Peter Pace Disagrees

WOW!  What a shock!  Who would have ever thunk it!

ah what does someone in the thick of things know? colgene is A REM AND SEES the backside of all the action and once bled for his country, was an awful papercut from all that paper shuffling.

Can we take the name of another blogger out of the title, please?

Done. Out of curiosity, KG, was your request based on your own ideas of JU etiquette, or did you have Section 3.(i) of the JU TOS in mind?

Peter Pace is a good, honorable man and you shouldn't be using him for your petty little attacks on someone who unlike yourself, isn't willing to follow blindly. Pace himself has distanced himself from the disgraceful policies of the Bush administration, the policy of torture in particular as advocated by Donald Rumsfeld.

When UPI's Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval.. But Pace had a different view. "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it," the general said.. Rumsfeld interjected: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it.". But Pace meant what he said. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," he said, firmly.

I really like that question, stutefish.

Peter Pace is a good, honorable man and you shouldn't be using him for your petty little attacks on someone who unlike yourself, isn't willing to follow blindly. Pace himself has distanced himself from the disgraceful policies of the Bush administration, the policy of torture in particular as advocated by Donald Rumsfeld.

But Pace went on to say that American GIs were in no way to interfere with the soveriegn government of Iraq, as that was the jurisdiction of the Iraqi Police.  So he supported Don Rumsfeld's position. (AP)

So, BenUser, you're saying it's okay to use His Excellency, the Honorable General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for petty attack on people you believe do follow blindly?

What makes you think that because I agree with Pace's assessment of the war on terror and the state of affairs in Iraq, that I would disagree with his views on torture?

In fact, it seems to me that Rumsfeld may have had the corporate policy in mind, which is that employees are never required to stop inhumane treatment themselves, but rather simply to report it to the "proper authorities". This is for liability reasons and for reasons of not burdening individual employees with the responsibility of physically confronting wrongdoers.

For example, a grocery store clerk is absolutely not required to physically interfere with a shoplifter, and a bank teller is absolutely not required to physically interfere with an armed bank robber, and a receptionist is absolutely not required to physically interfere with a vandal in the lobby.

Whatever the case, if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says that in a military setting, it's the responsibility of the witnessing soldier on the scene to use physical force if necessary to stop inhumane treatment, I'm inclined to agree with him, regardless of what the Secretary of Defense thinks.

Pending clarification of the relevant regulations, of course.

Anyway, this really has nothing to do with Pace's views on torture, and everything to do with Pace's views on the war on terror and the situation in Iraq. Views which are noteably at odds with the views presented almost daily in this community by a certain retired Colonel of our acquaintance.

Peter Pace is a good, honorable man and you shouldn't be using him for your petty little attacks

BTW, which you just did!  Pot, meet kettle.

Another thing that confuses me, Ben:

Is General Pace a good, honorable man that we should follow blindly regarding torture? Or is he a good, honorable man that we should disagree with about torture, like Donald Rumsfeld does?

What about you, Ben? Do you blindly follow the good, honorable General Pace on the issue of torture? Or do you, like Rumsfeld, bravely disagree with him?

What about General Pace? Is he a good, honorable man that blindly follows the Bush military policy?

Also, I absolutely love the way you declare off limits any form of debate that makes references to subject matter experts speaking in their own field of expertise--except when they say things you agree with.

Unlike some other community members, I generally don't like to resort to namecalling, but I think it's warranted in this case.

You, BenUser, are a tiny party hat for my behind.

Colonel Gene is used as a scapegoat and a bogeyman on this site, which has become a conservative parody of itself.

George Galloway(Anonymous User) Colonel Gene is used as a scapegoat and a bogeyman on this site, which has become a conservative parody of itself.

No, actually this site lets him speak for himself.  So we can read his own words.  And if you were not a coward, you would register (it is free, which suits you I am sure) and let your words speak for you as well.

Chicken?

And if you were not a coward, you would register (it is free, which suits you I am sure) and let your words speak for you as well.

I've seen this type of comment many times and I don't have a clue what it means. How is someone who's not registered a coward?

"And if you were not a coward, "

I am registered on ModBlog. Are you? No! YOU WEAK COWARD!

I've seen this type of comment many times and I don't have a clue what it means. How is someone who's not registered a coward?

Do you snipe anonymously?  Scared that someone would learn you are just a sniveling coward?  Or do you state what you mean and stand by it!

You do.  Anons do not.  They can be your mother for all we know.  register and stand.  You have.

I am registered on ModBlog. Are you? No! YOU WEAK COWARD!

nice try troll!  But I guess you did not realize, this is not that site.  Now you want to whine and snivel, or register!  Or are your fingers broken?

This is NOT modblog! So get an effing life!

Sniping? I was simply offering a differing opinion to you! This site is clearly ruled by the mob and is an unreasonable place, and the owners should reign aggressive morons like you in.

Dr Guy, have you never posted on a blog or forum you are not registered with?

They can be your mother for all we know. register and stand. You have.

But you could still be my mother for all I know, whether you're registered or not.

But you could still be my mother for all I know, whether you're registered or not.

Go to your room!

I normally don't take not-logged-in posters seriously for the simple reason that there's no real continuity or accountability on their end of the discussion.

I have an account here, a blog here, a name here. I post something while logged in, it becomes part of the overall picture of myself that I'm presenting here. It's an investment. It may be I'm making a bad impression; if I'm afraid of being held accountable for the stupid things I may have said yestreday, or last week, then I'd surely post without logging in (or even without registering).

Show me someone who posts without logging in or registering, and I'll show you someone who doesn't want to be remembered tomorrow for what they said today--that is, an unserious conversation partner.

Not that people who do log in are guaranteed to be serious... they're just guaranteed the benefit of the doubt, and a serious reading of their posts.

If "Geroge Galloway" wants to be taken seriously, let him present a body of work that includes several articles over several weeks, under his own account, rather than whatever pointlessness is going on here.

If "Geroge Galloway" wants to be taken seriously, let him present a body of work that includes several articles over several weeks, under his own account, rather than whatever pointlessness is going on here.

Or at least leave a link to his blog so that we can read what else he's had to say. To me, that is what seperates the "snipers" from the welcome visitors from other blogs. I know a lot of people from other blogs come to mine, but they are usually people who I read... or "talk" with at the Blog Explosion Shout box. Either way, they don't jump in, take a shot and disapear.


BTW George, Colon Bin Gangrene is NOT a scapegoat or a bogeyman, he is merely a great example of one track minded pissants who try to turn every discussion into a reason to bash Prs. Bush and class warfare. Even if the topic isn't even political.

"Or at least leave a link to his blog so that we can read what else he's had to say. "

Here is an article about me.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/06/nbro06.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/06/ixnewstop.html

Copy and paste because I can't post links.

"Colon Bin Gangrene is NOT a scapegoat or a bogeyman"

Oh, that is good.

Done. Out of curiosity, KG, was your request based on your own ideas of JU etiquette, or did you have Section 3.(i) of the JU TOS in mind?

The forums are syndicated.  It's a privacy issue to use a real blogger name or blogger nickname in a title since a search in google on their name would bring up the article.  If the article is positive, then we typically don't intervene, but if it is something negative, then the name needs to be removed.  This rule only applies to an article posted to the forums since articles not posted to the forums are not syndicated or moderated.

Ok Goergie, that's an article about you, but not your blog. The Sniper label stands.