SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (196647)8/3/2004 8:11:26 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) of 1575984
 
re: My point was They acted under the authority of, and where ordered in to the combat by Clinton.

No, your point was that they were not under the command of NATO. Which was factually untrue.

re: If its an American then he is under the American chain of command and resposnible to American political control. If the other commander is the member of an allied military that has a long history of working with the US, shares the same objective in the current conflict, and who's country country is providing forces for the conflict then I may not have any problem. IF a NATO commander is not an American but is someone else who shares the same objective for that command and the NATO commander is very competent then I don't have a problem. If a commander in South Korea is a very compitent South Korean, when they provide the vast majority of forces and its their country that is under threat then I don't have a problem.

LOL. It sounds like you have no problems what so ever! I wonder if the allies had any problems with Eisenhower?

re: I guess I can go for the idea of "picking the best guy" but "picking the best guy" is not simply picking the person with the most tactical or strategic skill.

OK, if not, who is the best guy?

John
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext