4
4
0
What if you found out your Platoon Commander was a dope smoking college dropout that submitted forged documents to enter the military. On the outside, he looks like a model infantry officer, but it also has been your observation that your Platoon Commander is lazy, forgetful, and inept (can't read a map) and he relies heavily on his SNCO's to think for him... you being one of them.
You inform your Commanding Officer and he tells you there's nothing he can do about it because the Platoon Commander's father is a high ranking Senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Senator had been the target of allegations of corruption and the General who leaked word of his corruption to the press was relieved and forced into retirement. Shortly after retiring, the General was the unfortunate victim of a home invasion in which his wife and daughter were brutally murdered. Coincidence?
Your Commanding Officer is worried about his career and doesn't want to make waves that could adversely impact his family or chances for promotion. He forbids you to bring the matter up again -- with ANYONE!
Your Platoon Commander finds out you told your Commanding Officer and calls you into his office. He chews you out and promises to gives you a career ending mediocre fitness report if you tell anyone else what you know... and it appears your Commanding Officer has been threatened in some way. Your Commanding Officer is clearly intimidated and refuses to do anything about it.
Your unit is preparing to deploy overseas and could be in combat. What do you do?
You inform your Commanding Officer and he tells you there's nothing he can do about it because the Platoon Commander's father is a high ranking Senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Senator had been the target of allegations of corruption and the General who leaked word of his corruption to the press was relieved and forced into retirement. Shortly after retiring, the General was the unfortunate victim of a home invasion in which his wife and daughter were brutally murdered. Coincidence?
Your Commanding Officer is worried about his career and doesn't want to make waves that could adversely impact his family or chances for promotion. He forbids you to bring the matter up again -- with ANYONE!
Your Platoon Commander finds out you told your Commanding Officer and calls you into his office. He chews you out and promises to gives you a career ending mediocre fitness report if you tell anyone else what you know... and it appears your Commanding Officer has been threatened in some way. Your Commanding Officer is clearly intimidated and refuses to do anything about it.
Your unit is preparing to deploy overseas and could be in combat. What do you do?
Posted in these groups: 
Ethics
Ethics
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 35
0
0
0
TSgt (Join to see)
The forged documents to enter the military would be a UCMJ violation, would it not?
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
One would think that the head of the military should be held to the same standard as his military if not a higher one. Instead we allow our civilian leader (who is not subject to the UCMJ) to forge documents and present them as sufficient proof of his eligibility to hold office and command the world's most powerful military. < Sigh >
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I read this and GO how is this even a question if this is an issue then a report to the IG. But your write up is so far fetched it seems like a low budget Hollywood script.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Corey Ferretti
Ok i did not catch your parallels i though you might have been wearing a tin foil hat. But now i get what you are talking about. Like testing positive for drugs and because of who your dad is get an honorable discharge?
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Jeff S. You say "Certainly America deserves better than the D-listers we have in Washington currently representing us." and indeed "the country" does deserve better.
That, however, is not to say that "the voters" deserve better. "The voters" deserve whomever they elect and if "the voters" want to elect a bunch of incorrigibly venal and stupid people who pass laws that they haven't even read (or don't understand if they have read them) PROVIDED that the people who want the laws passed will buy their votes by attaching lucrative "riders" and "tied spending provisions" to the law - then they really don't have anyone to blame because they are acting like the fact that someone has an "R" or a "D" after their name actually means something and/or for casting their votes for the last person whom they remember as looking good on TV (even when they can't remember a single thing that was said) and/or because some "talking head" who makes multiples of millions of dollars a year tells them that the candidate is the one to vote for because the candidate will __[insert economic/social miracle here]__ .
