Military Service

[Genivaria]

Yes it is, why'd you feel the need to explain that to me?
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, but if your only reason to join is for incentives then you shouldn't join.

I'm a militarist and plan on joining myself early next year at latest, and I don't want someone half assing their duties.

so, what do you think the chances are of you ending up the next smedley butler? roughtly.

As in be the next big anti-war military officer?
Or as in the next guy to be approached to lead a coup?

[Yankee Empire]

I base it on the premise that someone joining specifically for perks and not a sense of patriotism or personal duty would not be as motivated or dedicated to their tasks in the military, I guess there's no wisdom in that presumption?

people seem to manage to do jobs they aren't doing out of love all the time pretty well

Depends on how you define "well", anyhow even if they don't care for the job they do it out of a sense of duty to provide for their families.

Also they may do the overall minumum that their job requires but do you think they will perform as well as those who enjoy and/or are dedicated to their work?

Yes it is, why'd you feel the need to explain that to me?
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, but if your only reason to join is for incentives then you shouldn't join.

I'm a militarist and plan on joining myself early next year at latest, and I don't want someone half assing their duties.

so, what do you think the chances are of you ending up the next smedley butler? roughtly.

What you mean politcally? Or dead or what? what are you asking here? I've read his little book "War is a racket" there were parts I agreed with and others I didn't.

[Souseiseki]

so, what do you think the chances are of you ending up the next smedley butler? roughtly.

As in be the next big anti-war military officer?
Or as in the next guy to be approached to lead a coup?

former

if there's anything certain countries have has taught us, it is that sometimes you love your country and constitution so much that you must shit all over the constitution to save the constitution

[Yankee Empire]

I base it on the premise that someone joining specifically for perks and not a sense of patriotism or personal duty would not be as motivated or dedicated to their tasks in the military, I guess there's no wisdom in that presumption?

No there's not.
People work their asses off all the time at their place of business, doesn't mean they love the company it means they enjoy eating.

So you're telling me, there's NO chance None, that someone dedicated, willing to die for their appointed task would in no way perform in a superior fashion?

[Souseiseki]

people seem to manage to do jobs they aren't doing out of love all the time pretty well

Depends on how you define "well", anyhow even if they don't care for the job they do it out of a sense of duty to provide for their families.

Also they may do the overall minumum that their jobe requires but do you think they will perform as well as those who enjoy and/or are dedicated to their work?

so, what do you think the chances are of you ending up the next smedley butler? roughtly.

What you mean politcally? Or dead or what? what are you asking here? I've read his little book "War is a racket" there were parts I agreed with and others I didn't.

i don't know. let us put it another way. say there is a man just in for the dental, and a man that's in it for the country and honour and OH SAY CAN YOU SEE. which one of these people do you think is more likely to make a good decision if a tactical withdrawl is necessary, as opposed to getting everyone killed because otherwise it would be a shame to the nation?

well, hmm, i could have asked how long you think it'd take you to get shot by an illiterate teenager who's pissed off his friends and family have been killed on the other side of the world not doing much to defend the country but that would have been a bit of a dick move. but now that you mention being dead...

[Souseiseki]

No there's not.
People work their asses off all the time at their place of business, doesn't mean they love the company it means they enjoy eating.

So you're telling me, there's NO chance None, that someone dedicated, willing to die for their appointed task would in no way perform in a superior fashion?

Hold up there buckaroo.

That's not what you asked initially. And even if it was, the answer to that question wouldn't mean anything in relation to it.

[Genivaria]

No there's not.
People work their asses off all the time at their place of business, doesn't mean they love the company it means they enjoy eating.

So you're telling me, there's NO chance None, that someone dedicated, willing to die for their appointed task would in no way perform in a superior fashion?

I never mentioned anything about dying so please don't put words in my mouth.
Besides, only a fool would give his life for something as vague and intangible as 'patriotism'.

[Yankee Empire]

i don't know. let us put it another way. say there is a man just in for the dental, and a man that's in it for the country and honour and OH SAY CAN YOU SEE. which one of these people do you think is more likely to make a good decision if a tactical withdrawl is necessary, as opposed to getting everyone killed because otherwise it would be a shame to the nation?

