Air force don't get pushed out the back with the pallets though.1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
yeah it is. airborne, bitchesJohnG@lt wrote:
Infantry is the best.
and you get to spend time on C-130s and C-17s, so it's kinda like being in the chair force too!!!
THIS.FEOS wrote:
If you join with the intent of becoming a General Officer, you likely won't make it. If you join with the intent to do the best job that you can--to take care of the troops you're charged with leading--you'll do OK.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-12-05 03:13:55)
Well, what kind of fun is that?Dilbert_X wrote:
Air force don't get pushed out the back with the pallets though.
Why would you even want to be a General?rdx-fx wrote:
Military does NOT need more star-seeking officers.
I'm not completely sure.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why would you even want to be a General?rdx-fx wrote:
Military does NOT need more star-seeking officers.
I can understand ambition etc but what do Generals really do other than brown-nose and hang around with politicians?
From what I've witnessed, GOs put up with a lot more bullshit than your average officer, noncom, or enlisted troop. The shit screen starts at the top and by the time anything hits the bottom, it's just the bits of corn and peanut that made it through.rdx-fx wrote:
I'm not completely sure.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why would you even want to be a General?rdx-fx wrote:
Military does NOT need more star-seeking officers.
I can understand ambition etc but what do Generals really do other than brown-nose and hang around with politicians?
It's like.. becoming a politician, the really hard way.
Explains why they are always so keen to start wars I suppose.FEOS wrote:
As for hanging around with politicians? The last place most of those GOs want to be is the Pentagon (where they are around politicians all the time). They want to be out in field commands, where politicians come through occasionally and where the GO gets to actually run things. That's not to say they don't have to deal with politics...it's just greatly reduced and they can focus on command.
Generals don't start wars...and aren't keen to do so.Dilbert_X wrote:
Explains why they are always so keen to start wars I suppose.FEOS wrote:
As for hanging around with politicians? The last place most of those GOs want to be is the Pentagon (where they are around politicians all the time). They want to be out in field commands, where politicians come through occasionally and where the GO gets to actually run things. That's not to say they don't have to deal with politics...it's just greatly reduced and they can focus on command.
Politicians start wars, not Generals.Dilbert_X wrote:
Have wars started then, if you're going to be pedantic.
Douglas MacArthur wrote:
I have known war as few men now living know it. It's very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes.
Douglas MacArthur wrote:
It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.
Douglas MacArthur wrote:
The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.
Robert E. Lee wrote:
It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it.
Robert E. Lee wrote:
The war... was an unnecessary condition of affairs, and might have been avoided if forebearance and wisdom had been practiced on both sides.
Just a sample of some famous Generals' thoughts on war. For those who have had to see war first hand, it's not something to be pursued, but rather something to be avoided.Robert E. Lee wrote:
What a cruel thing war is... to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors.
Yes but those wars have all been started by politicians. If JFK and LBJ didn't give the orders to send troops to 'Nam, it wouldn't have happened.Varegg wrote:
It is kinda pedantic FEOS seeing you post wise words of famous generals and at the same time acknowledge that the US have very few days of peace since WW2 ...
Hausepipers care too much about their troops, that's why. They get emotionally attached and that's a serious weakness when you get higher in the ranks. They make fantastic company COs but anything above that... not so much.Iconic Irony wrote:
The best officers I ever had in the force were officers that were enlisted first, then went to OTS. Unfortunatly for some reason, not a lot of them went on to great things for some reason.
Yeah, CCO was about as high as any of them went. I still find that hard to believe though about the glass ceiling of attachment. Yes they were attached to the troops but they identified with the troops better and understood and related to their problems/weakenesses/strengths better than a regular officer. In the end it seemed to me that they cut out a lot of the stupid redundant bullshit and got right to the problem and actually listened to us on the best way to resolve a complicated issue. Regular officers always made everything into a inefficent bog of buerocracy.JohnG@lt wrote:
Hausepipers care too much about their troops, that's why. They get emotionally attached and that's a serious weakness when you get higher in the ranks. They make fantastic company COs but anything above that... not so much.Iconic Irony wrote:
The best officers I ever had in the force were officers that were enlisted first, then went to OTS. Unfortunatly for some reason, not a lot of them went on to great things for some reason.
