Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[the dancer of spaz]

In Singulatiry Sam did disobey a direct order... Who am I to deny this.. But once again we are comparing a captian to a Col. Lets try for something with more meat, and let's compare 2 people in charge.

In Learning Curve Jack not only disobeyed and order, he took an alien child off base to let her have some 'fun'. This is him being insubordinate and potentially risking diplomatic relations.

Now, if you were to compare this insubordination with that of Mitchell your arguement would make more sense. But you seem set on trying to disgrace Sam with all her past mistakes, ohh and there are a few; none of us are denying that.

The problem is using her past mistakes as a Capt/Major under the command in the field of a Col. To explain why Mitchell is a good leader. Oddly enough, she never made any such mistakes. Because even in Gemini, Jack was still overseeing what was happening and gave her the go ahead.

Sam isn't perfect, but one thing that was embedded into her character until about a year and a half ago was her "good, little soldier" mentality. It's only over the past two years or so that she's let her hair down.

So, you're right, it'll be hard to find mistakes that are as brazen and deliberate.

[Uber]

No, not over Sam. Would you trust him to do the job as needed, you know that kind of thing?

You know, I honestly don't know. If you haven't seen Stronghold, then you probably haven't seen Off the Grid or Scourge. I've been disappointed with the development of the Mitchell character in general, frustrated by the almost imperative to shove the other 3 in the background in order to make him seem more valuable or whatever.

For instance, the two "Mitchell" eps this year (Babylon and Collateral Damage) pretty much completely wallpapered Sam, Daniel and Teal'c. I kept trying to like Mitchell...honest...but Stronghold was my last straw (at least for the near future). The mere absurdity of how it plays out in the end had me yelling "You've GOT to be kidding me!" at the tv. The tv didn't care though.

So to answer your question...maybe sometime in the future it might become possible to slowly trust him to be a viable part of the team. Eventually. But not as the leader...a role he seems entirely unsuited for...at least until he learns how SG teams function, learns to trust his team, learns when to talk and when not to talk and learns that he is rarely right and that his attitude in general needs to take his way cool job more seriously or he will end up getting everyone killed.

Which is why I believe much that has been happening is intentional, that they are setting him up for some major fall. To what end I am not sure, but having a Maverick lead is interesting and yet disturbing.

Is it intentional? It has been suggested that he was written as a major initially and that word came late that he was to be a Lt. Colonel. I don't know...maybe it was Bridge's way of thumbing their noses at those who insisted this absurd set up to begin with by keeping him postured as the arrogant flyboy on the flagship team. Again, pure speculation on my part.

Might be neat though if there was a real standoff between them. I'm personally wondering how long it would be "in the real world" before command would be handed back officially to Carter as she does know what she's doing and has that experience. Someone suggested that until Mitchell screws up badly and gets someone killed, he should retain the official leadership title. I'm left to ponder two things...firstly, is that how low the expectations are for Mitchell? Hope and pray that he won't get anyone killed? That he doesn't do something so horrifically stupid or incompetent that people pay for it with their lives? And secondly...given that his first real "leadership" decision...his ridiculous plan in Off the Grid that everyone panned

Spoiler:

got his team captured and tortured and almost killed

, wouldn't that factor in on his performance as the "leader" at all?

Exactly. I actually like Mitchell, but there is nothing that screams leader to me. Daniel and Teal'c don't need a leader, they need an equal. And Sam, well she *is* a leader. No one on that team needs to be lead, they know what to do, they need to be guided. Jack understood this, Sam when she was incharge understood this. I am not sure about Mitchell.

Sam's leadership style respects those she works with while showing she has a command for her position, the importance of her work and her attention to detail. In Stronghold,

Spoiler:

she watched the battlefield very carefully. She kept looking out for Mitchell and paid close attention to what was happening not only on the ground but in the skies.

Mitchell's attitude seems to preclude that kind of attention to detail. He formulates a plan rapidly that's doomed to fail, he's warned by the more experienced teammates that it's a bad idea, and he does it anyway. And surprise surprise. It fails.

And she remembers there are real people involved, not just a war to be won. They aren't something abstract.

She sees the bigger picture beyond the title and the cool job.

It answers my question... And thank you so much. And thanks for your advice about pointing out the circular arguements. But in some cases, how can you not?

It's tough to refrain sometimes, I know. I try to avoid confrontation now because it really is pointless sometimes and I don't need to unnecessarily raise my bloodpressure.

