TPS Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Oh my God...he must be right! His brother died, so he's an expert! 811394[/snapback] Kevin Tillman joined the army with his brother Pat, and both served stints in Iraq and Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Kevin Tillman joined the army with his brother Pat, and both served stints in Iraq and Afghanistan. 811424[/snapback] So does that make him more or less knowledgable than a commanding general in Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 So does that make him more or less knowledgable than a commanding general in Iraq? 811437[/snapback] Tillman's is an editorial which expresses his beliefs; the other is a statement of fact that the Army's recent strategy to reduce violence in Iraq has not worked. No need to read them though, you already know the truth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Tillman's is an editorial which expresses his beliefs; the other is a statement of fact that the Army's recent strategy to reduce violence in Iraq has not worked.No need to read them though, you already know the truth... 811450[/snapback] Forest and tree's my freind. Trust me 2 star army generals whose title is senior spokesman, really doesn't see much more than the trees. I'll see if I can find the most recent one. But basically it says the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 So does that make him more or less knowledgable than a commanding general in Iraq? 811437[/snapback] If I want to know how construction project XYZ is moving along, in detail, I'd rather talk to the site foreman than the company president. Same concept that if you want to know what's happening in a war, listen to the higher-ranking sergeants (from a variety of areas). Michael Herr described this phenonmenon in "Dispatches"; some of the sheer crap that came out of the generals' mouths made you go . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 If I want to know how construction project XYZ is moving along, in detail, I'd rather talk to the site foreman than the company president. Same concept that if you want to know what's happening in a war, listen to the higher-ranking sergeants (from a variety of areas). Michael Herr described this phenonmenon in "Dispatches"; some of the sheer crap that came out of the generals' mouths made you go . 811472[/snapback] If you want to know how battles are going yeah. But if you want the theatre then you better go higher than someone who doesn't know what's happening 6 blocks over. You better hope you trust your folks to communicte stuff up properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 If I want to know how construction project XYZ is moving along, in detail, I'd rather talk to the site foreman than the company president. Same concept that if you want to know what's happening in a war, listen to the higher-ranking sergeants (from a variety of areas). Michael Herr described this phenonmenon in "Dispatches"; some of the sheer crap that came out of the generals' mouths made you go . 811472[/snapback] Agreed. I'd always rather hear from people that do the actual work than management. But then there's those rare times when the people doing the work are management. The work is usually called "setting policy"...which is where things become REALLY obtuse and !@#$ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Agreed. I'd always rather hear from people that do the actual work than management. But then there's those rare times when the people doing the work are management. The work is usually called "setting policy"...which is where things become REALLY obtuse and !@#$ed. 811517[/snapback] What, 6 posts in one thread and you still haven't added a thing to the discussion other then questioning the source. I'm guessing you're the monkey in disguise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 What, 6 posts in one thread and you still haven't added a thing to the discussion other then questioning the source. I'm guessing you're the monkey in disguise? 811540[/snapback] I'm sorry...was the discussion about something other than the source? Yet another reason I'm contemptuous of you...you seem to believe that discussing a topic and quoting someone else's opinion on said topic are the same thing. They're not. One actually involves understanding, the other's just parroting. And I don't "discuss" with parrots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 I'm sorry...was the discussion about something other than the source? Yet another reason I'm contemptuous of you...you seem to believe that discussing a topic and quoting someone else's opinion on said topic are the same thing. They're not. One actually involves understanding, the other's just parroting. And I don't "discuss" with parrots. 811544[/snapback] Not quite. I do think that posting a link to an editorial/article is a good way to begin a discussion about a topic/issue. I also think that there are times when the source should be questioned, but I believe most of the time discrediting the messenger is just a way to avoid discussing a message that runs counter to one's belief. Wow! There's a "list of reasons" for why I make you feel contemptuous...interesting...Mr... "Well, I hope you're not too messianic Or a trifle too satanic We love to play the blues Well you're just a ..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 The top US general defended the leadership of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying it is inspired by God. "He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country," said Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld is "a man whose patriotism focus, energy, drive, is exceeded by no one else I know ... quite simply, he works harder than anybody else in our building," Pace said at a ceremony at the Southern Command (Southcom) in Miami. And look at the picture of these two patriots together, I'm putting it on my file cabinet to look at every morning. Isn't it refreshing to see a military leader admit that God has a place in our decision making? http://uk.news.yahoo.com/20102006/323/phot...d-rumsfeld.html 810997[/snapback] And Al Queda does what they think Allah tells them to do. It's always refreshing to know that people are basing decisions on some Messianic beliefs instead of the facts on the ground. Thank God our God is better than their God. I mean, thank our God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Thank God our God is better than their God. I mean, thank our God. 811988[/snapback] but our God is their God so why is he telling them one thing and us another? maybe He's really talking to us and they're lying maybe He's really talking to them and we're lying maybe He's not talking to either of us maybe He pulled an Eric Cartman. And on the 7th day He said "Screw you guys, I'm going home" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts