On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:22:50 GMT, wrote:

Is the paper available on the WWW? Does anyone have a link to it?

Sandy


On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:09:04 -0500, John H wrote:

On 12 Jan 2004 20:37:43 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

This should get you the

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/p...ing/record.htm

Good reading.

John
John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:18:21 -0500, "Marty S."
wrote:


Note that it is a vehicle for continuing education and professional
development. Thus it is hardly a place to censor material to ensure
only one side of a story is told.

John H




That's a pretty naive thing to say. If the publisher of a journal disagrees
with a particular position, whether academic, scientific, or political, then
it won't publish the article.

I'm not defending or condeming the article in question -- I haven't read it.
I don't have a dog in this fight. But, what you said, John, is just not the
way the world works.

Marty, are you implying that the Army War College agrees with
everything in the article?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote in message . ..
On 12 Jan 2004 10:43:29 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Washington -- A scathing new report published by the Army War College
broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on
terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in
Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may
lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

The Army War College said nothing. Read the article. The war college
published the report. It didn't write it and disclaimed agreement with
it.

Why lie?

Uh, I think you're beginning to loose it there, John. I didn't write
the article, so how could I lie?

On 13 Jan 2004 04:27:24 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 12 Jan 2004 10:43:29 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Washington -- A scathing new report published by the Army War College
broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on
terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in
Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may
lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

The Army War College said nothing. Read the article. The war college
published the report. It didn't write it and disclaimed agreement with
it.

Why lie?

Uh, I think you're beginning to loose it there, John. I didn't write
the article, so how could I lie?

Did you not make the following statement?

************************************************** ********
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
************************************************** *******

Again, the Army War College said nothing. Read the article. The war
college published the report. It didn't write it and disclaimed
agreement with it.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Uh, I think you're beginning to loose it there, John. I didn't write
the article, so how could I lie?

He's picking apart your header.
"Army War College Says........."

Had you typed "Report published by Army War College Says........" he wouldn't
have even this extremely weak issue.

Do remember- anything said that casts the right wing in a questionable light is
always a "lie". No specific intent to misinform need apply.

In article et,
says...
What's funny, is that a little research will show that Record has written
(as recently as 2001) papers in *favor* of "presidential subterfuge" to
promote a conflict.

And in the case of Iraq, it was a poor investment, just like most of
George's investments.

Maybe this will make John content:

Army War College Believes Some of Its Personnel May Have a Valid Point,
Considering Their Unusual Category of Education

Is that vague enough? :-)

On 13 Jan 2004 14:46:27 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Uh, I think you're beginning to loose it there, John. I didn't write
the article, so how could I lie?

He's picking apart your header.
"Army War College Says........."

Had you typed "Report published by Army War College Says........" he wouldn't
have even this extremely weak issue.

Do remember- anything said that casts the right wing in a questionable light is
always a "lie". No specific intent to misinform need apply.

Had nothing to do with wing affiliation. Had to do with the truth.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:24:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Maybe this will make John content:

Army War College Believes Some of Its Personnel May Have a Valid Point,
Considering Their Unusual Category of Education

Is that vague enough? :-)

Not sure. What is it you're trying to say? Are you trying to say the
Army War College is anti-administration and anti-Bush as evidenced by
the article published in its magazine? OK, say it. Suppose the
two-star who is in charge of the Army War College is anti-Bush. So
what? He is allowed to be. He can disagree with policies, especially
if he's not in a position where he either executes the order or
resigns. This is a free country.

About three weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the Washington Post
questioning the credibility of one of their journalists. The letter
was published. Does this mean the Washington Post no longer believes
in the credibility of said journalist?

Maybe more of the old much ado about nothing?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

It sounds to me like somebody had the balls to do the right thing: Publish
an opinion which might be unpopular.

Here's another thought, but first, let's qualify it by defining a term:
EnMilitary experience