soj.ooO
BETA
The social discussion platform
Home
Pochas
Channels
Videos
Log in
Sign up
Sign up
Home
Pochas
Channels
Videos
Log in
Sign up
Parent Post: How much rights should a man have?
thoughtcriminal_1984
·
10/16/2025, 11:11:52 AM
·
permalink
Doesn't a statement like the one below negate the logic of your above point? "It will be the vote of the subordinate commanders, at first, and then it will go down the line, if the commander insists, to the lower, and lower level, and eventually to the rank and file. Rank and file are not as stupid as generals think when it comes to plausibility of tactical implementation of operational strategy from up stairs. Many disasters have been caused when generals ignored the grumbling from down below about the feasibility of an offensive/defense/retreat. Very few offensives succeeded when the rank and file did not like the soundness of grand strategy." The above is from your other post [here](https://soj.ooo/p/freethinkers/post/7330764b388638ea60bbc2552ea422ee)
Save
Cancel
4
bumps
Share
H
hyokkim
·
10/16/2025, 12:13:58 PM
·
permalink
''Doesn't a statement like the one below negate the logic of your above point?'' Great point, eagle eyes! However, the timing is different; when I said: ''The answer: as much as his intelligence/wisdom, courage, and a sense of responsibility/accountability, neither less nor more.'', I meant in theoretically ideal sense, when we are not under great time constraint in the matters of existential threat, such as the war of annihilation, to be instigated by Israel, against the patriots, by Zionist flunkies. Whereas, when I was discussing the ideal optimal tactical formation, I was thinking in pragmatic sense, projecting what I know today, into the near future of the civil wars to be fought after the implosion. We wouldn't have the luxury of time to find out who would be the best man to lead, for every military formation, especially down to small tactical formations. So we will be taking chances of having an idiot as the commander for many tactical formations, especially at the smaller unit. This veto power against commander is a good insurance against an idiot destroying an entire army, for stupidity, vanity/pride, laziness/complacency. Here are some examples: Here's the vain idiot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Servilius_Caepio_(consul_106_BC) His subcommanders, and the troops under him certainly would have vetoed him for this foolish and illegal order. ..and the by the book, inexperienced commander: Maximus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arausio Now, had Maximus been experienced, intelligent commander, then he should have anticipated that Caepio, as a proven, vain, greedy, insubordinate idiot would do something like this, assaulting fortified, prepared, experienced enemy in superior numbers, alone. So, Maximus should have sent scouts to screen Caepio's move, and have his army prepared to support Caepio asap if he decided to launch the attack alone, unannounced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Noreia Again, this was an illegal move by Carbo, for his own vanity's sake, and subcommanders, and rank and file would have vetoed it; they would have known they would be taking the risks, but not gaining the glory.
Save
Cancel
2
bumps
Share
Signature
Loading…
Verify locally
Close
