:rolleyes:
Where is it encouraged? Where is it all-but-officially sanctioned? Judging by the length of the “Off Limits” list at every base I’ve ever been to I’d say that you got this out of a movie or something, because it’s simply not true.
Oh, I can wait to get the cite on that one.
Fair enough. If Sargent A is tagging Sargent B’s wife, then should they go into combat Sargent B may be far more interested in killing Sargent A than he is in killing the enemy, which could be detrimental to the unit. Then have a rule that you can’t tag any service wives. Sorta like the rule against interoffice sexual affairs that some corporations have. We have taken care of that problem.
(You realize that you are on a slippery slope here. The reasons why one individual can hate another are legion. Suppose that Airman C, while umpiring a Little League game, makes a bad call that gets Airman D’s kid thrown out at home plate, causing him to hate Airman C. (You know how parents can get at these kiddie sports games.) Do we make a rule forbidding service personnel to volunteer for Little League? Suppose Airmen E and F are competitive cyclists and Airman E hates Airman F because he keeps beating him in local races?
At some point, rationality and reason have to play a role here. I don’t think it played much of a role at all in the case of the non-adulterous general’s firing. And I don’t care how blue your face gets … that matters.
Actually yes. That’s kind of what I’m having a bit of trouble grasping. The vast majority of the time, whether military or civilian, most super executive level personnel (like a 4 star general) would usually be given private talks, multiple private warnings to shape up etc. before the hammer fell. I don’t believe it proceeded along a - “Stop it now- Oh you’re Still dating her? - OK you’re fired” - trajectory that some seem to believe.
I can’t imagine a heads up that his dismissal was imminent f he didn’t shape up wouldn’t have stopped this thing immediately. Either he is an fool who lacks common sense, basic discretion and any political sense of his peril (something I find hard to believe in someone who has the skill and political acumen to become a 4 star General).
Actually yes. That’s kind of what I’m having a bit of trouble grasping. The vast majority of the time, whether military or civilian, most super executive level personnel (like a 4 star general) would usually be given private talks, multiple private warnings to shape up etc. before the hammer fell. I don’t believe it proceeded along a - “Stop it now- Oh you’re Still dating her? - OK you’re fired” - trajectory that some seem to believe.
I can’t imagine a heads up that his dismissal was imminent f he didn’t shape up wouldn’t have stopped this thing immediately. If so then he is an utter fool who lacks common sense, basic discretion, and any political sense of his peril, attributes I would find hard to believe in someone who has the skill and political acumen to become a 4 star General. The way this was handled was a beat down in the most humilating fashion possible. The only question is what the real subtext to this drama was.
Oh, I suppose we could start with the whole record of armies throughout recorded history. Would you care for something more specific?
Yes. Demonstrate for me that it is any sort of policy, official or otherwise, for superiors to encourage or condone the usage of prostitutes in the US military.
Not officially. However, every night a 6X6 cargo truck made a run into Pontoise, France for “supplies.” Anyone who wanted to go to town was welcomed aboard. I suppose I should mention that the town had a little establishment of friendly ladies called La Maison Bleue.
I vividly recall Admiral Macke being fired for commenting that the troops who raped a 12 year old girl in Japan were idiots because they could have hired a couple prostitutes instead.
Suredy-do, Airman Doors. I can’t demonstrate an official policy, but I can point to many instances in which blatant prostitution is going on, so blatant it’s obviously being tolerated at the very least, more probably condoned:
Here’s a good piece about the link between the US military in Asia and prostitution there
It’s not the army, it’s not the navy, but I think you get the point
That was fun. Got any more fish in barrels you want me to shoot?
You’re correct. Because there is evidence that an American service member has gone to a hooker, we should let all flag officers disobey direct orders. I get it!
Now that you’re mentioning Korea, you might be interested in knowing that both the Korean government and the US military authorities are actively cracking down on prostitution in this country. The former leader of one Town Patrol (a US military unit charged with enforcing the rules, which include a ban on prostitution) was just tried by a court-martial for offenses which included adultery. He has been sentenced to prison; however, the carrying out of that sentence is currently in abeyance awaiting the Acting Secretary of the Air Force’s decision on the man’s request for resignation in lieu of court-martial.
So, no, the US military is not officially condoning frequenting prostitutes. The US military is currently actively enforcing the rules against frequenting prostitutes.
And my bet is that the rules are not based on the morality of prostitution but rather on the problem that venereal diseases give to a military organization.
Retire a few months early because your boss won’t wait for your divorce to finish being processed, or dump your present spouse?
Enough with the blinkers…the army knows its going on and they tolerate it cause of the circumstances
So she got 3 years. Fair?
It’s not often I see such a dishonest summary of another person’s argument on these boards.
The argument being addressed by the information on prostitution and the military is not about whether the general should be punished for violating an order, but whether the military should have a rule that affects the general’s circumstances in the first place.
I see a lot of repetition of two arguments here:
- The guy disobeyed orders, so he can’t complain (that is, those who don’t like what happened should shut up).
- If you want to serve in the military, you should expect to have your private life interfered with.
Both of these statements are a way of avoiding the actual issue, which is –
To what extent is it necessary for a military officer to give up decisions about his personal life? Who is to be the final judge? Just because someone stuck such a rule in the U.C.M.J., does that mean no one gets to question the wisdom of such a rule or suggest changing it? How does such a rule square (based on a theoretical idea about morale or whatever) square with the realities of soldiers’ and officers’ lives and the lives of Americans not in the military?
Just because the question is about the military doesn’t mean those of us who are not in the military are irrelevant to the question. The military is part of our society and a significant part of our government. The rules we create for the military should not be unnecessarily contrary to the rules that apply outside the military.
Who?
Huh? What? Didn’t you read your own link? Didn’t you read the link I provided?
The club owners are facing a suit, the club owners are facing a crackdown on their illegal activities. The US military is assisting the Korean government in the crackdown.
I don’t believe I advocated that position. In fact, if you will read ALL my posts I stated specifically that I thought disobeying a direct legal order was grounds for dismissal. I merely complied with Doors’ request. It’s obvious to me that to one extent or another, all services have unofficially condoned prostitution. Arguing otherwise leaves one very open to rebuttal.