From the very start this thread was a personal attack on a Lt. Colonel for doing his duty, questioning his professional qualifications, his intelligence, second guessing his orders, assigning supposed motivations to his order, etc...
The article itself 'leads' to blaming, and calls for sympathy for the soldiers that lost the phone tent privilige. If it is a situation that has gotten out of hand with new troops moving in and others out, in peacekeeping standdown conditions, there is time to gripe about garbage.
So you are looking at a 'messy' temp. base camp and you are in charge, what do you do, sit around and whine and blame the huge scene of things, (lots of water being drank and not enough bins) and say the people that are suppose to provide bins/garbage cans are in trouble now, and just sit and watch it compile out of hand. Or, order a way to get it somewhat cleaned up and ensure the living conditions improve via a privilige taken away.
No where does the article state this all happened because the Lt. Col forgot to call a garbage pick-up crew. The article whines and bashes a Lt. Col. with little facts in this public, whiney, embarrassing, civilian wanna be court-martial.
Some members have got way out of hand on this thread, no if ands or buts about it. (but hey people are people) If you don't agree with a member fine, bash him/her alittle bit for good measure, fine. I'm not even giving 1/2 of these members posts a second glance, especially when it starts with "you didn't receive a phone call? Boo Hoo" and at that point it is blindingly clear they did not read my posts, but just went along with the "flow" of posts and joined in to have alittle fun, sheeple style. (And that last opinion shouldn't bother anyone it doesn't apply to, or to anyone that does not condone that type of behavior towards anyone.) Why haven't I been pointing this out over and over? What is the point after 2 times? People see what they want to see, right or wrong. It's nice to see some decent debating going on, but unfortunately it's not much.
So you see if people bashing people's heads in who don't agree with their feelings on this is o.k. Then how is a 0-5 receiving critiques from people really be to bad of a thing? (yah, that was a bit sarcastic)
Someone made a post (somewhere in this thread) along the lines of "peace protestors must be laughing or having fun with this". I would respectfully disagree if they are worried about what other people think. I would wager money it's giving some of the DU members that lurk here a big laugh about how we're suppose to be so tolerant, and how we tote free speech etc etc, and how we debate but "never" attack our own for not having the same belief systems, or even when we have differing opinions or disagreements. Regardless if some wants to believe I am the Anti-Christ or not, This thread certainly wouldn't serve as an example now would it???
You speak about someone that has been "personally attacked" and questioned, if personal attacks were something that moves you emotionally that much, you wouldn't stand for it when it comes to anyone, not just a selected few. I wonder though, when Clinton was our commander and chief and well before any of the allegations against him was proven to be true, how many Freepers stood up and said how unfair it was for people to be personally attacking him, or that their opinions shouldn't be aired here? Or they shouldn't speak of it since they are not at the white house personally, or in the "secret service".
I doubt many did, since most Freepers (thankfully) understand that people do have the right to say what they are thinking, Right or Wrong. But when it comes from a few people who have no problem going beyond debate, (some never actually attempting to debate it) and getting downright nasty about it in attacks, and then getting preachy about others getting "nasty" to begin with, one has to giggle and wonder what to call people who say whatever they want (which is all good) but turn around and imply that others should censor themselves or to shut up.
So your, and a few other FRmembers point is well taken, Everyone should shut up and censor their opinions about this man since of course they don't know him, respect him, understand him etc. All the while your assuming you know everything about members who are in disagreement with you on this down to possibly knowing their motives? ........that in reality you yourself don't even know.
So you'll just have to "suck up" the fact that people have opinions that don't mesh with your own on Free Republic, no matter how much it upsets you, and that some people actually do go into "ignore mode" with other members to keep from stooping to their "level" of debate.