Pro-civilian bias?

[Lord Hurin]

TJ kinda said: Majority vote. Which means Elections. Probably not in an official capacity, but in such a way that everyone feels their voice is being heard. That everyone has rights and responsibilities, and is being fairly treated. None of which you get in a military dictatorship, by the way. But you can say this, from your comfy chair, in your warm house, in front of a computer that is all made possible by a civilian government that controls the military.

If you wish to back up your argument, then please tell us what military dictatorship you'd like to live under. I'll give you your choice of the ones currently in progress around the world:

Burma
Fiji
Guinea
Libya
North Korea

Go ahead, make your pick. I suggest the last one, although the majority of people don't have internet access. Or electricity for that matter. The military dictatorship government has plenty of both, though!

Ummm... first off, when did I ever say I wanted to live under a military dictatorship? Secondly, when did I say that Destiny should live under one? I can see Wray being a dictator just as much as Young is. Is it better just because she's not military? I don't see how it would be. Those are my opinions though, and I have a right to them. Just as you do to yours. I was trying to drop this debate as it's evident that neither of us will come to see the other's point but then you kept debating.

I'd also like to ask where you're typing from if it's not a comfy chair at a computer desk like I am. You're being rather scathing and rude, all the while completely missing or twisting my point of view to paint me as some kind of war-mongering idiot.

Duly noted. You are unable to debate your points in a valid manner, and do not care to back them up with any kind of evidence. I will recognize that in the future, that you are not interested in a constructive conversation. Have a good day.

Your biggest "evidence" to date was the statement about majority rules made by TJ, who wasn't even a member of the coup. When she said that, did anyone say "YES! That's right! Elections!"? If they did, I will certainly apologize.

[Kaiphantom]

Ummm... first off, when did I ever say I wanted to live under a military dictatorship? Secondly, when did I say that Destiny should live under one? I can see Wray being a dictator just as much as Young is. Is it better just because she's not military? I don't see how it would be. Those are my opinions though, and I have a right to them. Just as you do to yours. I was trying to drop this debate as it's evident that neither of us will come to see the other's point but then you kept debating.

I'd also like to ask where you're typing from if it's not a comfy chair at a computer desk like I am. You're being rather scathing and rude, all the while completely missing or twisting my point of view to paint me as some kind of war-mongering idiot.

Because you seem to think a military dictatorship is better than having the civilians in charge. I thought if you felt that way, you'd rather move to a country that had one. I think it's apparent now that you believe military dictatorships are a bad idea.

Your biggest "evidence" to date was the statement about majority rules made by TJ, who wasn't even a member of the coup. When she said that, did anyone say "YES! That's right! Elections!"? If they did, I will certainly apologize.

First off, that comment was mainly to jelgate, because we talked a bit about this in another thread. Secondly, if you want more evidence for why civilian leadership is better, my evidence is all of history itself. Military dictatorships have consistently been bad for the people they ruled over. Whereas in modern day, all the advanced first world countries have civilian authority controlling the military. Seems to work out a lot better than places like North Korea, but that's just my own opinion.

[The Shrike]

...The best kind of government would be some of kind joint cooperation. Don't ask me how it should be organized because I don't know

Well, the military probably won't accept a resolution that doesn't put one of theirs in charge, so how about this for a compromise. Put the three highest ranking officers (Young, Scott, Johansen) on a ballot, then let the civilians vote on which one they want in charge. Problem solved.

[jelgate]

Well, the military probably won't accept a resolution that doesn't put one of theirs in charge, so how about this for a compromise. Put the three highest ranking officers (Young, Scott, Johansen) on a ballot, then let the civilians vote on which one they want in charge. Problem solved.

That doesn't sound like an idea will appease both sides. The civilians will still they are being oppresed and the military may get paranoid about why someone was choosen

[Jper]

That doesn't sound like an idea will appease both sides. The civilians will still they are being oppresed and the military may get paranoid about why someone was choosen

Not to mention if Young doesn't voluntarily keeps to honor to himself and resigns his position, TJ or Scott will never be actually or comfortably in charge. That wouldn't work either.

[Lord Hurin]

Because you seem to think a military dictatorship is better than having the civilians in charge. I thought if you felt that way, you'd rather move to a country that had one. I think it's apparent now that you believe military dictatorships are a bad idea.

I always did think military dictatorships were bad. I wasn't arguing FOR one, I was arguing against a civilian one. I could easily see Wray trying to wrest total control, despite whatever rhetoric she uses to motivate the others. In my mind, the only way forward would be a dual leadership scenario. This may not work, but I think it's worth a try. I also think the military has more to offer than expertise in combat matters alone, but that may be for another thread.

First off, that comment was mainly to jelgate, because we talked a bit about this in another thread. Secondly, if you want more evidence for why civilian leadership is better, my evidence is all of history itself. Military dictatorships have consistently been bad for the people they ruled over. Whereas in modern day, all the advanced first world countries have civilian authority controlling the military. Seems to work out a lot better than places like North Korea, but that's just my own opinion.

The civilian authority in all these countries are politicians though, and they're backed by a cabinet of ministers with expertise in various areas. Sadly, I don't think the talent pool on Destiny is large enough to have a proper government. Not to mention, Wray isn't really a politician; she's a paper-pusher.

