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.

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 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

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

"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 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!

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.


Key word: "may".

There are no guarantees, nor should one assume such..

Dave

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!