Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marichiko
That sounds like a blanket indictment to me. You were painting every enlisted man with the same brush and depicting them all as being like the typical Vietnam era draftee. Senior NCO's hardly deserve to be subject to such blanket condemnation, nor do the draftees, for that matter.
|
Again, you can distort anything and everything I have posted by changing the perspective. What clearly was never a blanket statement is changed into "sounds like a blanket indictment". Serious mistake on your part. If I stated that, then you can cite the specific sentence that says that. If I don't state it, then assume I have intentionally led you astray so that your emotions would make wrong conclusions.
Assume what I have posted as bait for your emotions; so that you would ASSUME. That is not my intent. But stated often, I post bluntly. That means I don't waste time with politically correct statements. I am not a politician. Therefore it is easy for one to pervert what I had posted into implications and 'sounds like' misrepresentations. Again, where is the exact sentence that 'sounds like' anything? If that sentence does not specifically say it, then 'sounds like' is only personal bias.
Tell me how long the coastline is around Britain. We measure from space and get a specific number. Then we move down to an airplane's perspective. Suddenly there are numerous inlets and other geographical features that maybe double that coastline. Then we walk that British coastline to find far more coastline as the beach curves in and out. Then we take a microscopic perspective - measuring the beach as it curves around each grain of sand. Completely different numbers are due to different perspectives.
Was I lying when I provided Britain’s perimeter from space? I was 'painting with a broad brush'. Therefore I am wrong? No. But if you don't use my perspective - if you take what I post out of context - then you could even prove I will be a racist murder for the KKK. Perspective. Context. 'Sounds like' is not sufficient for valid reasoning. At best 'sounds like' is only enough to wildly speculate - only enough to justify a question.
A valid point is that enlisted men in Vietnam clearly were even less intelligent than their counterparts today. Of course. Few had any interest in advancing their intelligence. Do your time and get out. The music of that time listened by a massive majority of enlisted men told the story. "WAR ... what is it good for. Absolutely nothin'"
BTW, intelligence is created by working at it every day. Only part of intelligence is inherited. Intelligence is created more by 'viruses' such as curiosity, doubting, incessant reading of what was once boring, and using the concepts of science as routinely taught in school. In Vietnam, few wanted that intelligence. A disease created and promoted by a crook who was also a lying president (85% of all problems ...).
Officers are better trained, have more insight, and get their job by having more intelligence - can better see the bigger picture. They must; it is their job. There is no way around that fact. Meanwhile, what does a better army do? Increase the intelligence of its lowly enlisted men. Do better trained enlisted men make for a smarter army? Absolutely. But does that make enlisted men smarter than their officers. Maybe when it comes to firing a 105 Howitzer faster – a technically smarter enlisted man. But not when it comes to the most important facts in any army - such as its strategic objective.
Perspective. Don't distort the perspective I have posted. In some ways, you have done what Lookout123 does. Convert clear trends into an assumption that all enlisted men are dumber then their officers. Easy to change my post by taking the wrong perspective - taking what I have posted out of context. 'Sounds like' or 'implies' is not sufficient to interpret what I posted. Where is the irrefutable fact that I even implied such conclusions? A logical response would post the exact sentence where that 'sounds like' comes from. Where is that exact quote - the irrefutable fact?
There is good reason why officers tend to go to college and have advanced degrees whereas enlisted men do not. There is very good reason why the military schools train everyone as an engineer. The former have more curiosity, a quest to understand why - the bigger picture, a firmer grasp of reality, and must follow up with more questions and doubts. Such are required of officers. Such is less desirable in enlisted men (which is why accusing only enlisted men of torture in Abu Ghriad is a mockery of intelligence thinking).
The latter tend to get a job, learn to do the tasks, and don’t spend substantial time advancing their education in things such as advanced math, psychology, or quantum physics. Enlisted men do what their officers say or intend - which would be exactly what happened in Abu Ghriad.
Again, some enlisted men prefer not to ask those questions that officers are required to ask because, sometimes, enlisted men regard knowing too much as hazardous to their own health and attitude.
Stated is a complex analysis which is more consistent with reality. There is nothing in this post or any previous post that can be analyzed by 'sounds like'. Sounds like is how Oprah fans and a Jerry Springer audience make judgments. If it 'sounds like', then where are the exact quotes, numbers, and underlying science that justifies that 'sounds like' conclusion. Cite the irrefutable fact such as the specific sentence.
BTW, how did 2nd LTs survive in Vietnam? They first turned to their Sgt and ask, "How do we do this". The sign of an intelligent officer.