Rules for winning the Nobel peace prize

[Displaced]

hehee!





:wub:

[Xog]

jeez guys, why don't u just meet up irl and punch eachother in the face until 1 of u dies? problem SOLVED

[Displaced]

Who is talking about rank making a difference on experience?

Not directly, I'm referring to the part about why the military promotes those that show aptitude for combat, etc. I.e:

edit: and since all of you seem to believe experience is not the most important quality in human understanding, explain to me why the military promotes those that show aptitude for combat. Why does the military bother promoting those that show exceptional awareness on the battlefield when warfare can be calculated so clearly on paper?

I.e. over here, it doesn't matter how kickass you are, you will never be promoted to anyhting above a glorified NCO, i.e. experience isn't as important as book smarts if you are going to coordinate/plan a war.

Didnt Scandinavia as a whole just give up in WW2? I'm not sure about you guys but Norway and Sweden did. I dont know what kind of actual training the Finnish military does but I'm willing to bet that even the basics that you would receive would make you more likely to survive than the average, untrained person. Thats been proven through history, so I'll end it at that

We essentially fought 3 different wars during WW2, from 1939 to 1945, so no, we didn't give up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Finland_during_World_War_II

Oh and if were being pedantic, Finland isn't a part of Scandinavia.

[Mattey]

Squeez, I never meant to imply that I agree with Mattey that experience doesn't matter, depending on the fields, it most definitely does.

When did I EVER say this!? I hate everyone.

[Izor]

I was referring to this:



Ah, I read it as you were comparing to the civilan population of the US, my bad

Now I don't know about the US military, so I won't open that can of worms, but over here, soilders that are promoted, are nothing more than glorified NCO's, and the highest rank one can recieve is that of Liutenant.

Generals, Lieutenant-Generals, Major-Generals, Brigadier Generals, Colonels, Lieutenant-Colonels, Majors, Captains and Senior Lieutenants are ranks only achieved by those that have completed Cadet training in the National Defense University, no matter how kick ass you are.

I.e. I hold the rank of a Coastal Jaeger, Now if I was really really kickass, I could've been promoted to Lance Corporal, and possibly Corporal in the Reserves.
If (god forbid) we enter a war, and I'm über kickass in duty, I could forseeably be promoted to Sergeant or Staff Sergeant, but probably not.
However, had I chosen to attend National Defence University, I could have any rank, ranging from Sergeant to General , and not have had any more combat experience than I do now, just "booksmarts".

The last "full scale conflict" we were a part of was WWII, that said, we have troops in Afghanistan as we speak, were just not as invested in it as the US is.

Who is talking about rank making a difference on experience? Didnt Scandinavia as a whole just give up in WW2? I'm not sure about you guys but Norway and Sweden did. I dont know what kind of actual training the Finnish military does but I'm willing to bet that even the basics that you would receive would make you more likely to survive than the average, untrained person. Thats been proven through history, so I'll end it at that

[Galleleo]

Squeez, I never meant to imply that I agree with Mattey that experience doesn't matter, depending on the fields, it most definitely does. Once I am done studying, I won't become CEO of some huge Corporate Company straight away, I'll start at the bottom because I need to learn everything again in practice.

In fields like Mathematics, Psychology (though experience would help here too, but mainly just research based on theoretical knowledge), etc. is where experience won't matter as much, in these fields it probably relates more to being able to do things faster because you know the tricks or whatever.

[Displaced]

I was referring to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galleleo
First of all, I ain't Finnish, so don't be a stereotypical dumbass American, because I know you're not.

Second of all:

All Finnish males have to go through basic training, thus according to your logic, they know more about war and shit than you do.
They are better trained to survive than I am. They do not know more about war. Also, lighten up buddy all you central euros are the same anyway .

Mantra-bramileoplacediderz.

Ah, I read it as you were comparing to the civilan population of the US, my bad

Now I don't know about the US military, so I won't open that can of worms, but over here, soilders that are promoted, are nothing more than glorified NCO's, and the highest rank one can recieve is that of Liutenant.

Generals, Lieutenant-Generals, Major-Generals, Brigadier Generals, Colonels, Lieutenant-Colonels, Majors, Captains and Senior Lieutenants are ranks only achieved by those that have completed Cadet training in the National Defense University, no matter how kick ass you are.

I.e. I hold the rank of a Coastal Jaeger, Now if I was really really kickass, I could've been promoted to Lance Corporal, and possibly Corporal in the Reserves.
If (god forbid) we enter a war, and I'm über kickass in duty, I could forseeably be promoted to Sergeant or Staff Sergeant, but probably not.
However, had I chosen to attend National Defence University, I could have any rank, ranging from Sergeant to General , and not have had any more combat experience than I do now, just "booksmarts".