That, however, is not to say that "the voters" deserve better. "The voters" deserve whomever they elect and if "the voters" want to elect a bunch of incorrigibly venal and stupid people who pass laws that they haven't even read (or don't understand if they have read them) PROVIDED that the people who want the laws passed will buy their votes by attaching lucrative "riders" and "tied spending provisions" to the law - then they really don't have anyone to blame because they are acting like the fact that someone has an "R" or a "D" after their name actually means something and/or for casting their votes for the last person whom they remember as looking good on TV (even when they can't remember a single thing that was said) and/or because some "talking head" who makes multiples of millions of dollars a year tells them that the candidate is the one to vote for because the candidate will __[insert economic/social miracle here]__ .
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
What do you say, split the country in half, give all the stupid voters their half and wait for them to implode. The self-loathing intellectuals will emigrate to socialist countries in Europe after getting tired of supporting the perpetually unemployed all by their lonesomes. And the perpetually unemployed will either starve due to nobody working to support them, OD on drugs, and/or die of AIDS and other diseases because they can't afford contraception and healthcare. We get their half back. Problem solved. : )~
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
From your previous questions/answers I thought I knew where you were going with this, and then you confirmed it with a couple of your responses.
Whether you agree or disagree with POTUS politically, he is the elected leader and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, bottom line, period.
I don't agree with all of the decisions that have been made by those appointed over me, but in the end you salute and move out. Those that don't agree should alwasy in my opinion do so behind closed doors. If you are a senior leader who feels as if your advice is not being listened to, then offer you resignation as a form of protest.
I believe that this was a very condesending and back-handed why of coming after supports of POTUS, because if you got them to say what you wanted them to, then you could then throw it back in the face based off of your political ideology.
Whether you agree or disagree with POTUS politically, he is the elected leader and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, bottom line, period.
I don't agree with all of the decisions that have been made by those appointed over me, but in the end you salute and move out. Those that don't agree should alwasy in my opinion do so behind closed doors. If you are a senior leader who feels as if your advice is not being listened to, then offer you resignation as a form of protest.
I believe that this was a very condesending and back-handed why of coming after supports of POTUS, because if you got them to say what you wanted them to, then you could then throw it back in the face based off of your political ideology.
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
I'm glad you thought so... that "R" is a big giveaway.
LTC (Join to see), You wrote, "I believe that this was a very condesending and back-handed why of coming after supports of POTUS, because if you got them to say what you wanted them to, then you could then throw it back in the face based off of your political ideology."
I think you read too much into it.
Your thought process, seeing my post as a condescending and back-handed way of coming after supporters of POTUS and jumping to the conclusion that I want to get people to say what I wanted them to so that I could then throw it back in their face based on my political idealogy troubles me. Is that how YOU think?
My hope was that people would introspect and challenge themselves to not accept things at face value, or accept things that are wrong simply because they felt that they were powerless to effect change or have any impact.
LTC (Join to see), You wrote, "I believe that this was a very condesending and back-handed why of coming after supports of POTUS, because if you got them to say what you wanted them to, then you could then throw it back in the face based off of your political ideology."
I think you read too much into it.
Your thought process, seeing my post as a condescending and back-handed way of coming after supporters of POTUS and jumping to the conclusion that I want to get people to say what I wanted them to so that I could then throw it back in their face based on my political idealogy troubles me. Is that how YOU think?
My hope was that people would introspect and challenge themselves to not accept things at face value, or accept things that are wrong simply because they felt that they were powerless to effect change or have any impact.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I was trying to be polite to SSgt L Ol when I said I thought so.
All I offer is another way to see the problem. I hope the same thing that you do, and that is why I offer up differing thoughts on issues. I don't believe that it should be our job to just be the "yes, man/woman" we should ask the tough questions, within reason though. I am a Red Teamer by trade, and so I believe that questioning a plan or motives is exactly what we should be doing, but when the answer or order is given by whatever level we report to unless it is unethically, illegal, or immoral we need to salute and move out or get out.