[nccjones]

Are we going to get into a pissing contest over what SOMEONE else did and not based on our own experience??

Cool, let's do that...

Every generation of my family has fought in a war for this country...going back to the colonial times. If they came back alive they came back disabled.
I am the most recent in my family to serve in combat.
There, I took my turn at this pissing contest.

Browder was asked about this in a recent interview....here is a quote from that..and I am still amazed that this actor actually grasps this concept better than people who claim military experience.

What Browder said is very true. But also, no where in the military will you find a unit of the same people who have worked together for 9 years straight. So to me, that blows his theory out of the water.

I still say Sam should have lead the team. She had the off world experience. Cam (I don't like that name) didn't. I still think I would have been able accept him more if he was introduced as a team leader from one of the other SG teams. It just would have made more sense.

[Lightsabre]

May I suggest if you want to seem like someone to have an intelligent conversation with, you don't make allusions and insults. It makes your arguement look poor.

I will if you will.

No, you choose to see it as something negative against Sam, thinking in some way it is going to help your arguement that Mitchell is great. Really, it does nothing.

You know Deevil, till you started posting, I was never sure about how I saw things or did things.
I'm really glad you are here and can explain to me(a person you have never met) why I do and say the things I do.
I have never ONCE said 'Sam does X so Mitchell should lead'.
That shoots your argument down in flames.

Did he try? No. So how will we even know. Unless there is a crystal ball that can tell us all possible futures that I am unaware of.

So it was 'tacit order' and you can disobey those, can you?
Sam did NOT acknowledge the order, she defied it.
Jack could have had her brought up on charges of insubordination then and there.
The fact he didn't in no way means it was acceptable or right to do.
I can punch an old lady in the face and just cause she forgives me, it doesn't mean I've done the right thing.

[Lightsabre]

In Singulatiry Sam did disobey a direct order... Who am I to deny this.. But once again we are comparing a captian to a Col. Lets try for something with more meat, and let's compare 2 people in charge.

However, it is relevant as they are BOTH subordinates.
S1 was Carter first Season, S9 is Mitchell's.
THey are at a similar level of gate experience and are both subordinates in the episodes mentioned.
You cannot argue the point as you have not seen the relevant episode.

In Learning Curve Jack not only disobeyed and order, he took an alien child off base to let her have some 'fun'. This is him being insubordinate and potentially risking diplomatic relations.

Yes, another example of how SG-1 routinely disobey direct orders.

Now, if you were to compare this insubordination with that of Mitchell your arguement would make more sense. But you seem set on trying to disgrace Sam with all her past mistakes, ohh and there are a few; none of us are denying that.

No, the comparision made is always Sam v Mitchell.
Jack has no place in the debate.

The problem is using her past mistakes as a Capt/Major under the command in the field of a Col. To explain why Mitchell is a good leader. Oddly enough, she never made any such mistakes. Because even in Gemini, Jack was still overseeing what was happening and gave her the go ahead.

NO ONE is doing this except apparantly you.
I am NOT using her past mistakes to explain why Mitchell is a good leader.
If you cannot understand that, drop the discussion, you will simpyl get frustrated.

[Lightsabre]

Yep. She clearly and deliberately disobeyed a direct order.

Carter should've been courtmartialed. But at least she would've been able to adopt Cassie.

Yup

Too bad Earth wouldn't have lasted much longer after that, though. They would've gone on, for what? Six months? What with the megalomaniacal parasites and the black holes and such. Bummer.

She would probably have been court maritaled and hired as a civilian.

I'm honestly not trying to rationalize here, so hear me out:
But wasn't going down into a bunker that is several, several stories underground only risking her own life? And only if her epiphany was wrong (which it wasn't)?

Being right doesn't excuse insubordination.
And Mitchell's run in Stronghold only risked his own life.

And again. We've got an emotional Captain, whose record was much more than her actions during her first year at the SGC. Are we still comparing the Captain and the Lt. Colonel?

Sam's S1, Mitchell's S1. Seems like a fair comparision to me. They were both subordinates and both given a direct order, which they ignored.

And DEM? I've agreed that it was an order. I just think Jack realized the validity of her suggestion. If he hadn't, he would've sent her back with her tail between her legs. For some reason, they wrote Sam as being disobedient, but as Jack agreeing with her in the end.

I agree that Sam's solotion was valid. But the fact she both told Jack she would not obey his commands and flat out told him she was going whether he liked it or not, is insubordination.

