I was about to ask if ships can even get the virus but then I remembered what just happened to that aircraft carrier.
Even though I'm sure that Captain thought what he did was right, it was really a stupid move. And sure, he is going to have support of his crew for thinking of their interests, but when you are in leadership, it is your duty to act to act above the popular support and do what is essential to the mission.
Like in private companies we don't get the luxury or honor of recognized service (no one except ourselves will cry over each other or even know who we are), but everyone there knows what they are there for, and are well aware of the risks. Even if we have to sit in hazardous environments for longer than expected, everyone still does it because we know others are depending on our role and getting the job done. You break protocol to save a few lives, you can inadvertently end up risking many more lives through a domino effect. Especially if you aren't in a position of strategic control and you don't see the big picture and won't fully appreciate the consequences. Admittedly today PMC's are a lot more selective and most in combat oriented roles are chosen from combat vets so you are starting with a higher standard of personnel out the gate than normal, but still.
I remember my senior telling me about the cold war and sacrifices people did (on both sides), and saying how few today have dedication needed to win a real war. The Coronavirus isn't that dangerous overall, but can you imagine how screwed we would be if someone used fully developed bio or even chemical weapon on us? The hysteria would break down the chain of command and kill us before the actual agent would.
I fail to see how making a plea to your superiors that the situation aboard your vessel that you command is beyond critical is a stupid move. I don't believe that there is anything that approaches a 'worthy sacrifice' when your commander-in-chief is more concerned about the optics than the lives on the ground.
I mean Trump's response was "This isn't a literature class, why is he writing a letter." The man is out of touch with reality.
Apparently only 155 on board have been infected. Out of a crew of thousands. The navy really has no response? No quarantine procedures? No medivac? They have to try and get the President involved? I thought NBC doctrine was well established during the Cold War, or was that only in Clancy novels?
CVN-71 has access to all of it's on board facilities and personnel. All of the facilities and personnel within it's strike group. And everything Guam has to offer.
And they're freaking out? That's not exactly inspiring.
Apparently only 155 on board have been infected. Out of a crew of thousands. The navy really has no response? No quarantine procedures? No medivac? They have to try and get the President involved? I thought NBC doctrine was well established during the Cold War, or was that only in Clancy novels?
To the Navy command, that got leaked to the press by an unknown party. They accused the Captain, but I don't think it was him. Since the Naval Secretary then had a PA announcement that got leaked to the press, long after the Captain was fired.
I fail to see how making a plea to your superiors that the situation aboard your vessel that you command is beyond critical is a stupid move. I don't believe that there is anything that approaches a 'worthy sacrifice' when your commander-in-chief is more concerned about the optics than the lives on the ground.
I mean Trump's response was "This isn't a literature class, why is he writing a letter." The man is out of touch with reality.
There is clear and well defined protocol for these circumstances, protocol that the captain of the USS Roosevelt chose to ignore. As the captain of a USN Supercarrier, he had access to a hotline with the Pentagon, which by protocol he should have used because a pandemic outbreak qualifies under Navy protocol as a CBRN incident. He didn't, using that hotline leaves a record on both sides, and both are clear he didn't. By protocol, the moment he realized there was an outbreak on the ship, he was to immediately make steam for the middle of the ocean, raise quarantine flags, and get on that hotline to declare the situation. This is STANDARD OPERATIONS for Ocean Going Vessels, even merchant marine ships have this standard (although they don't hotline the Pentagon, they have other agencies they are obligated to contact). Hell, technically speaking even private Yachts are supposed to follow this (although not the middle of the ocean, for them). The captain did none of this, he tried to contact his direct superior, but didn't even indicate the situation was an emergency. You don't send an e-mail to the admiral with the subject line 'RE: Covid-19' and then give up because you don't get a timely response, even if you didn't have the hotline you get on the damned horn and call up the chain of command until you get someone who will listen. There are methods to every system of madness, even the US Military bureaucracy. (edit 2: this is in reference to what he did before the 'leaked' letter, and the e-mail bit is hyperbole)
PotUS Trump's response in this incident is correct and isn't even the tiniest bit out of touch with reality: the man shouldn't be writing a letter - especially not to his hometown media (Edit: Let's scratch that and assume that his letter was intended to the Chain of Command like he claims) . He has access to the ears of Navy Command all the way up to the White House directly, he should have made a call - and one is all it would have taken, as I alluded above.
