Split: What constitutes expertise on military matters?

For all your discussion of canon policies, evidentiary standards, and other meta-debate issues.

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
Bridge Officer
Posts: 126
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Split: What constitutes expertise on military matters?

Post by User1462 » Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:58 am

Cpl Kendall wrote:
GStone wrote: And as someone that is a scientist, as well as militarily tactically trained (though I've never been in the military and I'm not talking about something I just read from a book), I've been both college and real world educated. The problem in Wong's view is that I am not SDN approved(TM). His mind puts me in the 'dumbass section'. But, it's not too bad. You'd be SDN approved(TM), even if you were in junior high school and partially retarded, as long as you said their side was right. You could still be this person and wank out Saxton's wankings.
So tell me, if you've never been in the military than how did you come by this military training? I'm honestly curious as someone who's been in the military myself I've found the only way to actually aquire this training is to have served.
Gilbert and Sullivan had a field day with the military, like the "very model of a modern major general" who knew absolutely nothing about modern warfare, or "the Ruler of the Queen's Navy" who had never been to sea in his life, too many career-officers are simply products of the bureaucratic system, and have no clue how real war actually works.
In the Civil War, for example, every general was a product of West Point, and so it turned into a 4-year bloodbath since they were using out-dated techniques and strategies-- which also only worked under the rules of warfare of 17th century Europe, which the Lincoln Aministration threw out the window with the Constitution.
Meanwhile, a simple reading of "The Art of War" by Sun Tsu reveals that they were making the most basic errors via their training, rather than what actually worked.
And the same happened in the later wars throughout the world, where they made the most basic errors simply because it was part of their training, and turned the troops into cannofodder.
And don't blame the poiticians, since that's who ALWAYS start wars in the first place.
And so, every war in the past 200 years has simply been a farce to expand some nation's empire, and it's always come down to a simple numbers-game where the bigger kid with the bigger stick wins, not the better chess-player.
Think 9/11, think Iraq, and realize that's who we've got running things.

And that's the moral behind Star Trek, i.e. war only leads to more war, which is why the federation only uses force when absolutely necessary-- while SW has "good guys" who chop your hand off for a first offense, just like you-know-who.

The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Split: What constitutes expertise on military matters?

Post by The Dude » Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:48 am

I'm sorry, what does that have to do with anything I said? And why in the hell are we rehashing something from 3 years ago?

Post Reply