Your name was invoked soley for you poetic ability. It was a recognition. Now you require me to another recognition, when you say, <"Equating military service with qualification for debating war strategy or political policies is exactly the opposite of the way things work."> you are an embarrassment. Tell me you don't really think that Alexander, Patton, Eisenhower, or any other military leader didn't have years upon years of military training, experience and education? Surely this was part of a typing diarrhea you were suffering and are now over.
Forgive my lack of articulation in expressing my observation that the military hawks represented by Evil on these boards might not have any basis for their aggressive positioning. I merely asked Mr. Evil if he had seen any military service. I have had no response to this and still don't know the answer to my question. While I personally abhor war, my basis for this is having studied military affairs, and trained in miltary procedures and history enough to convince congress that I should officially be a gentleman.
(I will admit this is similar to a man being released from an insane asylum with a discharge slip and claiming he is the only one in the room capable of certifying he is sane.)
But, I think you are in dire need of such a piece of paper to suggest military service be a criterior for disqualification for debating war strategy. I will try to forget you took such a position, I realize we all have bad days. See, this is a true liberal position, granting you right to be wrong.
Publius
Current Events » in reply to Nice try.
oi vey, Techi
The whole thread (51 posts)
- "Marines: Allegations undercut us"
- Deja vu all over again
- More careful consideration of this matter from Insty...
- Sherman's dictum.
- Rape and Murder are OK with you?
- This is why...
- re: This is why...
- want to stop war?
- re: want to stop war?
- re: War is a continuation of politics by other means
- re: want to stop war?
- re: want to stop war?
- want to stop war?
- re: This is why...
