John, this is getting silly. First of all, people in the armed services are
entitled to opinions, and as far as I know, nothing prohibits the war
college from publishing those opinions, unless the person in charge of
what's published is the president's golf buddy and doesn't want to offend
him.

But, here's something more interesting to consider. First, though, let's
define a concept:

Here it is - "Enough military experience to have any business opening your
mouth on the subject of global strategy"

Perhaps I should define it by what it does NOT mean. If someone joins the
army/navy/air force/coast guard/marines for however many years is the
minimum, and sees either no combat, or just one tour, they're not qualified
to discuss global strategy. And, let's say this person never goes beyond the
first or second level in rank, and receives no high-level training of any
kind, such as the war college. That eliminates what....95% of new enlistees?

Guess who it also eliminates? George Bush.

Guess who it does NOT eliminate, based on the "training" clause, above?
Anyone who has spent a significant length of time at the war college, and
certainly most of the instructors. Virtually anyone in this category in
qualified to have an opinion that's worth listening to.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:43:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

John, this is getting silly. First of all, people in the armed services are
entitled to opinions, and as far as I know, nothing prohibits the war
college from publishing those opinions, unless the person in charge of
what's published is the president's golf buddy and doesn't want to offend
him.

But, here's something more interesting to consider. First, though, let's
define a concept:

Here it is - "Enough military experience to have any business opening your
mouth on the subject of global strategy"

Perhaps I should define it by what it does NOT mean. If someone joins the
army/navy/air force/coast guard/marines for however many years is the
minimum, and sees either no combat, or just one tour, they're not qualified
to discuss global strategy. And, let's say this person never goes beyond the
first or second level in rank, and receives no high-level training of any
kind, such as the war college. That eliminates what....95% of new enlistees?

Guess who it also eliminates? George Bush.

Guess who it does NOT eliminate, based on the "training" clause, above?
Anyone who has spent a significant length of time at the war college, and
certainly most of the instructors. Virtually anyone in this category in
qualified to have an opinion that's worth listening to.

No one could have all the experiences necessary, by the manner in
which you make definitions, to be president. Global strategy is only
one arena. How about global economics, global environment, global
health, global education, etc. That's why presidents have advisors at
the cabinet level and below.

No new enlistees go to the War College. Only officers go to the War
College, usually Lieutenant Colonel and higher. I've never heard of a
Major attending. If a Lieutenant Colonel attends, he/she has probably
been selected for promotion to Colonel.

John H

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

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:43:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

John, this is getting silly. First of all, people in the armed services
are
entitled to opinions, and as far as I know, nothing prohibits the war
college from publishing those opinions, unless the person in charge of
what's published is the president's golf buddy and doesn't want to offend
him.

But, here's something more interesting to consider. First, though, let's
define a concept:

Here it is - "Enough military experience to have any business opening
your
mouth on the subject of global strategy"

Perhaps I should define it by what it does NOT mean. If someone joins the
army/navy/air force/coast guard/marines for however many years is the
minimum, and sees either no combat, or just one tour, they're not
qualified
to discuss global strategy. And, let's say this person never goes beyond
the
first or second level in rank, and receives no high-level training of any
kind, such as the war college. That eliminates what....95% of new
enlistees?

Guess who it also eliminates? George Bush.

Guess who it does NOT eliminate, based on the "training" clause, above?
Anyone who has spent a significant length of time at the war college, and
certainly most of the instructors. Virtually anyone in this category in
qualified to have an opinion that's worth listening to.

No one could have all the experiences necessary, by the manner in
which you make definitions, to be president. Global strategy is only
one arena. How about global economics, global environment, global
health, global education, etc. That's why presidents have advisors at
the cabinet level and below.

No new enlistees go to the War College. Only officers go to the War
College, usually Lieutenant Colonel and higher. I've never heard of a
Major attending. If a Lieutenant Colonel attends, he/she has probably
been selected for promotion to Colonel.

John H

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

Please stop the OT posts.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:28:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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

But we all know that opinions are like........... It means nothing
except someone's personal viewpoint.

Dave

John H wrote in message . ..
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.

