 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / January 2006Re: US Army In Iraq Institutionally Racist, Claims British Officer
Yes, this article is much more sound, professional, informed and better founded than the one by Brigadier Aylwin-Foster. http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/download/English/JulAug05/chiar elli.pdf Essential Reading for any serious person posting to this thread. The article covers some of the same ground as the Brit author, but in a much more intelligent, informed, detailed, professional manner. It is not "lengthy" either, as one ignorant pogue would have it -- it is 14 pages -- the same length as the Aylwin-Foster article. Finally, I'm not faulting the Aylwin-Foster paper based on just two words, "institutional racism" -- neither is "Hippo". I've made it quite clear that Aylwin-Foster's article has multiple faults -- and have detailed them in previous posts. In summary, Aylwin-Foster's paper is pretentious fluff -- whereas the Chiarelli-Michaelis paper is sound, professional, detailed, fact-filled and actually deals with SOLUTIONS -- not just envious, pretentious, prissy, wimpy-wussy Brit ankle-biting. D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor >Yes, this article is much more sound, professional, informed and better founded than the one by Brigadier Aylwin-Foster. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Vires et Honor Mr H, your posts are containing HTML, which is usual for you. You may wish to alter your posting settings. -- Julian Richards medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV" THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL I sometimes post in HTML -- when required. In that case it was to make sure the entire URL came through intact on one line. Pogues and poguettes should do the same. DSH >I sometimes post in HTML -- when required. > >In that case it was to make sure the entire URL came through intact on one >line. > >Pogues and poguettes should do the same. use the <url> system and spare us the html, fer chrissake Peter Skelton :>I sometimes post in HTML -- when required. :> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : :use the <url> system and spare us the html, fer chrissake Someone should explain to The Hindest that Usenet is *not* an HTML-enabled medium by default. Most real Usenet Newsreaders do *NOT* support HTML, so what comes across is a bunch of ugly looking text where lines STILL wrap whenever they feel like it. Posting HTML to Usenet is merely ignorant. Advising others to do the same is arrogantly stupid to boot.  Signature"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson Smart folks post in HTML frequently, when appropriate, on USENET. Dumb People, with obsolete computers and software -- or clueless technical skills -- do not. Quod Erat Demonstrandum Deus Vult DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas In news:B2izf.419$h8.9041@eagle.america.net "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote: > Smart folks post in HTML frequently, when appropriate, on USENET. Since posting in HTML on USENET is ->never appropriate, you might be saying something intelligent. But the smart money says you're not. SignatureBert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com >Smart folks post in HTML frequently, when appropriate, on USENET. Said "smart folks" have never read the pertinant RFCs and are doubtlessly, and blissfully, unaware that Usenet is a TEXT medium. You are currently here --> [port 119]. The web is at port 80. Use it. >Dumb People, with obsolete computers and software -- or clueless technical >skills -- do not. > >Quod Erat Demonstrandum > >Deus Vult Argumentum absurdum Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant! Vescere bracis meis Fac ut vivas -- AUK Registrar Providing clues to the cluless since time began >>Smart folks post in HTML frequently, when appropriate, on USENET. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Fac ut vivas Opycay atthay! Copy that! .. :) - nilita On 1/17/06 2:42 PM, in article mklqs112j0f6ftppbvv61a20984n57ept4@4ax.com, >> Yes, this article is much more sound, professional, informed and better >> founded than the one by Brigadier Aylwin-Foster. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Mr H, your posts are containing HTML, which is usual for you. You may > wish to alter your posting settings. I think that Spencer occasionally does this intentionally for shock effect. :>) Grey Satterfield Intelligent Posters are situationally and contextually AWARE. So, they employ the: Top Post Bottom Post Interlinear Post Plain Text Post HTML Post Depending on the: Situation Context And: INTENT. 'Nuff Said. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Fortem Posce Animum >Intelligent Posters are situationally and contextually AWARE. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >'Nuff Said. Intelligently and appropriately? Peter Skelton > On 1/17/06 2:42 PM, in article mklqs112j0f6ftppbvv61a20984n57ept4@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > effect. > :>) And awe ... Jim On 1/17/06 5:09 PM, in article KOezf.2098$924.122768@news20.bellglobal.com, >> On 1/17/06 2:42 PM, in article mklqs112j0f6ftppbvv61a20984n57ept4@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > And awe ... I was going to follow up on Jim's post with something snide but then decided that I am MUCH too nice a fellow for that. :>) Grey Satterfield >> On 1/17/06 2:42 PM, in article mklqs112j0f6ftppbvv61a20984n57ept4@4ax.com, >>> Mr H, your posts are containing HTML, which is usual for you. You may [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >And awe ... ITYM aweFUL. -- AUK Registrar Providing clues to the