The last "full scale conflict" we were a part of was WWII, that said, we have troops in Afghanistan as we speak, were just not as invested in it as the US is.

[Squeezer]

when did I claim to know more about war than a Finnish soldier. Refresh my memory, but when was the last conflict that Finland participated in?

Are they better prepared for war? Yes, because they've been trained through regiments created by people that likely did battle. Are they any more experienced in warfare than I am? Probably not considering neither of us have seen action. I was speaking about a Finnish soldier (or any middle Euro country really) compared to a US soldier who is damn near guaranteed combat experience during his term.

edit: and since all of you seem to believe experience is not the most important quality in human understanding, explain to me why the military promotes those that show aptitude for combat. Why does the military bother promoting those that show exceptional awareness on the battlefield when warfare can be calculated so clearly on paper?

[Displaced]

Ive just glanced through this thread, so bear with me if ive missed something...

However, I couldn't help but notice this whole basic training aspect...

Apparently according to Squeez, experience helps you know about war, tactics, strategy, what not...

However, why don't Finns who have been through basic training know more about war than you?
Hypocritical, no?

Or is that cause we haven't been at war lately? (which is moot, but whatever)

Now, personally, I don't think basic training helps you understand war at all, or even prepare you for it.
Never mind help you grasp strategy, and be able to effectively lead.

Officers get separate training for that, and there is a reason that people promoted from grunts without having gone through formal officers training, never achieve a rank higher than lieutenant. :wub:

[Squeezer]

I like how you can't admit you're wrong.

Being passive-aggressive is for bitches. You're a weepy bitch.

well I don't think I'm wrong. But you disagree. I'd prefer to learn from someone with personal experience. That isn't as important to you.

watdonao? I'm not going to change your opinion and I'm tired of arguing the point. You can find an anomaly that flies in the face of any argument. I believe in terms of technical measures, experience is most important. You believe that one can apply the theoretical to the real world. Maybe in science and math, but not in human affairs. I think I've laid out my arguments and I've read yours. I'm just saying we disagree.

edit: and being a smartass.

[Mattey]

I like how you can't admit you're wrong.

Being passive-aggressive is for bitches. You're a weepy bitch.

[Squeezer]

sigh, fine you're all right. Why even bother getting experience when you can read it in a book?

I trust mattey to lead the United States into war because he is well versed in history. This will lead to success, I can feel it.

[Galleleo]

Saying something that didn't sound sarcastic then saying it was sarcastic when people call you out was kind of stupid. You didn't really have anything to add, rather than you trying to get people to respond to your love of your god damn continent.

So maybe you shouldn't have posted in the first place, as obviously you just ain't got a clue.

[Cops]

I guess you mean confrontation and no I don't think "direct" confrontation is good at all (if by direct you mean US confronting them). A surrogate war is better. But I take it that's not what you meant either, just whether we should confront them in a hostile manner in any facet.

My answer: I don't know. I also don't know what you mean by "progressing." Iran is jerking us around again on the nuclear thing as we speak (link). That doesn't make me or anyone else in the West happy (and I'm not even going into the issue as to whether or not them having nuclear weapons is "fair," life isn't fair). Fortunately it's not up to me to make these decisions so I guess we'll see what happens.

I don't believe there would be a direct confirmation as you believe. It's kind of funny that in all the realms of possibilities it's very likely that Iraq will be used as America initially intended for them to be, which was a proxy country to fight Iran. In terms of the country progressing, there is a large proportion of the population that is at political unrest with their country, as we saw in the recent elections, which don't even deserve to be called elections. I remember this topic coming up awhile back, and someone (probably Epinephrine) made the point that Iran is a very young country with a large amount of the people being from the ages of 20-30. I don't claim to know everything about revolutions, or even that much but what I do know is that if it's going to happen it's going to be the young that will fight for their democracy. The point was also made that intervening too soon may turn this vital population against you, and these really are the people that can help foster peace and cooperation in the middle east. That is to say that having one stable state in the region could really do a lot of good.

All I can say in regards to Iran having access to nuclear energy, is that I am opposed to them acquiring it for energy or arms because the former tends to be an excuse to get the latter.

[Cops]

What the fuck you talking about Cops?

Saying something that didn't sound sarcastic then saying it was sarcastic when people call you out was kind of stupid. You didn't really have anything to add, rather than you trying to get people to respond to your love of your god damn continent.