[Kaiphantom]

I always did think military dictatorships were bad. I wasn't arguing FOR one, I was arguing against a civilian one. I could easily see Wray trying to wrest total control, despite whatever rhetoric she uses to motivate the others. In my mind, the only way forward would be a dual leadership scenario. This may not work, but I think it's worth a try. I also think the military has more to offer than expertise in combat matters alone, but that may be for another thread.

The civilian authority in all these countries are politicians though, and they're backed by a cabinet of ministers with expertise in various areas. Sadly, I don't think the talent pool on Destiny is large enough to have a proper government. Not to mention, Wray isn't really a politician; she's a paper-pusher.

All politicians are paper pushers. The main point as to why civilian is better, is because the military can be on the same "board" and involved in the same decisions. People need to feel they have a say in how they are ruled, or they will keep revolting. Which means Destiny will never have peace as long as Young has all the power and the military calls the shots. In a country like the US, we assent to being ruled, because we believe we have a say, and the government is acting in our best interest. If it is perceived as no longer being so to enough people, the people will remove their assent and revolt. Which is what the crew did, and will do again and again. It's not over, because the military are acting like a donkey's backside.

[Lord Hurin]

All politicians are paper pushers. The main point as to why civilian is better, is because the military can be on the same "board" and involved in the same decisions. People need to feel they have a say in how they are ruled, or they will keep revolting. Which means Destiny will never have peace as long as Young has all the power and the military calls the shots. In a country like the US, we assent to being ruled, because we believe we have a say, and the government is acting in our best interest. If it is perceived as no longer being so to enough people, the people will remove their assent and revolt. Which is what the crew did, and will do again and again. It's not over, because the military are acting like a donkey's backside.

I think Young's attention has been grabbed now. Remember, he wanted to talk to Wray about how to go forward. She was the one who was non-committal

[The Shrike]

That doesn't sound like an idea will appease both sides....

Maybe not, but it would appease me, since my girl would win.

[Kaiphantom]

I think Young's attention has been grabbed now. Remember, he wanted to talk to Wray about how to go forward. She was the one who was non-committal

We shall see. It's sad that it took a revolt for that to happen. If he is to grow as a character, he has to sede power now. The next few episodes will tell.

[Lord Hurin]

We shall see. It's sad that it took a revolt for that to happen. If he is to grow as a character, he has to sede power now. The next few episodes will tell.

Well... when did they try talking to him? Did anyone come to him with concerns of "dude, I don't think you're listening to us civvies"? I can't recall.

Having said that, when Wray was in charge she was on the brink of being disrespectful to the military. Not letting them protect the away team, especially targeting Greer with her contempt. I think if we replace a military leader who doesn't consider the civilians' well-being and strengths with a civilian leader who doesn't consider the soldiers' well-being and strengths then we've gotten nowhere.

[skarwolf]

I got this idea watching The Nature of Things with David Suzuki tonight. It was about the arms race in space. They showed scientists and military people speaking about the subject. Most of the time the scientists weren't told what they were doing was eventually going to be used as a weapon. For example they were told the high powered lazer was going to be used to track satellites. The lady questioned why does it require such a narrow beam, if you want to detect and track wouldn't a wide beam perform better ?

This lead me to look at Rush in that tone. Rush wants to play with the toys (Destiny) without having the military snooping around trying to weaponize everything. Thats about it.

[Phenom]

I found myself siding instantly with the military in this ep (which I thought was brilliant). I was slightly annoyed with the scene with TJ ordering the grunt to lower his gun, when they had the obvious tactical advantage which would have ended the coup in 3 seconds.

It is interesting to note those who believe the civilian leadership would work best, and have noted real life examples to substantiate their argument. That may be the case, but would you want Politicians leading your troops on the front line? Making the decisions that would affect the group in ways that essentially only army personnel would have experience with? Certainly if the crew were on the Destiny for 20 years and the imminent threat of death had passed, then a more regular form of government/slash leadership method would be quite beneficial, but in these stages the civillians wouldn't know their rear end from their front in these sort of situations.

[jelgate]

I found myself siding instantly with the military in this ep (which I thought was brilliant). I was slightly annoyed with the scene with TJ ordering the grunt to lower his gun, when they had the obvious tactical advantage which would have ended the coup in 3 seconds.

It is interesting to note those who believe the civilian leadership would work best, and have noted real life examples to substantiate their argument. That may be the case, but would you want Politicians leading your troops on the front line? Making the decisions that would affect the group in ways that essentially only army personnel would have experience with? Certainly if the crew were on the Destiny for 20 years and the imminent threat of death had passed, then a more regular form of government/slash leadership method would be quite beneficial, but in these stages the civillians wouldn't know their rear end from their front in these sort of situations.

Thier is no way they could overpower the civilians with two soldiers and one 9mm.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

Thier is no way they could overpower the civilians with two soldiers and one 9mm.

Indeed. They could have shot Wray, but that would have most likely enraged the rest of the civilians, and it's a little hard to take on 60+ people with one pistol with a less than full mag.