All I offer is another way to see the problem. I hope the same thing that you do, and that is why I offer up differing thoughts on issues. I don't believe that it should be our job to just be the "yes, man/woman" we should ask the tough questions, within reason though. I am a Red Teamer by trade, and so I believe that questioning a plan or motives is exactly what we should be doing, but when the answer or order is given by whatever level we report to unless it is unethically, illegal, or immoral we need to salute and move out or get out.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
This could go back and forth forever without accomplishing much except raising blood pressures. Personally I believe it's too late to remedy the problems in office now. In time, I would like to see a requirement established that you must serve in the armed forces at least one tour in order to become POTUS. Between the 'marching band' and 'reefer madness' I've seen little to admire or respect.
(0)
(0)
PO3 John Jeter
Between Slick Willy and our current "leader" I see the glaring point of having those in authority who have never submitted themselves to a cause or thing greater than themselves. Been wracking my brain but I can't remember who said something to the effect, "Those who would lead must first learn what it is to follow". I never truly understood what freedoms we have until I surrendered many of them to serve in the military. It's difficult for me to endorse any candidate who has not served in some capacity. Not necessarily only military service (although I prefer that), but some type of service that subordinates the individuals needs and wants for the good of the whole. "Community Activist" doesn't fit the bill either......
(2)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
We essentially agree but the military service qualifier is something the public [not the Constitution] needs to put on the candidate. (Same thing goes for term limits on our Congressmen in the absense of term limits which IS something I feel should be mandated, but I digress.)
I've run into civilians who have a deep abiding respect for the Constitution and sense of what the military goes through, even though they haven't been in the military themselves. Some are police officers, firemen, construction supervisors, etc. Not everyone has the physical qualifications to serve but that doesn't preclude them from serving as President.
Like you, I look for military background in a prospective Commander-in-Chief, but I wouldn't disqualify a person just for not having that background if their other qualifiers made them a clear choice over the other candidates. All other things equal, I would vote for the candidate with the military background.
I've run into civilians who have a deep abiding respect for the Constitution and sense of what the military goes through, even though they haven't been in the military themselves. Some are police officers, firemen, construction supervisors, etc. Not everyone has the physical qualifications to serve but that doesn't preclude them from serving as President.
Like you, I look for military background in a prospective Commander-in-Chief, but I wouldn't disqualify a person just for not having that background if their other qualifiers made them a clear choice over the other candidates. All other things equal, I would vote for the candidate with the military background.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Jeff S. Not to be overly cynical about the "... but the military service qualifier is something the public [not the Constitution] needs to put on the candidate ..." But Mr. George W. Bush "served honourably" (at least according to [some of] the official records he did).
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Am aware of his TANG issue. And that is something that he will always carry around with him...
George W. Bush suspended from Texas Air National Guard, Aug. 1, 1972
On this day in 1972, George W. Bush, the nation’s 43rd president, was permanently suspended from flying with the Texas Air National Guard for having missed an annual medical examination.
(0)
(0)
If so I would put him in for a medal so I would be on his good side for when he makes general or becomes President one day. What does it matter? I feel that this is something of dreams with an underlining motive.
(1)
(1)
CPT (Join to see)
I am not sure what a movie has to do with this but I knew what your attempt of juxtaposition was. It did however fall on deaf ears. This is reminiscent of Al Gore's defeat. Bush was still the President and how he got there would in no form or fashion effect his presidency. This is also applicable to this president. I just fear that one may be so convoluted that they may lose touch with what is really going on this the events of today.
To brake this down to you. Who cares about what evidence Bush had to invade Iraq. Yet people will still complain about it and say it was an unjust war and we should have not invaded. Plus the want not. It plays no role in the development of the solutions for today. What matters is what is going on right now and how the region can be stabilized. A dim view of current events of the world would indeed warrant a light bulb but I am not the one that needs it.
To brake this down to you. Who cares about what evidence Bush had to invade Iraq. Yet people will still complain about it and say it was an unjust war and we should have not invaded. Plus the want not. It plays no role in the development of the solutions for today. What matters is what is going on right now and how the region can be stabilized. A dim view of current events of the world would indeed warrant a light bulb but I am not the one that needs it.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google