Apolyton Military Rollcall....

[Mao]

Oh, and why're they called "dress blues"? The Air Force one which I have I can understand (it's obviously blue) but the navy, army, and corps?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Good for you... 'Cause you are going to meet a very unsecure future. I guess there will be some huge wars down there in the future, so I guess it's your job to make sure peace will last as long as possible? Please don't follow orders if they involve killing people. It's been done before you know.

1. If such orders ever come I will follow them. That's what the army is for. Killing enemies. Enemies are people too.

2. I won't follow inherently illegal orders.

3. It won't be my job to kill people.

4. I wil probably end up on the end giving the orders, or more correctly, the one recommending / aiding another person whose authority it is to give such orders.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Mao
Oh, and why're they called "dress blues"? The Air Force one which I have I can understand (it's obviously blue) but the navy, army, and corps?

hi ,

there is an official heritage site from the armed forces ( US ) , enjoy > http://www.armyheritage.org/

> http://www.armyppt.com/index.html

> http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/...ic02/army.html

> http://www.defenselink.mil

have a nice day

[TCO]

Originally posted by Joseph
Only if the O-1 is really stupid, or the E-9 is a jerk.
In the Navy or other branches, an 0-1 is a second Lt. or Ensign and is just out of school or OCS and has really no experience. On the other hand, the E-9 is Master Chief Petty Officer/Chief Master Sarg., with about 15 or more years in before he/she can make E-9. I think you can make E-9 in the Army in less time. Someone correct me on the Army, Air Force, Marines.

Agreed. There is a lot of value to experience. But the O-1 learns fast in the fleet. When he is an O3 he gets pretty salty in my experience. Also, at least in the navy there can be some interesting speciallizations. The cheif may have a lto better handle on maintenance especially wrt a specific system, whereas the officer may have a better handle on tactical implications. I had a CO who made each junior officer report on maintenance issues with his cheif. They both learned a little of each other's world that way and the CO got the benefit of both viewpoints.

Also, even if you are an inexperienced officer, you still have to use your judgement. THere may be times when you have to tell the E7 (really unlikely that you will have an E9 under you) to do something he disagrees with. Gotta use your judgement and have some balls as well as respect. Remember if things go wrong when you do cut a corner that the E7 wanted you to, "The E7 told me to do it" is not gonnna wash.

[TCO]

Originally posted by TheStinger
I htink it would take a brave 2nd Lt to contradict his staff sergeant.

The ideal situation is to have a top-notch platoon sergeant and be able to learn from him. The new officer picks up what he needs to know and the platoon sergeant helps train him. But in the end, if you are that officer, you are still responsible for the platoon. If you have a poor platoon sergeant or one who doesn't want to do things or what have you, you are going to have to deal with the situation.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Dissident
prototype?

the former ship Daniel Webster SSBN 626. That's an S5W reactor. Nice and obsolete

After my time. I went to Idaho.

[Panag]

hi ,

SOF Mythology

The 5 Scariest Things in the Army!

1. A Private saying, "I learned this in basic training..."
2. A Sergeant saying, "Trust me, sir..."
3. A Second Lieutenant saying, "Based on my experience..."
4. A Captain saying, "I was just thinking..."
5. And a Warrant Officer chuckling, "Watch this $%!#..."

this is what it sometimes comes to , .....

have a nice day

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Well Che, you didn't respond. Maybe you're busy. But I started thinking about this and came up with some interesting examples to show that the military does not turn people into one type of personality.

The interesting thing about looking at this question is that it explores why people think differently and it can help us understand how people behave. The caveat being that this is not an expert analysis.

But I'll propose the hypothesis that the way people express themselves on Poly is linked to the jobs they do and their academic training.

For this analysis I'll use three people: mtg, gp and myself. Now I'll include myself because I come from a very different part of the military than mtg and gp. By no means am I suggesting that I'm even close to their expertise. They are professionals with proven backgrounds. I was an amatuer.

