Is it intelligent to.....

[G.T.]

Argue for or against something, when you do not have all of the collective facts?

I say this in light of all of you Partisan posers who argue whatever Military Strategy your big-bois tell you to, while conveniently not having the first clue of all of the *CLASSIFIED* decisions our Presidents, and our Commanders use to come to their decisions.

So, basically, you're agreeing with one or the other because "sounds good!" and/or they're on your political team. Because you do not posess this classified information that so-goes into their decision making process.

Why..........in my ever loving fucking mind, would I argue what we should do with our troops when I'm devoid of all of the facts? Dangerous. Dumb. Delusional. Triple D's, but not Dolly Parton.

 

[KittenKoder]

What most people consider "facts" though are really just educated guesses or opinions. I have seen very few facts on anything posted.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think it is very dangerous to place too much power into the hands of too few - war should be a reflection of a nation's resolve - not the sole domain of the priviledged few with "access."

 

[G.T.]

What most people consider "facts" though are really just educated guesses or opinions. I have seen very few facts on anything posted.

This is irrelevant to my question, specifically though, really. I mean it can apply across the board but it's not the intent of the question. The intent was to make what's glaringly obvious (there is information that goes into these decisions that is Classified, i.e. YOU DON'T KNOW IT) even more-so obvious to the handicapped.

 

[G.T.]

I think it is very dangerous to place too much power into the hands of too few - war should be a reflection of a nation's resolve - not the sole domain of the priviledged few with "access."

That's even, arguably more dangerous though is it not?

If there's, say, an imminent threat from "X" but we cannot make the media savvy about it because we have to "nip it in the bud" then should Jeffrey Jefferson and Sally Saggyboobs' input really be guaged when making the decision to attack? (random off-the-beat-en-path-example).

 

[xsited1]

Argue for or against something, when you do not have all of the collective facts?

I say this in light of all of you Partisan posers who argue whatever Military Strategy your big-bois tell you to, while conveniently not having the first clue of all of the *CLASSIFIED* decisions our Presidents, and our Commanders use to come to their decisions.

So, basically, you're agreeing with one or the other because "sounds good!" and/or they're on your political team. Because you do not posess this classified information that so-goes into their decision making process.

Why..........in my ever loving fucking mind, would I argue what we should do with our troops when I'm devoid of all of the facts? Dangerous. Dumb. Delusional. Triple D's, but not Dolly Parton.

Even with all the collective facts, our leaders can still make bad decisions.

Here's a nice little factoid: Nation Building is always a bad idea.

 

[manu1959]

Argue for or against something, when you do not have all of the collective facts?

I say this in light of all of you Partisan posers who argue whatever Military Strategy your big-bois tell you to, while conveniently not having the first clue of all of the *CLASSIFIED* decisions our Presidents, and our Commanders use to come to their decisions.

So, basically, you're agreeing with one or the other because "sounds good!" and/or they're on your political team. Because you do not posess this classified information that so-goes into their decision making process.

Why..........in my ever loving fucking mind, would I argue what we should do with our troops when I'm devoid of all of the facts? Dangerous. Dumb. Delusional. Triple D's, but not Dolly Parton.

Even with all the collective facts, our leaders can still make bad decisions.

Here's a nice little factoid: Nation Building is always a bad idea.

the us did a prettey good job building japan and germany.....

that said.....you never have all the facts when making a decission....if you waited for all the facts you would never make a decission.....

 

[G.T.]

Even with all the collective facts, our leaders can still make bad decisions.

Here's a nice little factoid: Nation Building is always a bad idea.

I don't disagree with any of this.

You just said....nothing.....to me basically.

I'd rather have someone Elected (by vote of the people) take their best shot WITH all of the information, than the collective out-of-the-know-but-very-partisan Bloggers et-al making Military Decisions with the lives of our Men and Women in uniform out of shear ignorance & partisanship. Just me.

 

[G.T.]

the us did a prettey good job building japan and germany.....

that said.....you never have all the facts when making a decission....if you waited for all the facts you would never make a decission.....

Do I have to qualify the question though, for you to get what I mean>?

 

[xsited1]

Even with all the collective facts, our leaders can still make bad decisions.

Here's a nice little factoid: Nation Building is always a bad idea.

I don't disagree with any of this.

You just said....nothing.....to me basically.