Oh that is such a loaded question, that's dependant on personal mindset ,but I see no dishonor in living to fight another day. What about in the same position where a fatal last stand would greatly aidyour nations cause?

Some one in it for the perks might be less mootivated to self sacrifce I think.

well, hmm, i could have asked how long you think it'd take you to get shot by an illiterate teenager who's pissed off his friends and family have been killed on the other side of the world not doing much to defend the country but that would have been a bit of a dick move. but now that you mention being dead...

Hey it's not the first time i've heard someone suggest they'd be happy if I got killed in the war, big deal everybody dies. There are no gurantees for life, someone could survive the war unscathed then get killed in a car accident, it's happend before.

[Souseiseki]

i don't know. let us put it another way. say there is a man just in for the dental, and a man that's in it for the country and honour and OH SAY CAN YOU SEE. which one of these people do you think is more likely to make a good decision if a tactical withdrawl is necessary, as opposed to getting everyone killed because otherwise it would be a shame to the nation?

Oh that is such a loaded question, that's dependant on personal mindset ,but I see no dishonor in living to fight another day. What about in the same position where a fatal last stand would greatly aidyour nations cause?

Some one in it for the perks might be less mootivated to self sacrifce I think.

well, hmm, i could have asked how long you think it'd take you to get shot by an illiterate teenager who's pissed off his friends and family have been killed on the other side of the world not doing much to defend the country but that would have been a bit of a dick move. but now that you mention being dead...

Hey it's not the first time i've heard someone suggest they'd be happy if I got killed in the war, big deal everybody dies. There are no gurantees for life, someone could survie the war unscathed then get killed in a car accident, it's happend before.

So yes, someone in it for the perks might be less motivation to self-sacrifice, so someone in it for the glory and the love of the nation is more likely to self-sacrifice, even if it's not the best option, right?

Never said I'd be happy, and doesn't really answer the question. ):

[Yankee Empire]

So you're telling me, there's NO chance None, that someone dedicated, willing to die for their appointed task would in no way perform in a superior fashion?

Hold up there buckaroo.
That's not what you asked initially.

It was implied.

And even if it was, the answer to that question wouldn't mean anything in relation to it.

Sure it wouldn't..

[PapaJacky]

I think there are too much incentives to join the military and I view that as a bad thing because I view war in a negative light because hippy. I know many who are in the military on a real life basis as well. My thoughts are that pensions shouldn't start 20 years after service but instead be based on combat tours served. Medical and education and jobs assistance I can agree with, though.

20 years is reasonable retirement, even in peace time the lifestyle is too hard to maintain for the typical 30 years for federal retirement. Moving every 2 years, exercise, exercise, exercise to the point of injury. It is not something everyone can do.

Wartime service is match with greater promotion potential and better after service medical care. One of the reasons I am looking to swap to the Marines, because they are not so good at reading Army records and tend to view my service in Korea as a deployment and hence giving me greater promotion potential.

Not for pensions, I'd argue, which is my contention after all. You can live comfortably on the pension that you'd receive too, which given that many who are eligible to receive said pension is barely in their mid-life crisis means that you'd end up pensioners taking 30, 40 years of pension.

[Free South Califas]

Militaries should be organized from the bottom up, with elected tacticians and temporary commanders under the threat of instant recall,

Because this has worked so well in those militaries that have used it. *sarcasm*

Er, what makes you think it hasn't? Your ideology? It has been effective in many revolutionary situations. The one example of glaring military failure I can think of, in Spain, cannot by an honest person be decoupled from either the partisan repression/betrayal by dominant authoritarian socialist factions nor the international government support for fascism and authoritarian communism, the latter of which is more or less obsolete as a political factor (at least in such explicit terms). That's not to mention that the organization was extremely effective in other short- and long-term goals, including protecting massive free territories and consolidating and toughening networks of resistance that would survive as models for other regions and future post-fascist Spain. Putting grassroots organizational structures into practice on such a large scale is, quite frankly, a logistical victory in the first place. Of course, my argument also involves the U.S. military serving radically different interests from the ones it does now, which would make it difficult to bloviate so flippantly about probable outcomes.