Mtg was a combat soldier. That means he was trained to achieve objectives in an unknown environment. If he was told to take and control a town, he would have limited information about the environment. He doesn't know if a group of enemy soldiers is in the woods or a building. The situation is always changing because both sides are moving about. Add to this the fact that he has seconds to analyze the situation and to make the correct decision.

GP was, if I remember correctly, an officer on a sub in charge of nuclear reactors. He was dealing with a known, but highly complex environment. He needs a different type of intelligence, an intelligence that can understand complex systems. By contrast, mtg is dealing with fairly basic technology. He doesn't need to know the technology that will deliver a bomb from an aircraft exactly where he wants it. He just wants the bomb on target.


GP also deals with different problems than mtg. GP starts with a given situation and must ensure that the system remains at an optimal point.

As for myself, I was a part-time military instructor. My job involved teaching people information. I need to understand how people think and how they learn. And I deal only with thought process which is completely different from gp and mtg. They deal with the physical world, although they also have to understand leadership and that involves understanding how people think, behave and react. Again, they know how to do things that I cannot imagine.

Now take these different backgrounds and look at how each of us behave.

MTG left the military and eventually became an entrepreneur. That perfectly suited to his military experience and the way he approaches problems. As a businessman, he is dealing with unknown environments where he applies techniques that should achieve a desired outcome.

Gp earned a Phd in chemistry. Again, this is a natural. His military training involved understanding complex equations and concepts.

I'm a journalist which ties in with being a military instructor because both jobs involve communication and knowing what needs to be said so that people will understand what I want to communicate.

The three of us have different personalities and these personalities can be seen on Poly.

Mtg tends to only post messages where he will be correct. In a broad sense, his goal is to win the battle and he won't fight a battle that he knows he might lose.

Gp tends to post messages on academic level, except when he is drunk, and he tends to prefer talking with people who understand the complex concepts that he know (at least on poly, on CG he's more easy going). He's looking for an intellectual challange on what he knows and few of us can challenge him because we don't have the necessary background information.

I'm argumentative and I'll go on for ages trying to get people to understand my point. Just like a teacher, and just like a teacher I'll keep arguing even if I'm wrong.

So, three people all with military training, all with different personalities and all with different approaches to life.

Now the thing that could be interesting, to anyone who has read this incredibly long post, is to look at the ex-military Poly posters, look at what they did in the military and then see if that matches or explains how they post on Poly.

1. This was a very well-done analysis. You have a good ability to look at people. eVen though, you are wrong whenever we disagree on politics. (just teasing.) Seriously, kudos.

2. I do kinda look for a challenge and really want to learn things and understand things new. Lots of times, I don't have anywhere near the background to understand something (plus I'm lazy) so I appreicate getting lessons from people like MTG or Roland (when he is not beingt a biatch) or the like on a a specific subject. So just cause I'm attacking something like a bulldong doesn't mean I set myself up as knowing that much about it. I just want to push for insight. Oh and Frogger can kick my ass. That is one smart mofo. I'm not as bright as Ramo or the like. But age/experience helps some in keeping up with discussions, too...

3. I suspect that the differences amongst MTG, you, and I were there in high school (i.e. before the military).

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do kinda look for a challenge and really want to learn things and understand things new.

So what do you want to do when you post drunk?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I do kinda look for a challenge and really want to learn things and understand things new.

So what do you want to do when you post drunk?

Fight and ****. but my capacity to do either goes down, arguably from a low starting point. Of course my opinion of my ability goes up...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I guess that is a common theme among most males, eh? So don't feel too bad, buddy!

[Pekka]

Azazel, what's rong with killing?

[Dis]

killing?

well you don't know until you do it. Many people have problems doing it. Many women feel guilt even over abortions. And that is legal.

[Pekka]

Dissident, true.. I guess it's the ultimate thing. You steal everything someone had, is and ever will have. And you also steal from his relatives, friends and everyone who knows him. It's a serious thing.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Pekka
Dissident, true.. I guess it's the ultimate thing. You steal everything someone had, is and ever will have. And you also steal from his relatives, friends and everyone who knows him. It's a serious thing.

but often necessary