[Lightsabre]

Well, now that you brought it up, no. I'm saying Carter's positive contributions and the good she's done have far outweighed the mistakes she's made (and there have been plenty).

I'd agree. I'm not saying Carter is unfit to command because of her mistakes.
I'm pointing out to others who claim Mitchell's mistakes mean he can't command that Carter has committed them too.
Therefore, unless they simply have a bias against Mitchell, their own argument says not only should Mitchell not command, but Carter and Jack shouldn't either.
THAT is my point.

Mitchell's contribution consists of a firefight command in Antarctica. That's it. No more. And, while brave, it's severely lacking.

I agree we need more Mitchell history.

If we're going to look at history, which is a great place to start btw, Sam STILL wins out, because TPTB have been so incredibly inept in developing Cameron's character and background.

Again, I agree the Mitchell needs more background. I disagree Carter wins, because aside from a few times she's said 'No sir' she's been a model follower and not really shown leadership.

Again, I would've SO respected Lt. Colonel Cameron Mitchell from SG-13 or something. But that's just not the route they went with him. For whatever reasons they came up with.

I agree with this argument too, tho I still don't think Gate experience is the be all and end all.

[Deevil]

You cannot compare the actions of a Capt. to the actions of a Lt. Col. I don't know why you think you can, but the comparison holds no weight.

It's like comparing an undergrad to the professor that is teaching. Of course the Prof. is going to know more and act in a more mature fashion; as they should.

Mitchell has missed the ball on a couple of occassions and has not acted like a Lt. Col. Carter shouldn't have to act like a Lt. Col. as a captain like you seem to be expecting her too by these comparisons. It just seriously makes no sense.

Why don't we all put a hole in the bucket and see if we can transport some water?

[Lightsabre]

You cannot compare the actions of a Capt. to the actions of a Lt. Col. I don't know why you think you can, but the comparison holds no weight.

It holds a lot of weight. We are looking at both of them as SUBORDINATES.
Or both of them as LEADERS.
Their rank does not matter.

It's like comparing an undergrad to the professor that is teaching. Of course the Prof. is going to know more and act in a more mature fashion; as they should.

No it is not. This is comparing a subordinate(Capt Carter under Jack O'niell) to a subordinate(Lt col Mitchell under Sam Carter).
Their rank is irrelevant.

Mitchell has missed the ball on a couple of occassions and has not acted like a Lt. Col. Carter shouldn't have to act like a Lt. Col. as a captain.

Don't recall ever saying she should. And I disagree about Mitchell BTW.

Do you get it now?

You always end your posts with this, as if you've made a significant point, but you haven't.
Maybe you should stop? People might be more inclined to listen if you showed them some respect.

[Deevil]

By compareing Carters actions when she was a Capt. To Mitchells actions as a Lt. Col. it doesn't matter if they were both subordinate - what does matter is with rank not only comes privledges but comes more responsibility and accountablity.

Rank is not inconsequental. Rank does matter.

Do you even know what point you are trying to make? Because I'm starting to get dizzy trying to keep up.

And I have been more then respectful to you, and more then patient.

[Lightsabre]

By compareing Carters actions when she was a Capt. To Mitchells actions as a Lt. Col. it doesn't matter if they were both subordinate - what does matter is with rank not only comes privledges but comes more responsibility and accountablity.

The specific actions being debated is respect to a CO. Their rank does not matter because it does not address their accountability, responsibility and privilidges.

Rank is not inconsequental. Rank does matter.

Not to this debate at the moment it doesn't.

Do you even know what point you are trying to make? Because I'm starting to get dizzy trying to keep up.

Only because you keep trying to confuse the issue.
I'm not going to get into a personal slugging match with you Deevil.

And I have been more then respectful to you, and more then patient.

You have been neither.
You have been rude, dismissive and arrogant. I fail to see how telling me what I'm doing is either respectful or paitient.
Since oyu first started posting you have made it clear you have little respect for me or my opinions or posts.
YOu have also made it very clear the only reason you post is to 'win' the argument.
You seem to be trying to do this by accusing me of makign irrelevant arguments. I notice that you cling to your objection in the face of my explaining my points and reasoning.
I'd appreciate it if you would stop it, it ruins everyone's enjoyment of the thread whne you make it personal.

[Deevil]

Lightsabre, frankly debating with you is a waste of time as you want to argue. I wont do that with you. I am sure someone else will once again try to explain to you why rank is relivent no matter how much you try to explain it away. And everything else I have been saying, which oddly enough others have said aswell.

