The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How good are Australia's generals? > Comments

How good are Australia's generals? : Comments

By Bruce Haigh, published 10/4/2014

There is one significant attribute wanting from this analysis of required qualities and skills and that is moral courage moral fibre.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Bruce, you are becoming more and more irrelevant with each article. Bruce the boats an global warming have stopped.

It was the boats, started by your poster boy Kevy, who used the navy as a taxi service, led to 100's of drownings and lowered morale and caused huge trauma for service people.

Nothing the fantastic Liberal Government rivals those disasters. I haven't heard of any stress among service people since the boats have stopped.

Htf are the military involved or connected to climate change?
You've only raised that in this article because you are fixated. It really is time you caught up with the current research and data in relation to climate change.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 10 April 2014 8:29:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our best two generals were civilian volunteers, or weekend warriors. A banana farmer and a railway engineer.
Arguably, because they hadn't had forgone their ability to think independently, by being put through the meat grinder, that allegedly produces leaders, or in some cases, puppets or order obeying robots.
The latter is also a feature of ordinary Aussie soldiers, who don't have their independent spirits trained/brainwashed out of them, and are still able to operate their own moral compass, even if that then means quite deliberately disobeying, so-called lawful orders?
As to the current crop of generals, I just don't know.
Perhaps if we're ever again, thrown in the deep end of a battle/war not of our making, one or two real not churned out by the system, leaders might again emerge? [Like those unsung heroes/forward observers who called down fire on their own positions and saved our bacon at the battle of long tan?]
Much to the chagrin of those who believe leaders can be manufactured like conformity observing sausages/manufactured meat?
Yes sir no sir three bags full sir!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 10 April 2014 10:32:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Generals come and Generals go, it's the grunts and their cohorts who do the real 'heavy lifting' in any military conflict. Always will !
Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 10 April 2014 3:49:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I gave up, the false analogies were too much. It was on a par with the evangelical religious rhetoric on late night TV. Who listens to that anyhow?

Having witnessed the achievements of Sir Peter John Cosgrove AK, MC for instance I am very proud that Australia's interests is being well served by our senior military leaders. As well, Sir Peter speaks simply, factually and frankly without resorting to tawdry rhetorical tricks like false comparisons.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 10 April 2014 5:12:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
O sung wo

Major General Sir John Monash.
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 10 April 2014 5:23:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Entering armed into a country without its people's consent is invading it.
*Invading a country that is not invading anyone else is aggression.
*Aggression is a crime against international law, a war crime.
*Germany and Japan committed the crime of aggression.
*German and Jap officers obeyed the commands to commit aggression.
*It is a crime to obey a criminal order.
*The main German and Jap criminals rightly got their necks stretched for aggression.
*They were dishonourable and so were all who obeyed them.
*The first requirement for a serving officer is that the person be honourable.
*Officers who engage in aggression fail the first test.
True or false?
Posted by EmperorJulian, Thursday, 10 April 2014 5:26:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy