| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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 report, by visiting U.S. Professor Jeffrey Record, who is on the faculty of the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point." It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network. "(T)he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly ... its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. The anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security," he said. Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to former Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In discussing his political background, Record also noted that in 1999, while on the staff of the Air War College, he published work critical of the Clinton administration. His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and don't necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon, or the U.S. government. But retired Army Col. Douglas Lovelace, the director of the Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said. Publication of the essay was approved by the Army War College's commandant, Maj. Gen. David Huntoon, Lovelace said. He said he and Huntoon expected the study to be controversial, but added, "He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom." Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon. " Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made before by critics of the administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against" al Qaeda. But it is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution. In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism. Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars ... because their strategic ends outran their available means." The essay concludes with several recommendations. Some are fairly noncontroversial, such as increasing the size of the Army and Marines Corps. But he also says the United States should scale back its ambitions in Iraq, and be prepared to settle for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine democracy. |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
Ya, ya.
Just more left wing spin from that bastion of socialist traitors, The Army War College. We do need to apply some objective standards of course. All of those who claimed moveon.org was completely responsible for the contest entry comparing the Bush administration to the Third Reich have no room---none---to claim that the Army War College doesn't fully endorse this professor's opinion. Gotta love it. :-) |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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. "Mr Record explicitly urged painting over the US's actual reasons for warfare with a nobly high-minded veneer, seeing such as a necessity for mobilizing public support for a conflict." In and around the year 2000 and 2001, the Army War College had publications calling for the use of military force "for more than simply protecting a nation and its people from traditional threat-based challenges". Onoe of the authors argued that defence meant protecting the US lifestyle, the circumstances of "daily life". Records (and other members of the War College) favored military action in the Middle East if it meant protecting our economy from an oil crisis. Remember, terrorists struck a financial target as a way to disrupt our economy. They also hoped to drive us from the Middle East so they could overthrow the government of Saudi Arabia, seize the oil, and put us at their mercy. Sending troops into Iraq was a strategy to prevent that. Why Records has done an about-face just 3 years later is beyond me. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that it's an election year...and he's an ex-aide to a former Democratic Senator. "basskisser" wrote in message m... 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 report, by visiting U.S. Professor Jeffrey Record, who is on the faculty of the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point." It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network. "(T)he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly ... its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. The anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security," he said. Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to former Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In discussing his political background, Record also noted that in 1999, while on the staff of the Air War College, he published work critical of the Clinton administration. His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and don't necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon, or the U.S. government. But retired Army Col. Douglas Lovelace, the director of the Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said. Publication of the essay was approved by the Army War College's commandant, Maj. Gen. David Huntoon, Lovelace said. He said he and Huntoon expected the study to be controversial, but added, "He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom." Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon. " Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made before by critics of the administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against" al Qaeda. But it is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution. In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism. Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars ... because their strategic ends outran their available means." The essay concludes with several recommendations. Some are fairly noncontroversial, such as increasing the size of the Army and Marines Corps. But he also says the United States should scale back its ambitions in Iraq, and be prepared to settle for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine democracy. |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
|
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
|
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
Unlike moveon.org, the Army War College is an educational institution.
As you know, censorship is highly frowned on by educational institutions. Please don't assign to the Army the values of every author who has been published by the Army War College. See the following "pixel" this professor's opinion. :-) |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
|
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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 S. Baltimore, MD USA My wife has two papers under consideration for publication by two separate professional journals in her field. Both articles and everything related to them are being carefully vetted and, AFTER that, they are submitted to the editorial boards for commentary and a vote on whether they should be published. John's concept of the world is slightly colored by his years in the military and his inexperience with the real world. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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. 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. And yet it happens all the time. Especially when a journal publishes "both sides" of a story. There's no way the publisher can agree with both disagreeing viewpoints. Steve |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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! |
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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! |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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? |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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! |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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. |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
|
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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? :-) |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
|
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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! |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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 |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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. |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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! |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
"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. |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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 |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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!!! |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
"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. |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
"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. |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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! |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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! |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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! |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
"John H" wrote in message
... 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? Of course, John. If you want a news source that's unbiased, you'll need to find one that's managed by robots. And even then, the programmers of those robots would be suspect. |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
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 |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:38:35 -0500, John H
wrote: 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. In other words: "selective journalism". Dave |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
John, I agree with many of your political positions, but if you want to see
this group get back to boating topics, it might be best if you ignore the political posts. You will not change anyone minds and the OT posts are ruining this NG. "John H" wrote in message ... 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! |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
Dave,
Let's follow the suggestion of a few others and try to ignore all OT posts. There are a ton of political NG's for those who want to argue with those we disagree with. "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:38:35 -0500, John H wrote: 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. In other words: "selective journalism". Dave |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
I'm curious: What do you do when you see an article about bilge pumps and
you don't want to read it because it doesn't interest you? Or, an article about removing stains from gel coat? "It's a new year!" wrote in message news:g8fNb.50864$sv6.127289@attbi_s52... John, I agree with many of your political positions, but if you want to see this group get back to boating topics, it might be best if you ignore the political posts. You will not change anyone minds and the OT posts are ruining this NG. |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
|
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:40:05 GMT, "It's a new year!"
wrote: Dave, Let's follow the suggestion of a few others and try to ignore all OT posts. There are a ton of political NG's for those who want to argue with those we disagree with. That's a tough call. I tried it, but when it becomes glaringly obvious that many on the opposite side of the fence are so blatantly fooled by the writings of people with less than stellar credibility, and who believe in an ideology that's just... well, Idealistic, I feel compelled to bring the voice of reason and logic to the table to temper this seemingly emotionally driven blindness that afflicts these same people. You will note that I have never started a political thread. I just jump in when the level of gullibility reaches the outer limits. If the OT threads stop, then my participation in them will also stop. Dave |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
John H wrote in message . ..
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! It is a TITLE, John. Nothing more. Nothing less. Now, if in the body of the piece, I said that I *knew for a fact* that the War College says Iraq war unneccessary, that would be different. But, again, your too far right, with too tight of blinders to see anything but your BushCo agenda. Again, I can't believe how you rights can't see anything but that. |
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
John H wrote in message . ..
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, are you implying that the Army War College DISagrees with everything in the article? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:40 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com