancy.

Have you read One Bullet Away by Nathaniel Fick. Great book. Very pro-military, but there's a good hint of realism in it as well.

Fick indirectly mentions that he was given instructions that may or may not have held up in the fog of war, causing him to have to make critical decisions.

He's not specific, but he touches the topic.

I'd rather here what's right from an old-timer whose been through and is hella more experienced.

I havent read it, but "unclear" orders are a common tactic to allow those who want to be promoted to declare they never said do that...unless of course it worked out well and they might get a Medal or promotion.

Thats why a clear moral compass and knowing why you're in the fight is important to the troops...when your Leaders cheat lie and steal from the safety of an air conditioned office how the hell can they expect you to behave honorably in combat?

[Tom Yum]

In the field the indians outnumber the chiefs by a LOOOOONG shot, "management" isn't that tough to deal with, they're terrified of the spotlight over sensitive issues, it might hurt their promotion chances, never mind their life expectancy.

I'm either looking at becoming the lowest chief possible or a special Indian...we'll see.

I havent read it, but "unclear" orders are a common tactic to allow those who want to be promoted to declare they never said do that...unless of course it worked out well and they might get a Medal or promotion.

Thats why a clear moral compass and knowing why you're in the fight is important to the troops...when your Leaders cheat lie and steal from the safety of an air conditioned office how the hell can they expect you to behave honorably in combat?

Ductus exemplo.

[BoarSpear]

I'm either looking at becoming the lowest chief possible or a special Indian...we'll see.




Ductus exemplo.

HEY! Knock that shit off, I barely manage English...just ask Jubaji.

All jokes aside, Exactly.

I think the USMC REALLY IS looking for men like you. One of the things that really shines is that the Marines allow the men to make decisions on the fly in the field at the squad level. Most branches have too many chiefs weighing their career in every option you request (which wastes time.)

This is why a GOOD squad leader shouldn't have these behaviors nor should they exist at ALL in his squad...nothing happens the team leader isnt aware of.

If you look out for your men and lead from the front they'll follow you to hell cheering all the way...If you won't go the hard route, why should they?

In simple terms the men WANT to look up to the team leader as well as need to if the unit is going to be combat effective and keep their own casualties down. The unit almost develops a pack mentality if the alpha makes it clear certain behaviors wont be tolerated (and he is respected) they wont exist in that unit. This giving responsibility seems to pay off in people performing well since you allow them to do what you trained them to, and it keeps the bullshit down since people are clearly responsible at even very small levels.

For example I got drunk in a bar with my skipper and went out picking up chicks...neither one of us was aware of the others identity until the next day...he'd been my skipper for 3 years...some commands haven't much control or awareness of their troops movements (he didnt even know the unit was in town).

[Tom Yum]

HEY! Knock that shit off, I barely manage English...just ask Jubaji.

All jokes aside, Exactly.

I think the USMC REALLY IS looking for men like you. One of the things that really shines is that the Marines allow the men to make decisions on the fly in the field at the squad level. Most branches have too many chiefs weighing their career in every option you request (which wastes time.)

I admire the hell out of the USMC.

A couple of the guys who lead our SEAL pt group were recon and boy they were some tough, hard and motivated fellas and our workouts followed likewise; the mud, the telephone poles, the sandpits. The SEAL guys were different; they gave us the "silent killer" workouts...lol.

The only thing putting a damper on it is money for paying off school loans (its not a copout) I'd like to be able to pay them off through service, ideally coming in as an officer. I don't think they offer this to officers, though.

I am very interested in the Marines chain of command like you've mentioned. There's nothing more rewarding than working in a small group of tightly knit fellas. Plus you can't find anything like espirit de corps brotherhood in the large conventional army, that's a battle-ready mindset that I've been told is lacking in large army from friends who enlisted. Looked at the ground intel officer MOS...leading SS platoons at least from this vantage point sounds like a bad ass job!