The Former Captain of the USS. Roosevelt should never have held a command position, the moment pressure was applied he shattered and forgot the protocol which was established specifically for these sorts of circumstances. That's just the facts.
Steak said:
The navy really has no response?
The US Navy has protocols for the containment of pandemics and infectious disease outbreak aboard ships. The Captain chose to follow ignore these guidelines (or just pay lip-service to them) and instead panicked, which is one of the many reasons the Navy determined loss of confidence in his ability to command and removed him from his position.
I don't have much faith in the navy in this case. Their decision to call the Captain naive or stupid, then have to walk back what they said, on top of firing him before the conclusion of an investigation (as is procedure to do), which in of itself was not done with proper consultation according to what we know.
It all points to a Naval command that bungled the situation aboard the Roosevelt, and when the matter became public, they looked to attack the messenger and hope this blows over.
PotUS Trump's response in this incident is correct and isn't even the tiniest bit out of touch with reality: the man shouldn't be writing a letter - especially not to his hometown media. He has access to the ears of Navy Command all the way up to the White House directly, he should have made a call - and one is all it would have taken, as I alluded above.
The punishment toward the captain was actually harsher than it should have been and clearly an overreaction by the leadership. They've screwed up and only succeeded in painting a picture that they do not care about the health and safety of the personnel under them, and succeeded in making the captain appear as a martyr who was punished for doing the "right thing". I say that in quotations, because clearly he did screw up with this as well, but it is clear that those above him have clearly screwed up on this too and if they continue with their current course they're just going to succeed in destroying confidence in their ability to command during this crisis.
Additionally the Acting Secretary of the Navy, a career businessman, attacking the former Captain in an address to the crew of the ship is also clearly a failure in the current leadership.
I don't have much faith in the navy in this case. (etc)
Honestly in agreement with you on what you said here and don't have anything else to add.
NWF_Renim said:
The punishment toward the captain was actually harsher than it should have been... (etc)
While I disagree about the harshness of the punishment (removal from role is standard for a loss of confidence), I do entirely agree that attacking the Captain in the language that has been thrown at him by certain parties is uncalled for and is in fact a direct violation of the UCMJ, which even the civilian parts of the military must abide by.
And absolutely the Navy themselves have fucked this entire thing up royally. There is a good chance the Captain would have known and followed the infectious disease protocols if the Navy had properly trained their commanding officers. This is moreso a failure of training on the part of the Navy than it is a failure of the Captain to follow protocol, BUT he still did fail to follow protocol which IS a loss of confidence.
79248cm/s said: Trump tends to be right more times than wrong, but if he was just only thinking of politics, why wouldn't he be on the side of the Captain and sailors to cash in those populist brownie points? Because the decision was not about politics, it was about SOP.
Because he can have it both ways with his base. He gets someone who made his administration look bad (which is priority no. 1 for him) fired, then he can come in and protest the decision and get the boost for following what the people want. Its the same thing with everything he does. He'll be against, 100 percent, something when its popular to be against it, then reverse. Look at his views towards China any given week. Its completely mercurial and what he wants out of that week.
And please, this is the man who attacks his own administration daily over reporting the facts.
If he wanted to look good, he would just do whatever the media wanted him to do, then he would get constant positive news coverage, and not the non-stop stream of hit pieces on him.
There has literally not been a single world leader in recent times that has successfully done that unless they also had tight control of their own media.
Tell me with a straight face that if he'd kept quiet and simply followed protocol that the news headlines wouldn't be "Whistleblowing Sailor Reveals Captain Covering Up Pandemic Aboard Nuclear Carrier."