cluless since time began >> On 1/17/06 2:42 PM, in article mklqs112j0f6ftppbvv61a20984n57ept4@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >And awe ... Won't work, Dolly's got better taste than that. Peter Skelton Yes, this article is much more sound, professional, informed and better founded than the one by Brigadier Aylwin-Foster. http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/download/English/JulAug05/chiar elli.pdf Essential Reading for any serious person posting to this thread. The article covers some of the same ground as the Brit author, but in a much more intelligent, informed, detailed, professional manner. It is not "lengthy" either, as one ignorant pogue would have it -- it is 14 pages -- the same length as the Aylwin-Foster article. Finally, I'm not faulting the Aylwin-Foster paper based on just two words, "institutional racism" -- neither is "Hippo". I've made it quite clear that Aylwin-Foster's article has multiple faults -- and have detailed them in previous posts. ----------------- I wish that were true. However, now that we have an article by an American military professional, perhaps we will get posts on the merits of the issue. Jim "Jim Voege" wrote in message [.] > Finally, I'm not faulting the Aylwin-Foster paper based on just two words, > "institutional racism" -- neither is "Hippo". > > I've made it quite clear that Aylwin-Foster's article has multiple > faults -- and have detailed them in previous posts. Thanks, Jim. Nice to meet someone who reads. Aylwin-Foster does make a few good points. Like most officers in Iraq, he must have been horrified by the number and redundancy of superior commands and staffs. We could probably reduce the number of troops in the region by 10,000 just by sending them home. If we did senior officers and their staffs would not get career enhancing time in a combat zone, and it wouldn't be as easy to play the who dunnit shell game when really nasty goofs come to light. He might have mentioned that much of the reason for the no-excuse ethos is constant attacks from the political opposition, but he didn't. He might have also mentioned that Rumsfeld is presently undertaking the only top-to-bottom reform of the military in recent history, but he didn't. Most of faults he mentions have been criticized by US officers for years and are nothing new. -the Troll > "Jim Voege" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks, Jim. Nice to meet someone who reads. I didn't write the words you attribute to me above. I believe those were sent to us by Mr. Hines.... > Aylwin-Foster does make a few good points. Like most officers in Iraq, he > must have been horrified by the number and redundancy of superior commands [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Most of faults he mentions have been criticized by US officers for years > and are nothing new. -the Troll He does mention this. He also mentions that whatever reformation has been done does not appear to have "taken". Jim "Jim Voege" wrote in message > He does mention this. He also mentions that whatever reformation has been > done does not appear to have "taken". Changing the army, like any entrenched bureaucracy, is like moving Everest. Rumsfeld knows that and has started at the center of mass - the Pentagon. He thinks he can manage it in the eight years given to him, if it doesn't kill him first. Even then it will take a decade or more for the changes to completely manifest themselves. He didn't start by making wholesale changes. He began at the beginning by trying to understand how the Pentagon doesn't work. I think it took him two months just to do a flow chart of the place - probably the first detailed one ever attempted. We have more generals today with ten divisions than we did in WWII with a hundred. Reform, true reform, is on the way and some of the army brass hates it and have dug in their heels. They will loose if Rumsfeld lives long enough. Our British brigadier should have kept his shirt on. -the Troll I actually wrote that, "Hippo". DSH > "Jim Voege" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Most of faults he mentions have been criticized by US officers for years > and are nothing new. -the Troll Bingo! DSH "D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message >I actually wrote that, "Hippo". Well you are right. -the Troll "La N" <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:... >>> I have decided I've been too soft hearted for my own good when it comes >>> to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - nilita, truly with empty pockets ...%) btw, boss, I should'a listened to you and take some time off of the gym due to injuries. Right now, my right foot is swollen and in ice packs ... :( - n. Nope. I say again: You did not fight as CANADIANS per se in either of those wars -- you fought as Brits -- "over here". So, again, there is no deep-seated idea of a willingness to put everything on the line -- your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor for your FREEDOM to break free from a Tyrannical Monarchical Power in Europe -- as our American Revolutionaries did -- seared in Blood. Hence, no deep-seated idea of a fierce Canadian National Consciousness and No "Soul". Ay, there's the rub -- as well as the pain and the psychological dilemma at the root of much of the Canadian behavior we often see. DSH > D. Spencer Hines wrote: >> Yep, that's part of the problem. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> DSH > Actually, we did (American Revolution and War of 1812). Had either event > turned out the other way we wouldn't be independent now. > > Cheers > CJ Adams > Arte et Marte |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.