JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...


JimH wrote:



"Jim," wrote in message
...



JimH wrote:




It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different
animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to
what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion.

Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not
work with Iraq. They may work with Iran.

So what is your point Jim?



Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in
negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS
way?



No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you
can provide a link.

Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in
the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing?

Convienent memory! --


No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam?



I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The
question asked was "is this a flip or a flop?


Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics.

Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with
other Countries?



From your favorite news source

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html

"The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with
Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran
abandon its program."


Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite
news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another
attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the
attempted personal attacks Jimcomma?

OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world.


I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to?




http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm

Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in
strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to
avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior.


Great. Bush is doing good....eh?

I'll give him this one



During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along
with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


Nothing has changed. Your point is?

Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea?


We already are.




And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian
revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S.
Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days.



Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years,
as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan

Your point is?



The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue
of flip flopping during the campaign.


No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with
international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core
beliefs.

Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war
on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort
reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in
his dealing with other countries.

Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion,
Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm

the war on terror,
He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all
troop funding,
Again deceived
ANWAR,
Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm


welfare reform,
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm
the death penalty
Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php
the Patriot Act,

Agreed


affirmative action
See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp
.....and on and on and on.

"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...


JimH wrote:



"Jim," wrote in message
...



JimH wrote:




It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are
different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in
Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion.

Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did
not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran.

So what is your point Jim?



Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in
negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS
way?



No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you
can provide a link.

Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in
the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing?

Convienent memory! --


No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam?



I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The
question asked was "is this a flip or a flop?


Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international
politics.

Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with
other Countries?



From your favorite news source

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html

"The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with
Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran
abandon its program."


Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my
favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative?
Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things
without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma?

OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world.


I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to?




http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm

Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in
strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to
avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior.


Great. Bush is doing good....eh?

I'll give him this one



During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil,"
along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


Nothing has changed. Your point is?

Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea?


We already are.




And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian
revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the
U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days.



Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years,
as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan

Your point is?



The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue
of flip flopping during the campaign.


No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing
with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their
core beliefs.

Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the
war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion,
tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called
for in his dealing with other countries.

Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion,
Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm

the war on terror,
He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all
troop funding,
Again deceived

Bull**** and a lame excuse.


ANWAR,
Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling.


http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR



http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm


welfare reform,
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm


the death penalty
Not so
http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php
the Patriot Act,

Agreed


affirmative action
See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp
....and on and on and on.


Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops.

http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm

The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush
hasn't.

Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king.

JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...


JimH wrote:



"Jim," wrote in message
...



JimH wrote:




"Jim," wrote in message
...




JimH wrote:





It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are
different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in
Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion.

Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did
not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran.

So what is your point Jim?



Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in
negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS
way?



No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you
can provide a link.

Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in
the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing?

Convienent memory! --


No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam?




I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The
question asked was "is this a flip or a flop?


Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international
politics.

Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with
other Countries?



From your favorite news source


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html

"The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with
Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran
abandon its program."


Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my
favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative?
Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things
without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma?

OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world.


I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to?




http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm

Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in
strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to
avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior.


Great. Bush is doing good....eh?

I'll give him this one



During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil,"
along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


Nothing has changed. Your point is?

Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea?


We already are.




And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian
revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the
U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days.



Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years,
as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan

Your point is?



The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue
of flip flopping during the campaign.


No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing
with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their
core beliefs.

Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the
war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion,
tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called
for in his dealing with other countries.

Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion,

Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm

the war on terror,
He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all
troop funding,
Again deceived


Bull**** and a lame excuse.



ANWAR,
Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling.



http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR



http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm


welfare reform,
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm



the death penalty
Not so
http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php
the Patriot Act,

Agreed


affirmative action
See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp
....and on and on and on.


Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops.

http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm

The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush
hasn't.

Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king.


Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source?

Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped.


On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?

And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.


Why would they have allowed you to do it?
They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just
as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the
abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know
what was happening.

If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given
that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing?

As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you
damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance.
But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little,
ten-year-old Mary Sue?

A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents,
much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the
child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing
the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child
to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting.

Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also
nicely twisted.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped.


On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:


On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




John H wrote:




On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:





JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?

And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.


Why would they have allowed you to do it?

They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just
as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the
abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know
what was happening.


If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given
that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing?

As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you
damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance.
But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little,
ten-year-old Mary Sue?

A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents,
much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the
child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing
the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child
to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting.

Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also
nicely twisted.

I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following.

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped.


On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:


On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




John H wrote:




On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:





JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?

And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.


Why would they have allowed you to do it?

They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just
as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the
abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know
what was happening.


If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given
that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing?

As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you
damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance.
But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little,
ten-year-old Mary Sue?

A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents,
much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the
child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing
the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child
to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting.

Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also
nicely twisted.

I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following.

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."

So was your mother!

"Hoisted on your own petard," as they say.


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped.


On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:


On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




John H wrote:



On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:





John H wrote:





On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:






JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?

And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.


Why would they have allowed you to do it?

They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just
as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the
abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know
what was happening.


If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given
that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing?

As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you
damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance.
But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little,
ten-year-old Mary Sue?

A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents,
much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the
child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing
the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child
to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting.

Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also
nicely twisted.

I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following.

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


So was your mother!

"Hoisted on your own petard," as they say.


The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called
to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given
a pass.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped.


On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:


On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




John H wrote:



On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:





John H wrote:





On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:






JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?

And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.


Why would they have allowed you to do it?

They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just
as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the
abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know
what was happening.


If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given
that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing?

As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you
damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance.
But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little,
ten-year-old Mary Sue?

A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents,
much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the
child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing
the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child
to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting.

Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also
nicely twisted.

I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following.

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


So was your mother!

"Hoisted on your own petard," as they say.


The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called
to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given
a pass.

You best stick to cut'n'pastin.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped.


On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




John H wrote:



On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:





John H wrote:




On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:






John H wrote:






On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:







JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?

And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.


Why would they have allowed you to do it?

They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just
as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the
abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know
what was happening.


If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given
that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing?

As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you
damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance.
But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little,
ten-year-old Mary Sue?

A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents,
much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the
child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing
the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child
to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting.

Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also
nicely twisted.

I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following.

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


So was your mother!

"Hoisted on your own petard," as they say.



The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called
to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given
a pass.


You best stick to cut'n'pastin.

Which part of the following do you NOT agree with?

The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called
to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given
a pass.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:13 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped.


On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




John H wrote:



On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:





John H wrote:




On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:






John H wrote:






On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:







JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?

And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.


Why would they have allowed you to do it?

They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just
as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the
abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know
what was happening.


If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given
that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing?

As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you
damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance.
But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little,
ten-year-old Mary Sue?

A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents,
much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the
child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing
the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child
to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting.

Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also
nicely twisted.

I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following.

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


So was your mother!

"Hoisted on your own petard," as they say.



The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called
to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given
a pass.


You best stick to cut'n'pastin.

Which part of the following do you NOT agree with?

The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called
to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given
a pass.

Stick to cut'n'pastin'.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."