tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post368968924946056570..comments2023-11-17T03:55:40.736-05:00Comments on Ink Spots: When did that happen?Lilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18373158801523577733noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-39447879289467166392010-03-16T08:24:15.650-04:002010-03-16T08:24:15.650-04:00MIkeF:
Sometimes - not very often, thankfully - ...MIkeF: <br /><br />Sometimes - not very often, thankfully - it gets cranky in the comments section, even without SNLII!<br /><br />You should see any India thread involving me and Gulliver.<br /><br />(I made some sort of cranky comments at Wings Over Iraq, too, yesterday. I hope Starbuck knows I was kind of joking - I used, like, a million smileys and everything. I may not know mucc about South Asia in formal educational terms, but the emotional contours of certain conflicts! Read my cranky comments and learn young people, read and learn!)Madhuhttp://onparkstreet.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-50414527077270922442010-03-15T22:00:43.753-04:002010-03-15T22:00:43.753-04:00Dude,
Have you seen my Inkspots blog?
All this h...Dude,<br /><br />Have you seen my Inkspots blog?<br /><br />All this hate distracts from the discussion.MikeFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-30219812745188242032010-03-15T21:07:54.448-04:002010-03-15T21:07:54.448-04:00Gulliver,
Seriously, you don't know why we...Gulliver,<br /><br />Seriously, you don't know why we're escalating in Afghanistan?<br /><br />9/11 was plotted in Afghanistan by terrorists. If that isn't enough of an explanation for you then maybe I'll upload a video of me waving an American flag and chanting, "USA! USA!"<br /><br />Oh, and I almost forgot: Islamofascism, <a href="http://twitter.com/theADreview/status/9790819112" rel="nofollow">House of War</a>, and jihad is a pillar of Islam (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam" rel="nofollow">look it up</a>).Schmedlaphttp://www.schmedlap.com/weblognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-80644829343365283882010-03-15T19:15:20.767-04:002010-03-15T19:15:20.767-04:00He abdicated his responsibility? Oh, come on. Look...<em>He abdicated his responsibility? Oh, come on. Look, I'm deeply skeptical - how could anyone reading my comments these past months not pick up on that? I am deeply skeptical. However, he didn't abdicate his responsibility - he made a different choice than you would if you were commander-in-chief.</em><br /><br />I'm not saying he was just being lazy. I'm saying that a whole bunch of factors conspired to convince him that going with what the general wanted was a good idea, and that he never took the time to explain to the American people WHY in a way that was any more sophisticated than a five-year old's bedtime story. He trotted out the same nonsense, ignored the same ludicrously obvious weaknesses and counterpoints, and expected to get by on the same sort of Bush-ian fear tactics that we've been subject to for most of the last decade.<br /><br />Look, I'm not taking it personally. I think the president is an intelligent and charismatic guy, and that he generally has a lot of character and integrity, and that he's a pretty outstanding leader. But he dropped the ball on this one. He might've been correct to believe that the American people's whims and commitment to the effort were more easily manipulated by men in uniform, that he couldn't afford politically to back away, that he had too much else on his plate to give Afghanistan the deep thought and consideration that it deserved. Or hell, maybe he really believes that Regimental Combat Team 2's patrolling in Nimruz is keeping Americans safe from lunatics with box cutters or a van full of fertilizer. I just find the latter proposition far less likely.Gulliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558335790019565924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-50889103763400467132010-03-15T18:59:11.161-04:002010-03-15T18:59:11.161-04:00"It's not so much that I don't agree ..."It's not so much that I don't agree with the president's decision-making as that I think he abdicated the responsibility to seriously consider his options, instead supporting a course of action put forward by a popular general without ever really stopping to think if it was about anything more than some vague idea of "winning." "<br /><br />He abdicated his responsibility? Oh, come on. Look, I'm deeply skeptical - how could anyone reading my comments these past months not pick up on that? I am deeply skeptical. However, he didn't abdicate his responsibility - he made a different choice than you would if you were commander-in-chief.<br /><br />Anyway, let's agree to disagree on this, mainly, because I'm out of time for blog commenting today :) Remember - I put aside dedicated time for this, that, and the other. How sad that you all have to know that about me.<br /><br />Anecdotally - some relatives who are deeply, deeply, deeply skeptical about all things Pakistan surprised me by saying they think there is some kind of change going on. Of course, they all think it's related to a lot of outside pressure, but they think it's real!Madhuhttp://onparkstreet.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-91098474413902541792010-03-15T18:47:49.653-04:002010-03-15T18:47:49.653-04:00What's with the "President McChryst....&q...<em>What's with the "President McChryst...." joke? Seriously? You all know I am not a particular fan of this President's policies, but you know what? Just because you don't agree with his decision-making in this instance, it doesn't mean he is any person's puppet. Dude.</em><br /><br />Dude -- It's not about being anyone's puppet. I was trying to be lighthearted about the fact that we never got a more sophisticated explanation from the president about why the escalation was necessary, or how it would make our country and people more secure, than the bumper-sticker slogans that GEN McChrystal had been repeating since the summer. It's not so much that I don't agree with the president's decision-making as that I think he abdicated the responsibility to seriously consider his options, instead supporting a course of action put forward by a popular general without ever really stopping to think if it was about anything more than some vague idea of "winning."