I'd rather have someone Elected (by vote of the people) take their best shot WITH all of the information, than the collective out-of-the-know-but-very-partisan Bloggers et-al making Military Decisions with the lives of our Men and Women in uniform out of shear ignorance & partisanship. Just me.

So when has nation building been a good idea in the past 50 years?

 

[manu1959]

the us did a prettey good job building japan and germany.....

that said.....you never have all the facts when making a decission....if you waited for all the facts you would never make a decission.....

Do I have to qualify the question though, for you to get what I mean>?

if you aren't getting the answer you want ..... keep asking the question in differet ways .....

seems you may not have all the facts.....

 

[G.T.]

Even with all the collective facts, our leaders can still make bad decisions.

Here's a nice little factoid: Nation Building is always a bad idea.

I don't disagree with any of this.

You just said....nothing.....to me basically.

I'd rather have someone Elected (by vote of the people) take their best shot WITH all of the information, than the collective out-of-the-know-but-very-partisan Bloggers et-al making Military Decisions with the lives of our Men and Women in uniform out of shear ignorance & partisanship. Just me.

So when has nation building been a good idea in the past 50 years?

*don't* disagree, knucklehead.

 

[HUGGY]

What most people consider "facts" though are really just educated guesses or opinions. I have seen very few facts on anything posted.

I'm still tryin to figure out why your titties sparkle and explode.

 

[G.T.]

if you aren't getting the answer you want ..... keep asking the question in differet ways .....

seems you may not have all the facts.....

I understand your philosophical tangent, but it's really not that deep because the intent of the question was simple to articulate and simple to thus understand. I specifically pronounced the pointed "facts" (Classified Military Data) in which I was referring.

Aight?? Too simple?? Try again?? You bored?? Wanna wrassle?

 

[xsited1]

I don't disagree with any of this.

You just said....nothing.....to me basically.

I'd rather have someone Elected (by vote of the people) take their best shot WITH all of the information, than the collective out-of-the-know-but-very-partisan Bloggers et-al making Military Decisions with the lives of our Men and Women in uniform out of shear ignorance & partisanship. Just me.

So when has nation building been a good idea in the past 50 years?

*don't* disagree, knucklehead.

You're good with the insults, but have little to say. You've been promoted to buttwipe.

 

[G.T.]

You're good with the insults, but have little to say. You've been promoted to buttwipe.

Well, if you're going to argue with what I didn't say, don't get salty when I love-tap ya with a "knucklehead."

 

[G.T.]

I do realize that 99.999% of persons reading this thread are guilty of it. So, it might not bode well with y'az. I sawwy

I am guilty of it at one point in time, also.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The act of war is a political act. It should reflect a nation's resolve. So in terms of the broad strokes - yes - gauging the opinions, the resolve, and the goals of military action is public domain. Even some decisions on the execution of that war is public domain in that the manner in which a war is conducted (biological weapons, nuclear weapons, torture, etc ...) can be in conflict with a nation's ideals.

The fine print sometimes has to be conducted less publically for security purposes. The boundaries are relatively well defined by law and treaty. Of course loopholes are often sought for and found and subsequently tightened up.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I

say this in light of all of you Partisan posers who argue whatever Military Strategy your big-bois tell you to, while conveniently not having the first clue of all of the *CLASSIFIED* decisions our Presidents, and our Commanders use to come to their decisions.

You and your ilk second guessed the last president and bashed every GD thing he did and given your statements, you're not exactly one of the enlightened few. Nice try, now buzz off.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Argue for or against something, when you do not have all of the collective facts?

I say this in light of all of you Partisan posers who argue whatever Military Strategy your big-bois tell you to, while conveniently not having the first clue of all of the *CLASSIFIED* decisions our Presidents, and our Commanders use to come to their decisions.

So, basically, you're agreeing with one or the other because "sounds good!" and/or they're on your political team. Because you do not posess this classified information that so-goes into their decision making process.

Why..........in my ever loving fucking mind, would I argue what we should do with our troops when I'm devoid of all of the facts? Dangerous. Dumb. Delusional. Triple D's, but not Dolly Parton.

But, arguing on the FACT that a ground commander who is privy to all of the "classified" info of which you speak, and who is requesting more troops, is perfectly acceptable.
I trust that ground commander, who IS ACTUALLY on the ground, far more than a president who is obviously playing politics on the issue.
JMHO btw.