What I like about the army is that its well funded and has alot of different jobs; they might be able to help me pay off school loans. On top of that, their equipment, as I've been told, is updated and maintained more so than the USMC. I'm a natural at picking up foreign languages (but haven't taken the DOD language test) - still, I've picked up languages wherever I've travelled and am comfortable learning by mistake and immersion. I love teaching people, but might be a little too old for some of the Ranger stuff. This is where the SF comes in...but I know that there's hell to be paid to get in, even more so than the already balls to the wall USMC.

A ranger once told me that Marines and Rangers are made of solid iron; they're some of the hardest mofos in the valley - but the green berets and SEALs are made of something unearthly...

[Uke]

i don't follow that last statement, what's the imaginary line?

The imaginary line is the line you cross once you begin discussing how you'd deal with police brutality. Police in America have a looooong history of racism, bias and disregard for human safety. In almost every instance where a group has openly challenged police brutality we've seen what happened to them. From protesters in that vid link, to Dr King's peaceful non-violent protests.

How would you deal with police brutality, The_Judo_Jibboo? I am interested in hearing what you would do if a bunch of cops were beating up your wife with baton because she looked like someone they were looking for? What would you do if it were your son being stunned for simply protesting the war? I'm guessing that there would be a lot of things you would want to do, but what would you actually do? Most people won't speak about it, but in their minds and hearts they privately believe that they would take action.

Hence the line that most won't openly cross.

[SamuraiGuy]

I think the USMC REALLY IS looking for men like you. One of the things that really shines is that the Marines allow the men to make decisions on the fly in the field at the squad level. Most branches have too many chiefs weighing their career in every option you request (which wastes time.)

This is why a GOOD squad leader shouldn't have these behaviors nor should they exist at ALL in his squad...nothing happens the team leader isnt aware of.

If you look out for your men and lead from the front they'll follow you to hell cheering all the way...If you won't go the hard route, why should they?

In simple terms the men WANT to look up to the team leader as well as need to if the unit is going to be combat effective and keep their own casualties down. The unit almost develops a pack mentality if the alpha makes it clear certain behaviors wont be tolerated (and he is respected) they wont exist in that unit. This giving responsibility seems to pay off in people performing well since you allow them to do what you trained them to, and it keeps the bullshit down since people are clearly responsible at even very small levels.

.

Unit, Core, God, Country?

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

How would you deal with police brutality, The_Judo_Jibboo? I am interested in hearing what you would do if a bunch of cops were beating up your wife with baton because she looked like someone they were looking for? What would you do if it were your son being stunned for simply protesting the war? I'm guessing that there would be a lot of things you would want to do, but what would you actually do? Most people won't speak about it, but in their minds and hearts they privately believe that they would take action.

Hence the line that most won't openly cross.

if cops were beating my wife, son, or anyone else i owed those personal debts of love and loyalty to i would do my very best to take the lives of those officers on the spot. If it were happening to a stranger, i am not sure my fury would outweigh my fear in the same way, but i hope it would.

[Uke]

if cops were beating my wife, son, or anyone else i owed those personal debts of love and loyalty to i would do my very best to take the lives of those officers on the spot. If it were happening to a stranger, i am not sure my fury would outweigh my fear in the same way, but i hope it would.

Well, you my friend, have articulated a truth that many would not on most forums. I respect your candor. You'd be surprised at how different other people's answers might be.

[gregimotis]

if cops were beating my wife, son, or anyone else i owed those personal debts of love and loyalty to i would do my very best to take the lives of those officers on the spot. If it were happening to a stranger, i am not sure my fury would outweigh my fear in the same way, but i hope it would.

And then, the cops would kill you. Which is not to say that you're action would be wrong, it's just a fact.



This is another invisible line: In legal reality, the cops are justified beating your (hypothetical) wife until proven otherwise in court - In legal reality, if you jump to your wife's defense, the cops are justified in shooting you regardless of why they are assaulting your wife.
1)The cops attacked an unarmed woman, this may or may not be illegal.
2) You assaulted police officers with intent to kill, this is justification of deadly force on their part, de facto.
3)The two issues are separate and would be tried separately - evidence from the first may or may not be allowed in the second - in fact the second trial may never take place at all since the cops acted in self defense (you did assault them, after all).


Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet a dollar that's how a case like that would shake out in the real world.

[gregimotis]

Waco Texas:

Police have a warrant to arrest the leader of the Branch Dividians, who they believe are stockpiling weapons. Three options:

1) arrest him in town where he regularly is seen.
2) Go up to the compound and knock on the door, serve warrant
3) Crash the compound gate, Fire weapons into the buildings where women and children reside, while shouting demands over loudspeakers.



Police take option three, several agents and several davidians are killed in the firefight, a few weeks later everyone in the compound is dead. Here is the wikipedia sum-up:

"The government's siege on the Branch Davidians ended April 19 when the complex was completely consumed by fire ...killing seventy-six Davidians,..."

"The government conducted an investigation of itself, launching a special inquiry before the Danforth Committee, and during official testimony the FBI denied the use of, or even access to, pyrotechnic devices of any kind. The Danforth Committee issued a report concluding that the fire was started on the inside by Davidians. However, in 1999 the FBI was forced to admit that the testimony they gave before the Danforth Committee was false. The FBI now admits to using Flite-Rite pyrotechnic grenades on the day of the fire...no new government inquiries have been conducted.

The government put some of the survivors on trial ( gregi's note, said survivors had left compound before the fire). All were acquitted of conspiring to murder federal agents but some were convicted of aiding and abetting voluntary manslaughter."



Conclusion: If the cops shoot at you and you shoot back, the cops may or may not be guilty of something, but you are absolutely guilty regardless. Self defense is only going to apply one-way.

[gregimotis]

Post number three:


Sorry to Boar and Tom Yum, who are having a separate, but equally interesting discussion on this thread.

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

And then, the cops would kill you. Which is not to say that you're action would be wrong, it's just a fact.



This is another invisible line: In legal reality, the cops are justified beating your (hypothetical) wife until proven otherwise in court - In legal reality, if you jump to your wife's defense, the cops are justified in shooting you regardless of why they are assaulting your wife.
1)The cops attacked an unarmed woman, this may or may not be illegal.
2) You assaulted police officers with intent to kill, this is justification of deadly force on their part, de facto.
3)The two issues are separate and would be tried separately - evidence from the first may or may not be allowed in the second - in fact the second trial may never take place at all since the cops acted in self defense (you did assault them, after all).


Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet a dollar that's how a case like that would shake out in the real world.

yes, i realize this, which is why i said i would do my best. but the laws instituted by a government have nothing to do with what is right, good, fair, honorable etc. they are to keep order. often, these goals are in line with each other e.g. it is illegal to steal. stealing is wrong, but let there be no doubt in your mind, the government couldn't give a crap if it is wrong or right. at the core of it, stealing is illegal because if not, there would be chaos.
consideration for the law has absolutely zero place in the making of moral judgements.

[gregimotis]

...the government couldn't give a crap if it is wrong or right. at the core of it, stealing is illegal because if not, there would be chaos.
Consideration for the law has absolutely zero place in the making of moral judgments.

True and well said.

[Tom Yum]

And then, the cops would kill you. Which is not to say that you're action would be wrong, it's just a fact.

This is another invisible line: In legal reality, the cops are justified beating your (hypothetical) wife until proven otherwise in court - In legal reality, if you jump to your wife's defense, the cops are justified in shooting you regardless of why they are assaulting your wife.
1)The cops attacked an unarmed woman, this may or may not be illegal.
2) You assaulted police officers with intent to kill, this is justification of deadly force on their part, de facto.
3)The two issues are separate and would be tried separately - evidence from the first may or may not be allowed in the second - in fact the second trial may never take place at all since the cops acted in self defense (you did assault them, after all).


Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet a dollar that's how a case like that would shake out in the real world.

Sounds like you've been hanging out in the law discussion forums...lol.

So you want to know how a case would shake out in the real world? Good lord I never watch the real world...I hate reality tv