<br /><br />What's the desired end-state? How's it going to happen? How will it make us safer?<br /><br />No one answered any of these questions. They talked about protecting the people, standing up the ANSF so we could stand down, making Afghans capable of keeping their country from being a safe-haven for terrorists who would strike at America. We can do better, and I expected better from this president. <br /><br />GEN McChrystal's just doing his job. Somebody tells him "win," and he comes up with the best way to make it happen. This one's on the president.<br /><br />Dude.Gulliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558335790019565924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-58787069050658197062010-03-15T18:29:52.502-04:002010-03-15T18:29:52.502-04:00Funny link, Schmedlap,
I don't think I've...Funny link, Schmedlap,<br /><br />I don't think I've simplified things down to Homer Simpson levels, and yet, it's a good vignette in that it illustrates an important point. The patient needs to understand what is happening and that may be tricky given the individual circumstances. Also, we must never mistake years of technical training for wisdom (or intelligence, even. There are some very stupid educated people out there. Haven't you seen my silly comments on blogs?) <br /><br />Respect the individual!<br /><br />Gulliver,<br /><br />What's with the "President McChryst...." joke? Seriously? You all know I am not a particular fan of this President's policies, but you know what? Just because you don't agree with his decision-making in this instance, it doesn't mean he is any person's puppet. Dude.Madhuhttp://onparkstreet.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-84057682281376177512010-03-14T08:43:45.281-04:002010-03-14T08:43:45.281-04:00@Gulliver, I apologize. I actually meant to post o...@Gulliver, I apologize. I actually meant to post on a completely unrelated blog but had several open at the same time. My bad, no problem with this blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-73283635569147120042010-03-14T01:13:58.448-05:002010-03-14T01:13:58.448-05:00@Anon,
I'm pretty sure Gulliver's purpose ...@Anon,<br />I'm pretty sure Gulliver's purpose is to antagonize losers who spend their Saturday nights leaving worthless comments on blogs. Looks like mission accomplished.Schmedlaphttp://www.schmedlap.com/weblognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-2063947545266961192010-03-14T00:51:30.585-05:002010-03-14T00:51:30.585-05:00What is the point of this blog? Do you do anything...<em>What is the point of this blog? Do you do anything other than criticize other people's writing? It's not even humorous.</em><br /><br />I'm disappointed if you feel that's the case, though I suppose I kind of wonder why you have 176 recent visits if you find it so unbearable.<br /><br />The point of this particular post was to engage the readership in a discussion about trends in civil-military relations, and to debate Haddick's contention that they're somehow more "normal" or "good" or "mature" than at any point in recent history. I suppose there may have been a way to do that without actually criticizing Haddick's piece, but perhaps I'm just not creative enough.Gulliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558335790019565924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-91921866371165492882010-03-13T21:24:25.847-05:002010-03-13T21:24:25.847-05:00What is the point of this blog? Do you do anything...What is the point of this blog? Do you do anything other than criticize other people's writing? It's not even humorous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-72245870851139175942010-03-13T18:00:05.907-05:002010-03-13T18:00:05.907-05:00Regarding "dumbing it down" versus simpl...Regarding "dumbing it down" versus simplifying: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0772625/quotes?qt0406559" rel="nofollow">see here</a>.Schmedlaphttp://www.schmedlap.com/weblognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-77770171634902864292010-03-13T16:24:49.077-05:002010-03-13T16:24:49.077-05:00"Recognizing that "This Week at War"..."Recognizing that "This Week at War" is expressly designed to deliver a dumbed-down summary of SWJ's original content to a more general audience -- as evidenced by the ludicrous subhead "What the four-stars are reading" -- I suppose I ought not fault either Haddick or the site for that."<br /><br />To simplify is not to "dumb" down, necessarily. If I give a lecture to medical students versus residents, when I simplify for one and not the other, it's not that I think one is dumb and the other isn't. It's that I understand they are on different parts of the learning curve.<br /><br /> I'm not going to defend this particular article - haven't read it - but I applaud the general idea of taking complex ideas, or aspects of an intellectual debate, and trying to present a few ideas in clear language to the general public. You can't complain about the general public not caring about X, Y or Z, and then make fun of the very instruments that help the caring along....<br /><br />Or, maybe you can. And this has nothing to do with the post, really, I just wanted to type something. Also, I kind of like Haddick's stuff at SWJ, but then I'm on a very different part of the learning curve than you are.<br /><br />*Strategy Page says somewhere on it's site that it strives to present information in a simple and clear way, keeping in mind different reading and educational levels. Or something like that. I am always touched by it - it speaks to the best and most generous instincts.Madhuhttp://onparkstreet.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-41859081277221152962010-03-13T12:01:53.842-05:002010-03-13T12:01:53.842-05:00Maybe 15 years ago would be a better baseline.Maybe 15 years ago would be a better baseline.Schmedlaphttp://www.schmedlap.com/weblognoreply@blogger.com