The US Navy has protocols for the containment of pandemics and infectious disease outbreak aboard ships. The Captain chose to follow ignore these guidelines (or just pay lip-service to them) and instead panicked, which is one of the many reasons the Navy determined loss of confidence in his ability to command and removed him from his position.
The thing is, that's all pretty obviously beside the point. This isn't a story about what proper protocol was or whether it was a proper response under navy guidelines because the firing was obviously not done according to navy procedures, as they would have otherwise actually finished the investigation before taking action.
This is a pure story of Streisand Effect - Trump saw a story he didn't like, and had the person fired because of it, only to find that overtly attempting to bury the story only makes it explode.
So, what, first, the regulations don't matter because this SEAL guy had a sympathy piece on Fox News, but now they do matter because it's a way to get rid of this guy who says things Trump didn't want being said? The constant here isn't whether the regulations are on Trump's side.
And on the subject of Streisand Effect, this is basically analogous to the firing of Comey kicking off the Mueller Report; This wouldn't be a story but for the blatant overreach. Sort of like how Romney really stepped in it when he said that he told a landscaping company that "We went to the company and we said, look, you can't have any illegals working on our property, I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals," the problem isn't whether it's right, but that it reveals the mindset of the one in charge. Romney didn't do anything wrong, but his stated reason confirmed all the worst of what people already believed about him - that his position on immigration was a fake one, just a display to get votes from conservatives. (Or to be even more on-point, like Trump saying he didn't want to let Americans on a cruise ship stricken with Coronavirus return because he wanted to keep 'his numbers low' and that he didn't want 'his numbers to double because of a ship that wasn't his fault'.)
And that's why the facts also don't matter to the die-hard Trumpers, because they are pure tribalists who see absolutely problem with this kind of deliberate destruction of institutions to create a fiat-driven Dark Ages-style monarchy, since they have no belief in law or principle or institution or morality or anything but their own tribe taking power no matter the costs, even if they constantly cry wolf about the other side doing even the slightest whiff of anything remotely like this.
You know, this entire comment may have been worth as much as piss in the wind if it wasn't for the fact that Trump originally supported the Captain until several Admirals called him (through the proper channels) to explain what the issue was with the Captain's actions, where he immediately backed down from his earlier stance and sided with the Navy.
And that's why the facts also don't matter to the die-hard Trumpers, because they are pure tribalists who see absolutely problem with this kind of deliberate destruction of institutions to create a fiat-driven Dark Ages-style monarchy, since they have no belief in law or principle or institution or morality or anything but their own tribe taking power no matter the costs, even if they constantly cry wolf about the other side doing even the slightest whiff of anything remotely like this.
Rather they've come to the correct conclusion that those institutions do not have the best interests of the people of the United States at heart. They either have a, shall we say, broad view of things or are flat out antagonistic. Trust has been lost because many Americans feel like they've been exploited, taken for granted, or flat out abandoned.
And I'm not sure how you can argue against that.
Besides which, everyone else around the world is nation first. If you have one country that cares about itself and another country that cares about it's neighbor, which country is in a better position? I'd rather have a world with redundant nation states than one where everything can be knocked out like a line of dominoes. Or played like a fiddle.
Rather they've come to the correct conclusion that those institutions do not have the best interests of the people of the United States at heart. They either have a, shall we say, broad view of things or are flat out antagonistic. Trust has been lost because many Americans feel like they've been exploited, taken for granted, or flat out abandoned.
And I'm not sure how you can argue against that.
Besides which, everyone else around the world is nation first. If you have one country that cares about itself and another country that cares about it's neighbor, which country is in a better position? I'd rather have a world with redundant nation states than one where everything can be knocked out like a line of dominoes. Or played like a fiddle.
Yet, by exasperating the problem they only create a larger sinkhole in which they fall into this nihilistic view of the world. I'm not saying that the world itself is all sunshines and rainbows, but if you've lost trust in your institutions then it seems counterproductive to put in someone that furthers that distrust. Irregardless of whether Trump is "sticking it to the man" so to speak, all he's accomplished is to alienate more people instead of bringing them together. Whether by revolution or revision, one must tackle the problems in a pragmatic manner instead of simply throwing their hands up and saying "This is the way the world is so why bother?". If Americans had done that in the past the strives we've achieved would never had materialized.