Which is more threatening to a senior officer? They're more concerned with their own promotions than anything and having a high speed maverick on their staff that rocks the boat and could potentially shoot past them is not in their own best interest. No senior officer wants to look bad, that's why politics play such a large role in officer promotions. Yes, it's sad, and it's not right, but good luck changing it.Iconic Irony wrote:
Yeah, CCO was about as high as any of them went. I still find that hard to believe though about the glass ceiling of attachment. Yes they were attached to the troops but they identified with the troops better and understood and related to their problems/weakenesses/strengths better than a regular officer. In the end it seemed to me that they cut out a lot of the stupid redundant bullshit and got right to the problem and actually listened to us on the best way to resolve a complicated issue. Regular officers always made everything into a inefficent bog of buerocracy.JohnG@lt wrote:
Hausepipers care too much about their troops, that's why. They get emotionally attached and that's a serious weakness when you get higher in the ranks. They make fantastic company COs but anything above that... not so much.Iconic Irony wrote:
The best officers I ever had in the force were officers that were enlisted first, then went to OTS. Unfortunatly for some reason, not a lot of them went on to great things for some reason.
I was an Army NCO. Air Force, having a higher number of officers in real work positions, may be different.FEOS wrote:
From what I've witnessed, GOs put up with a lot more bullshit than your average officer, noncom, or enlisted troop. The shit screen starts at the top and by the time anything hits the bottom, it's just the bits of corn and peanut that made it through.rdx-fx wrote:
It's like.. becoming a politician, the really hard way.
The biggest danger there is is a GO who doesn't have a mind like a steel trap. They have to have so much detail about so many different issues at their fingertips to make so many decisions in so little time...if they don't have a handle on the details, bad decisions will get made. If the GO isn't smart on something, it's often a combination of his staff not doing their job and/or him/her not being the right guy/girl for the job.
As for hanging around with politicians? The last place most of those GOs want to be is the Pentagon (where they are around politicians all the time). They want to be out in field commands, where politicians come through occasionally and where the GO gets to actually run things. That's not to say they don't have to deal with politics...it's just greatly reduced and they can focus on command.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-12-08 13:29:59)
You're the one who said Generals preferred to be out in the field directing troops compared with being stuck in the Pentagon.FEOS wrote:
It's not being pedantic. It's being accurate. Try it sometime. You might find it refreshing.
Of course it wouldn't ... doesn't matter who recides in the White House young one when the war lobby starts doing their thing, and that group whispering "war" in the ear of the President also has generals in it ...Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Yes but those wars have all been started by politicians. If JFK and LBJ didn't give the orders to send troops to 'Nam, it wouldn't have happened.Varegg wrote:
It is kinda pedantic FEOS seeing you post wise words of famous generals and at the same time acknowledge that the US have very few days of peace since WW2 ...
Ohh cool, what job are you going for?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Yeah since i'm going to ADFA next year (equivalent of West Point basically), i've been brushing up on my golf and asskissing skills.
ATCO or ACO (got LOO's for both), RAAF, hopefully CDFSPmcminty wrote:
rdx-fx, awesome post mateOhh cool, what job are you going for?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Yeah since i'm going to ADFA next year (equivalent of West Point basically), i've been brushing up on my golf and asskissing skills.
Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2009-12-09 21:29:01)
And this post (again) reflects your utter ignorance in the topic at hand.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're the one who said Generals preferred to be out in the field directing troops compared with being stuck in the Pentagon.FEOS wrote:
It's not being pedantic. It's being accurate. Try it sometime. You might find it refreshing.
For this they need politicians to start wars for them, presumably this is why Generals in peacetime are so gung-ho for war.