As for everything else - believe about me what you will. But take head, I have made no personal attacks, can you say the same?

And if I have ruined everyones enjoyment of the thread, I would rather hear it from them, then from you, a single individual on the thread.

[Uber]

Lightsabre, frankly debating with you is a waste of time as you want to argue. I wont do that with you. I am sure someone else will once again try to explain to you why rank is relivent no matter how much you try to explain it away. And everything else I have been saying, which oddly enough others have said aswell.

As for everything else - believe about me what you will. But take head, I have made no personal attacks, can you say the same?

And if I have ruined everyones enjoyment of the thread, I would rather hear it from them, then from you, a single individual on the thread.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts.

And though I don't share your Mitchell enthusiasm (although I'm glad you enjoy the character), I do appreciate your logic and insight regarding the issue at hand, which apparently is whether or not Sam was a bad 2IC 8 years ago with a "history of insubordination."

[Deevil]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts.

And though I don't share your Mitchell enthusiasm (although I'm glad you enjoy the character), I do appreciate your logic and insight regarding the issue at hand, which apparently is whether or not Sam was a bad 2IC 8 years ago with a "history of insubordination."

Thanks Uber . Seriously though I like Mitchell as a Character, not as a leader. Maybe later he might buck up, but then again I like to think that TPTB actually want him to fail - and I have nothing to back that up but my opinion but it seems to play well for me.

But also, Mitchell kinda reminds me of my brother who I kinda like. So it's hard not to like Mitchell. That probably makes no sense, but I'm getting into the spirit of things.

[the dancer of spaz]

She would probably have been court maritaled and hired as a civilian.

Dude, I was being sarcastic.

Being right doesn't excuse insubordination.
And Mitchell's run in Stronghold only risked his own life.

You're right. Insubordination is insubordination. But the two situations are completely different.

You've got a Captain on Earth, who's going back down an elevator hundreds of feet below the surface in an abandoned base where the only person she can harm is herself - when, in reality, she's already figured out that the bomb will not go off, and that she made a promise to a little girl that she wouldn't leave her alone.

And you've got a Lt. Colonel, off world in combat, who's deliberately going into dangerous territory without back up, despite what the leader of the mission has ordered - when in reality, he's putting himself, his team mates and the other members of the contingent in jeopardy for some half-baked solo mission to save Teal'c, a direct deviation from the plan, which he would've known if he a) cared or b) had attended the pre-mission briefing.

The two situations couldn't be further apart, insubordination aside.

Sam's S1, Mitchell's S1. Seems like a fair comparision to me. They were both subordinates and both given a direct order, which they ignored.

However, it is relevant as they are BOTH subordinates.
S1 was Carter first Season, S9 is Mitchell's.
THey are at a similar level of gate experience and are both subordinates in the episodes mentioned.
You cannot argue the point as you have not seen the relevant episode.

So, you're agreeing that Mitchell was Carter's subordinate for this mission right? That's no longer an issue anymore. Cool.

And one doesn't have to see the episode to know that this logic is flawed.

You're agreeing that they're both at the same level of gate experience and that both are subordinates in the episodes mentioned. Yet no one in their right mind would've put Captain Carter in charge of an SG-team on a regular basis. That's lunacy.

So... If you think the two situations are so identical, you're bringing up a good point: Mitchell is NOT QUALIFIED to lead an SG-team, let alone SG-1, through the gate on a regular basis due to his inexperience.

Or you're saying that Lt. Colonel Cameron, though he's completely qualified to lead an SG-team, should be held to the same standards as a Captain.

Which is it?

It holds a lot of weight. We are looking at both of them as SUBORDINATES.
Or both of them as LEADERS.
Their rank does not matter.

No it is not. This is comparing a subordinate(Capt Carter under Jack O'niell) to a subordinate(Lt col Mitchell under Sam Carter).
Their rank is irrelevant.

Their rank matters. Just because you say it doesn't a bunch of times, doesn't mean it doesn't. Captain Mitchell is miles away from Colonel Mitchell (we hope), and Captain Carter is miles away from Colonel Carter. Holding Colonel Mitchell and Captain Carter to the same standards says a lot about Colonel Mitchell's character. It's saying he missed something HUGE somewhere along the line between promotions - something like knowing when to lead and knowing when to follow orders. A leader should know these traits. Also, it's giving the Captain cum Colonel a free pass.