[Morrdh]

Because this has worked so well in those militaries that have used it. *sarcasm*

Er, what makes you think it hasn't? Your ideology? It has been effective in many revolutionary situations. The one example of glaring military failure I can think of, in Spain, cannot by an honest person be decoupled from either the partisan repression/betrayal by dominant authoritarian socialist factions nor the international government support for fascism and authoritarian communism, the latter of which is more or less obsolete as a political factor (at least in such explicit terms). That's not to mention that the organization was extremely effective in other short- and long-term goals, including protecting massive free territories and consolidating and toughening networks of resistance that would survive as models for other regions and future post-fascist Spain. Putting grassroots organizational structures into practice on such a large scale is, quite frankly, a logistical victory in the first place. Of course, my argument also involves the U.S. military serving radically different interests from the ones it does now, which would make it difficult to bloviate so flippantly about probable outcomes.

My question is whether tacticians and commanders would be elected on either their popularity or actual merit and ability to do the job?

[Free South Califas]

Er, what makes you think it hasn't? Your ideology? It has been effective in many revolutionary situations. The one example of glaring military failure I can think of, in Spain, cannot by an honest person be decoupled from either the partisan repression/betrayal by dominant authoritarian socialist factions nor the international government support for fascism and authoritarian communism, the latter of which is more or less obsolete as a political factor (at least in such explicit terms). That's not to mention that the organization was extremely effective in other short- and long-term goals, including protecting massive free territories and consolidating and toughening networks of resistance that would survive as models for other regions and future post-fascist Spain. Putting grassroots organizational structures into practice on such a large scale is, quite frankly, a logistical victory in the first place. Of course, my argument also involves the U.S. military serving radically different interests from the ones it does now, which would make it difficult to bloviate so flippantly about probable outcomes.

My question is whether tacticians and commanders would be elected on either their popularity or actual merit and ability to do the job?

Well, the importance of this dynamic can be minimized. In syndicalist and other libertarian federalist organizations, communities/workplaces vote on the issues (in this case, strategy, I suppose) before they vote on officials who are tasked with taking those issues on as their own. Delegation, not representation: the elected delegate has no power to make decisions for the group that elected hir, and can be instantly recalled if ze fails to carry through on hir obligation. Tacticians and commanders could be delegated this way according to their trustworthiness and skill (hopefully); or, commanders could be delegated, who then appoint tacticians according to the strategy that has been decided on (maybe a panel selected by sortition can vet the appointees). Just spitballing here; there is plenty out there on the history of the Durruti Column to be read if you are really interested in this.

[Las Palmeras]

What do you think of the military?: It's a self-defense branch.
Do you know anyone who's in it?: No.
Are YOU in it?: I may be in it in actively November, the Mexican Armedm forces holds my Cartilla de Servicio Militar . If I get chosen to serve I'll march, preform drills, and and handle firearms in practice for a year every weekend. If not, then I'll just get my mandatory service card approved anyways.
What were some of your experiences?: N/A
And what should people like myself who are considering joining expect?: How should I know?

[Marcurix]

What do you think of the military?
I tend to have a high respect for the British Armed Forces. They do their jobs well, and that's all i'll ask.

Do you know anyone who's in it?
My father served with the 19th Regiment Royal Artillery, and my Great Uncle served with the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers. I know a few other people whom are in various regiments around the UK.

Are YOU in it?
No, I thought of joining the TA for awhile but life put that out of my reach for the time being.

What were some of your experiences?
I've only heard stories from some of the people I know

And what should people like myself who are considering joining expect?
You'll get yelled at. A lot. That's something I find people never seem to grasp.

[Sebytania]

2)You are wrong about tactics. They have been uprade several times after WWII.

Equipment, maybe. The tactics are still almost the same.

Do you have anything to back this up?

The basic infantry stuff in recruit training, sure. But even that has it's purpose (apart from the bicycle marches and skiing, which are just there because of the fun of it), as those basic skills such as operating in battle as a part of a team and basic marksmanship are as important now as they were in the past.

And by the way, for the most part, the equipment is dated. Mostly comfort issues such as the M/85 LBV - nothing you can't fix with a little creativity. Can't say anything about what would actually be issued during a crisis.