Originally posted by xsYou made a claim; back it up. When I make a claim, I provide links or materials to support it, usually upfront. I'm sick of the intellectual laziness of the right wingers here; play the same as everybody else if you expect to be taken seriously.
Google >General Newbold was "publicly chastised"< and pick your own site.
Normally I would defer to you, rhp's resident expert, on the matter of what constitutes a personal attack. However, anyone who publicly criticizes their government had best be able to withstand scrutiny himself (especially when it's directly related to the critique). And anyone posting tho ...[text shortened]... ut acquainting himself with the facts of the situation, will have difficulty defending them.
Originally posted by zeeblebotSo you're stupid. That's not really my problem. If you read the posts that post is responding to, the meaning is obvious. Why should I bother to explain it to you when I've already made my meaning perfectly clear? Lifetime military members don't want to resign their commissions during wartime if they possibly can, but like anybody with a smidgen of integrity they will if the situation becomes morally, ethically or otherwise intolerable. Now will you go on with semi-sentences for another page asking what I mean?
understood them, still don't understand why you think they support your point rather than undermining it.
and, you mispelled "monkees" in your Location line.
You need to buy a dictionary; monkeys is the plural of monkey in mine. The title is derived from the first post in this thread: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=41445
Originally posted by zeeblebotI don't know, but it doesn't really matter. I was replying to slimjim's post which said this:
1. did any of them resign their commission, or did they all just retire?
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkees
I'm sure if they were men of principal as they are trying to BS everyone into believing they are they should have said. We can't your war plans Mr. SECDEF so my resignation will be on your desk in the morning
He was saying that they should have resigned their commissions in wartime (or about to be wartime which is about the same thing so far as the ethical issue is concerned); I said that is not usually considered a viable option to military commanders. You should actually try following the whole discussion rather than reading my posts out of context.
Originally posted by no1marauderIntellectual laziness would more aptly apply to you, for failing
You made a claim; back it up. When I make a claim, I provide links or materials to support it, usually upfront. I'm sick of the intellectual laziness of the right wingers here; play the same as everybody else if you expect to be taken seriously.
to avail yourself of all the facts. You posted a link to Lt. Gen.
Gregory Newbold's criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld without even
considering he might have a motive. I'd be sick too.
Originally posted by xsYou're a true dick. Post some proof of this supposed "public chatisement" and how it's a "motive" for his criticism. I think I know what you're talking about, but why should I bother discussing something only to have you say "I didn't mean THAT". Right wingers constantly try to impinge the characters of anybody who criticizes the Gods in Washington you now worship and I don't pay any attention to such gossip. Show what you think Newbold's supposed "motive" is or stop attacking the man who served his country for many years.
Intellectual laziness would more aptly apply to you, for failing
to avail yourself of all the facts. You posted a link to Lt. Gen.
Gregory Newbold's criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld without even
considering he might have a motive. I'd be sick too.
Originally posted by no1marauderAfter being publicly chastised by Secretary Rumsfeld, Lt. General Newbold suddenly requested early retirement and now, years later, is playing the politician while couching himself in a Marine uniform he removed some four months before the war even started.
You're a true dick. Post some proof of this supposed "public chatisement" and how it's a "motive" for his criticism. I think I know what you're talking about, but why should I bother discussing something only to have you say "I didn't mean THAT". Right wingers constantly try to impinge the characters of anybody who criticizes the Gods in Washington you n ...[text shortened]... posed "motive" is or stop attacking the man who served his country for many years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/05/03/wafg303.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/05/03/ixnewstop.html
or
http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/ring080202.html
I'd rather see his full-throated critique of Somalia. Where he commanded the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit during Operation Restore Hope. Yet under Clinton he rose to the Director of Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss'...hardly.
Originally posted by xsA) Rumsfeld's statement was hardly a "public chastisement" since it was merely that General Newbold shouldn't have used the word "eviscerated" to describe the effect of US bombing of the Taliban's military capability after the first few days of the bombing campaign. The second story has both parties making jokes about it; hardly making it seem like it was a big deal. BTW, Newbold was right, of course.
After being publicly chastised by Secretary Rumsfeld, Lt. General Newbold suddenly requested early retirement and now, years later, is playing the politician while couching himself in a Marine uniform he removed some four months before the war even started.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/05/03/wafg303.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/05/03/ixne ...[text shortened]... erations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss'...hardly.
B) You still haven't shown what "motive" this supposedly imputes to Newbold.
Of course, you would only be interested in what happened under Clinton; you hate Clinton and worship Bush. Have one of your right wing hacks ask Newbold about Somalia; I'm sure he'll answer (I didn't support that fiasco either, BTW).
Originally posted by no1marauderi'm reading the context correctly, you're just dodging the issue.
I don't know, but it doesn't really matter. I was replying to slimjim's post which said this:
I'm sure if they were men of principal as they are trying to BS everyone into believing they are they should have said. We can't your war plans Mr. SECDEF so my resignation will be on your desk in the morning
He was saying that they should ha ...[text shortened]... ld actually try following the whole discussion rather than reading my posts out of context.