It's easy to tear things down that don't work. It's hard, seemingly nigh-impossible, to recreate them in a way that benefits all. The world is becoming more global, whether one believes that's a benefit or not or whether they believe it's for the benefit or a single nation or the nations as a whole. if one does not adapt to that understanding then they fall to the wayside.
Instead of coming to the conclusion that something should be distrusted because of what it is, we instead need to look at what actions it takes that make it distrustful and how we can both cope with those actions and then ultimately change those actions so that distrust isn't bred within.
You know, this entire comment may have been worth as much as piss in the wind if it wasn't for the fact that Trump originally supported the Captain until several Admirals called him (through the proper channels) to explain what the issue was with the Captain's actions, where he immediately backed down from his earlier stance and sided with the Navy.
This isn't something I've seen, but I guess it's entirely plausible, considering who we're talking about. So now the defense to Trump's knee-jerk reaction is that he at first made his usual uninformed knee-jerk reaction the other way before being told a tiny bit about its implications being actually bad and made a wild swing in the other direction? Truly, a stellar example of leadership at work, and a wonderful reason to support government by fiat like this, if I ever saw one.
Trump never sided with the Navy, he overruled the Navy in both instances, blowing away their regulations. Again, if he'd given a damn about the Navy's regulations, he would have let them perform their investigation and come to a conclusion on their own.
Steak said:
Rather they've come to the correct conclusion that those institutions do not have the best interests of the people of the United States at heart. They either have a, shall we say, broad view of things or are flat out antagonistic. Trust has been lost because many Americans feel like they've been exploited, taken for granted, or flat out abandoned.
And I'm not sure how you can argue against that.
So because someone lies to you some of the time, you shouldn't even try to address the problem, and instead put absolute blind faith in someone known to lie to you all of the time? Genius!
There's absolutely reason to hold faulty institutions to account, but this is blatantly a way to make all those problems worse. It's logic like that which says that if you stub your toe on your dresser when walking in the dark, the best solution is to light your house on fire and be homeless.
Steak said:
Besides which, everyone else around the world is nation first. If you have one country that cares about itself and another country that cares about it's neighbor, which country is in a better position? I'd rather have a world with redundant nation states than one where everything can be knocked out like a line of dominoes. Or played like a fiddle.
And here we swing for what should be ludicrously off-topic, but, well, really is the heart of the matter, now isn't it? We need to support firing a Navy captain because Trump's the only way to stop the Jewish New World Order from... making all food Kosher or something(?), and therefore we can't ever admit he's wrong about anything!
(And Trump's definitely only ever put "America First" when prioritizing whatever nations give him money through his emoluments with absolutely no regard to America's interests, right?)
There is absolutely no logical through-line with any of these statements. "Firing a navy captain through overturning American democracy into a feudal society is necessary because we had to put the nation we're destroying because it doesn't support us first or else there would be a New World Order that would destroy the nation if we didn't destroy it first!"
He will even attack and fire his own administration if he thinks they are messing up.
His yardstick for "messing up", instead of being something sensible like "not competent", is "disagreeing with me in any way".
This is a guy whose level of privilege has insulated him from any and all negative consequences and criticism of his decisions his entire life. The notion of himself being wrong is incomprehensible to him.
So Trump is the bad guy no matter what decision he makes? He took notice of a possible injustice, was corrected by Navy leadership, and amended his stance. Is that not the "presidential temperament" people have been claiming they wanted from Trump? Again, I'm still amazed this somehow turned into a bash Trump session when the whole deal is about the Captain.
Steak is more commenting on the fact that nations exist for a reason. Nations have their own culture, their own economy, and standings. Trying to pretend all nations are one big happy family breaks down once someone needs or wants more than others are willing to provide. Keep in mind globalism is what lead to both world wars (former being basically unconditional alliances, the latter assuming international law means anything to anyone, or that bigger countries won't sacrifice the little countries to buy time).
