SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: one_less who wrote (59134)9/20/2002 11:01:19 AM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
A Major General in the armed forces who had children at home who would
suffer or die without his/her direct support should retire.

But that's not the case here.

Here, it's more the case that a Major General has a son in the, say, 431st platoon. The MJ is ordered to send the platoon on a dangerous mission. Two members of the platoon are entitled to R&R, and the two members who are by regulation entitled to go do not include his son. So his son is scheduled to go on the mission, and risk his life.

Should the MJ pull strings to get one of the soldiers entitled to go on R&R to be forced to give up his R&R slot to the major's son, so that the son won't be exposed to the dangers of the mission, but the other soldier, who is entitled to be away from the action, is required to take part in it?

What's your ruling on the MJ's action in this case?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News