Author Topic: The General Political Thread  (Read 520191 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline StevenChilton

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1882
    • View Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4830 on: January 29, 2019, 04:16:44 pm »
It's not relevant, just funny (especially since that trip to the USSR was also his honeymoon). It's somewhat bizarre that so many old, hard-left political figures went on holidays with their lovers to destinations behind the Iron Curtain. For example Jeremy Corbyn went on a motorcycle trip with Diane Abbott across East Germany in the 70s.

Offline TheBoberton

  • Knight of Blueberry
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 994
  • I don't want no pardon for anything I done
    • View Profile
    • Thomas' Steam Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4831 on: January 29, 2019, 07:15:11 pm »
I'm struggling to understand what Big Pete's ideal military would be. Other than apparently full of psychopaths and no logistics support.

Offline Sgt.Winters

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2030
  • Wut
    • View Profile
  • Nick: look at me
  • Side: Union
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4832 on: January 29, 2019, 07:54:56 pm »
I'm struggling to understand what Big Pete's ideal military would be. Other than apparently full of psychopaths and no logistics support.
Sounds like the perfect model for a division of Forlorn hope, but even then they have to eat.

Offline HaroldW

  • First Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4833 on: January 29, 2019, 08:20:53 pm »
Communist = Bad

I think history dictates as much, yes.

Offline Svensson

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 1321
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4834 on: January 29, 2019, 09:45:59 pm »
Texas man kills 3 home invaders in self defence.

God bless the 2nd amendment.


Offline TheBoberton

  • Knight of Blueberry
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 994
  • I don't want no pardon for anything I done
    • View Profile
    • Thomas' Steam Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4835 on: January 29, 2019, 10:31:09 pm »
The only acceptable outcome.

Offline Big Pete

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4836 on: January 30, 2019, 12:52:09 am »
I'm struggling to understand what Big Pete's ideal military would be. Other than apparently full of psychopaths and no logistics support.
Yeah because I said military doesn't needs logistics right?
And yes best military is full of psychopaths that love killing, nothing more effective on the battlefield than that.

Offline Furrnox

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 7983
  • Eternally incorrect, centre-left, asshole.
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4837 on: January 30, 2019, 02:57:47 am »
Sounds like Big Pete is an edgy commie to me.

Offline TheBoberton

  • Knight of Blueberry
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 994
  • I don't want no pardon for anything I done
    • View Profile
    • Thomas' Steam Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4838 on: January 30, 2019, 03:07:36 am »
Yeah because I said military doesn't needs logistics right?

Going on about how logistical units aren't really in the military would imply so, yes. At the very least, it suggests a general disdain for those people who ensure your military can actually fight when the time comes.

And yes best military is full of psychopaths that love killing, nothing more effective on the battlefield than that.

Sounds like a great way to end up sitting before an international court after your 'army' starts murdering civilians because they're bored.

Offline Riddlez

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4845
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Riddlez
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4839 on: January 30, 2019, 10:38:47 am »
It depends on what you define as combat, though. You can use an incredibly broad definition ('Anyone who is in an active combat zone', or even 'Anyone carrying or managing a weapon') or a very narrow one ('Anyone who can be expected under normal circumstances to come under direct fire'). But even that leaves a large grey area.
If (I'm just talking layman terms here) you're an engineer, your job is not to fight people but to support those who do. But a combat engineer is still quite likely to come indirect or even direct fire, despite fighting not being their primary job. But imagine being in a large-caliber artillery unit. The changes of you coming under direct fire are small, but you are, unlike the engineer, actively trying to kill people. When does your supporting become fighting, and when does your fighting become supporting?

Your social science studies are showing. In the military we prefer clear and defined terminology.

Quote
'Anyone who can be expected under normal circumstances to come under direct fire'
This is the usual military definition of combat. Artillerymen wouldn't argue they have seen combat, but nobody would deny their role inside the part of combat.
Combat engineers are classified as fighting units usually because they do not operate in their organic units, rather they get attatched to infantry units.

@olafson another sidenote: dedicated force protection units are not counted as combat units. This does not mean they cannot see combat. The force protection of the Dutch Air Force saw combat frequently considering they also did nearby patrols.

Other soldiers would do it that are equally cappable of fighting on a front line? And they would probably have to fight since supply routes would be attacked and military bases as well?
The thing you are horribly missing is that military =/= combat troops.
The other point is, supply lines do not often get physically attacked by enemy units in a conventional war. More likely they come under artillery or air attack but that does not count as combat.
The reason people nowadays think supply lines get attacked so often is because COIN operation for the past 25 years. In conventional warfare, territory is more defined thus logistics units safer from direct fire.

@bigpete another thing: you are very sadly mistaken in the fact that the military needs psychopaths to do the hardest fighting. This is hilariously far from the point. An anger-based aggressive unit does not perform better in combat than a more balanced unit. Units filled with more intelligent personnel who do not have a sense of bloodlust perform much better in an overall campaign. Why? Every conflict for the past 20 years has been insanely more complicated and they are only getting more complicated. In order to be an effective unit, military personnel need to be able to make sense of what they are doing and they need officers to explain it to them. So no, psychopathic units are not more effective.

I do not want to call them psychopaths, but take the USMC: a unit made to be shock troopers with aggressive conventional-oriented mindset. They do not perform better in combat than Dutch, Norwegian or English units, who are signficantly less aggressive. On the contrary. The USMC has made countless gross judgement calls in Iraq and Afghanistan simply because of the reason not even their higher-ups had any clue of what they were actually DOING.

tl;dr: in order to do your military job well, you need to understand what you're doing in the grand scheme of things. Being mentally unstable has no place in that. They'll make everything into a hammer-and-nail-problem. War is not like that any more.
Probably one of the very few old-timers here who hasn't been a regimental leader.

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4840 on: January 30, 2019, 11:48:11 am »
Quote
Your social science studies are showing

Well, yes, obviously. That was the point.

I know what definition the military uses, but that definition itself didn't fall from the sky and has implications on the way we think about the role of soldiers. If 'Anyone who can be expected under normal circumstances to come under direct fire' is the definition of combat, then I can place questionmarks on the precise definition of 'be expected', 'normal circumstances' and 'direct fire'. Even 'anyone' can have different meanings. And then you can go down the micro-level and argue the precise role of micro units or even individuals. I mean, I shouldn't say we should, because what you need (and have) is a workable definition. But it's not clear and defined, except for the people who decide what it is, and tell you what it is.


Offline Riddlez

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4845
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Riddlez
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4841 on: January 30, 2019, 11:58:33 am »
Indeed scientifically you're right. As you say, it's workable and we both know what it means practically and enables you to differentiate between jobs in the military of which that are combat and which are Combat Support and Combat Service Support.
Probably one of the very few old-timers here who hasn't been a regimental leader.

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4842 on: January 30, 2019, 11:59:40 am »
I think we just spend the last page agreeing with eachother but with a lot of words.

Offline HaroldW

  • First Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4843 on: January 30, 2019, 02:29:25 pm »
Now kiss

Offline Big Pete

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: The General Political Thread
« Reply #4844 on: January 30, 2019, 02:56:10 pm »
You don't understand what a psychopath is.