No one even brought up Jews, not to mention Trump's family is Jewish.
Also there is no democracy in the military. There is a chain of command and rules. People don't get to vote on what they do or how they are treated, they have a duty once they sign those papers. America also by the way is a Republic, which is fundamentally different than just a democracy, it is a refined version that avoids mob rule and recognizes the inability of all citizens to vote on all decisions, all the time. It is why we have representatives
Arcana55 said:
His yardstick for "messing up", instead of being something sensible like "not competent", is "disagreeing with me in any way".
This is a guy whose level of privilege has insulated him from any and all negative consequences and criticism of his decisions his entire life. The notion of himself being wrong is incomprehensible to him.
Really, privilege? You don't get rich just by coming from money. That kind of concept is only believed by paycheck receivers, not paycheck writers. There are tons of rich brats who have squandered their family wealth (or heck, even wealth they only got from a lucky break such as actors or lotto winners), just as there are poor people who worked their way up the ladder to good or excellent standing. Claiming someone's success on privilege is just sour grapes.
This situation with the Captain was literally a situation where the Navy disagreed with Trump's original opinion. Trump changed his mind and agreed with the Navy, that is specifically contrary to your assessment of him.
I don't like Romney but if he said he didn't want a company hiring illegal aliens (which is a crime) I don't see how you find that to be a bad thing.
While your entire screed is just made of Fox News talking points, this line in particular is just perfect in that you don't even for a moment consider the actual meaning of the statements I made. That might actually require the slightest amount of critical analysis, much less self-reflection after all!
No, you don't like Romney, but the reason why has apparently all gone down the Memory Hole by this point, hasn't it? You hated him for that statement, but apparently now, you've completely forgotten why because it's outside the current political moment.
79248cm/s said:
Trump supporters are pretty clearly on the stance of law and order...
No, they very clearly aren't. They don't believe in anything but Trump.
If they were a party of law and order, you would have stuck by what the courts said with Gallagher. But that didn't matter because Fox News said it was a bad thing he was being demoted for some reason, and supporting law and order is siding with the terrorists, but as soon as the subject changes, you're "the party of law and order" all over again. Who cares why Comey was fired, or if it was a blatant obstruction of justice so long as a flimsy legal justification can be thrown up, and a new attorney general can be thrown in to bury the results? No so-called principle will not be betrayed here, so long as it gets you to the conclusion you want to get to. Black is white, up is down, and two plus two equals five if Fox News says so.
You've even said yourself in the past that you not only don't have, but can't have loyalty to any principles or concepts like nations, you only have loyalty to a person. You can't hold that view and then say that you are on the side of a principle like "law and order".
My opinions are my own (and Fox News regularly bashes Trump by the way because he isn't establishment Republican)
Again, Romney found out the business used illegal aliens and told them not to when he found out. I still can't see what you are finding bad about that, and I never said I hated him for that statement.
I'm obviously a Trump supporter, but you seem to believe you know my stance better than I do. Gallagher's entire trial was a mess, and this was evident in the review where much of the testimonies were hearsay, or personally motivated against him out of jealousy. Law and order doesn't support witch trials or lynch mobbing.
I never said I don't/can't have loyalty to principles or concepts like nations... (I'm literally someone who risked his life solely for US interests). I'm seeing this trend with you that I have mentioned in our PM's and other discussions, you frequently lump all your opposition's opinions together and do not differentiate between who you are speaking to. Not that I entirely blame you, my username is not exactly recognizable or easy to remember, being just a bunch of numbers. But if you are going to recall someone's past you have to remember it accurately.
Dammit ya'll, isn't there a rule here that political debate is forbidden in the comment sections?
There is no ban on political debate. No subject is forbidden on danbooru. The only mandate is to keep discourse civil. Frankly this is one of the fun things about the website. An anime image can get a bunch of weebs to talk about serious stuff.