No, I didn't make the above statement. That is a title. I just don't
understand the right. It wouldn't matter if someone caught Bush
killing a cat with his bare hands, on tape, with sound, and perfect
video. You all would still say the person who took the video was a
left wing, unpatriotic liar!!!

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:43:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

John, this is getting silly. First of all, people in the armed services
are
entitled to opinions, and as far as I know, nothing prohibits the war
college from publishing those opinions, unless the person in charge of
what's published is the president's golf buddy and doesn't want to offend
him.

But, here's something more interesting to consider. First, though, let's
define a concept:

Here it is - "Enough military experience to have any business opening
your
mouth on the subject of global strategy"

Perhaps I should define it by what it does NOT mean. If someone joins the
army/navy/air force/coast guard/marines for however many years is the
minimum, and sees either no combat, or just one tour, they're not
qualified
to discuss global strategy. And, let's say this person never goes beyond
the
first or second level in rank, and receives no high-level training of any
kind, such as the war college. That eliminates what....95% of new
enlistees?

Guess who it also eliminates? George Bush.

Guess who it does NOT eliminate, based on the "training" clause, above?
Anyone who has spent a significant length of time at the war college, and
certainly most of the instructors. Virtually anyone in this category in
qualified to have an opinion that's worth listening to.

No one could have all the experiences necessary, by the manner in
which you make definitions, to be president. Global strategy is only
one arena. How about global economics, global environment, global
health, global education, etc. That's why presidents have advisors at
the cabinet level and below.

No new enlistees go to the War College. Only officers go to the War
College, usually Lieutenant Colonel and higher. I've never heard of a
Major attending. If a Lieutenant Colonel attends, he/she has probably
been selected for promotion to Colonel.

John H

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

I understand who goes to the war college. And, you've proven my point. A
select few get there. My contention is that if they've been through it,
their opinions may be somewhat more valid than yours or mine. That's all.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:28:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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

But we all know that opinions are like........... It means nothing
except someone's personal viewpoint.

Dave

Yeah, but the the "someone" has qualifications that you or I do NOT have,
their opinions may reflect facts.

On 14 Jan 2004 05:05:57 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 13 Jan 2004 04:27:24 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:


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.

No, I didn't make the above statement. That is a title. I just don't
understand the right. It wouldn't matter if someone caught Bush
killing a cat with his bare hands, on tape, with sound, and perfect
video. You all would still say the person who took the video was a
left wing, unpatriotic liar!!!

In my computer, when I post a new message, I type the title. In doing
so I am making a statement. You, for example, could have titled your
post:

*Jeffrey Record says Iraq "unnecessary"*

But that wouldn't be much of an attention grabber, would it? Therefore
you chose to make the statement you did, which was a lie.

In your example, I would entitle the piece something like:

*Bush kills rabid cat with bare hands, thus protecting hundreds of
spectators who were soon to be bitten*

See how easy it is to be honest?

John H

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

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:51:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:43:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

snipped

No one could have all the experiences necessary, by the manner in
which you make definitions, to be president. Global strategy is only
one arena. How about global economics, global environment, global
health, global education, etc. That's why presidents have advisors at
the cabinet level and below.

No new enlistees go to the War College. Only officers go to the War
College, usually Lieutenant Colonel and higher. I've never heard of a
Major attending. If a Lieutenant Colonel attends, he/she has probably
been selected for promotion to Colonel.

John H

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

I understand who goes to the war college. And, you've proven my point. A
select few get there. My contention is that if they've been through it,
their opinions may be somewhat more valid than yours or mine. That's all.


Doug, my point is: If this essay had been published in almost any
other publication, we most likely would never have heard of it. The
article became famous because the Washington Post noticed it was
published by the Army War College. Note that none of the other
articles (which may be found at:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/p...rs/a-index.htm) have ever
received such spotlighting.

Could it be because they have different messages, ones that don't
correspond with the agenda of the Washington Post?



John H

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

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:52:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:28:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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

But we all know that opinions are like........... It means nothing
except someone's personal viewpoint.

Dave

Yeah, but the the "someone" has qualifications that you or I do NOT have,
their opinions may reflect facts.

There are many more 'just-as-qualified' somebodies writing articles
for "Parameters". Record is no more qualified than most of the
authors. He simply said something in a forum which the Washington Post
could use to reflect its agenda.

John H

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