Question is, do you describe the opposition forces in your article as valiantly holding off coalition forces through pure might, or are they hiding behind civilian populations (using them as human shields) to ward off assured destruction?
I'll leave that for the Generals to decide since I'm not in Basra. All that matters to this thread is that those British Generals agree that the war is not going better than we are told. In fact, it might be worse.
Yes, of course "worse" is the only other explanation. How about "unanticipated resistance which will lead to a regrouping and reforming of strategies to respond effectively"? You act as if the British troops have thrown up their hands and said, "we can't break through so we'll be heading home now. Sorry!"
Yes, of course "worse" is the only other explanation. How about "unanticipated resistance which will lead to a regrouping and reforming of strategies to respond effectively"? You act as if the British troops have thrown up their hands and said, "we can't break through so we'll be heading home now. Sorry!"
How abou simply "Even though we're still going to win this war and kill Saddam, his sons and most of his closest guards, and regardless of how I personally feel about the validity of the U.S. actions or their chances of success or failure, according to the British Military the premise of the thread is still incorrect".
I make absolutly no direct or implied claims about the ultimate resolution of the conflict. Either things are better, worse or exactly as expected. According to the article things are neither better or exactly as expected. That leaves worse. Worse doesn't mean in critical condition. Worse doesn't mean we're on the verge of defeat. Worse means that the war is not going better than we are being told.
I'm hoping an article like this will put an end to a thread like this.
Either things are better, worse or exactly as expected.
What about "not as expected"? What a convenient time to "forget" the 4th choice in your list.
Quote:
According to the article things are neither better or exactly as expected. That leaves worse. Worse doesn't mean in critical condition. Worse doesn't mean we're on the verge of defeat. Worse means that the war is not going better than we are being told.
I'm hoping an article like this will put an end to a thread like this.
Yes, of course your previously unelaborated definition of "worse" wasn't intended to convey the traditional state for which people typically associate "worse". If word play was like ice skating, you'd be an olympic contender, I swear!
Yes, of course your previously unelaborated definition of "worse" wasn't intended to convey the traditional state for which people typically associate "worse". [/B]
Winning only 99 million US dollars is worse than winning 100 million dollars. I'm sorry, but I didn't create the English language. I only use it, among others.
Yes, of course your previously unelaborated definition of "worse" wasn't intended to convey the traditional state for which people typically associate "worse". If word play was like ice skating, you'd be an olympic contender, I swear!
Oh please
The war is going worse than expected. If you try to deny that it really colour the rest of your arguments.
They have stopped further advantages for four to six days.
New troops are on the way to the gulf.
Major regrouping.
If things went as expected all that wouldn´t have been nessesary because it would have been done before the war. They stopped the advantages because the resistence came nfrom another point than expected.
Yes, because every stategic war plan before that has gone down exactly as planned.
Lets take the hold position part of the situation. What is more likely:
1) That the military just went ahead like cowboys and didn´t think of supply lines untill they were cut off from the base. "Ooops. We forgot to think of gas and food. Lets sit here, not use any gas and restrict the rations from three meals to one a day. But remember its because we were so succesful we need to do this"
or
2) The supply lines are threatened by Iraqi forces (some of them disquised as civilians) and that is what is holdning them back, needing to establish more secure supply lines.
I´m not saying anything about "were losing the war. TIme to head home". I´m still optimistic about ending the war in the end of April (still one month too late for political reason but thats another thing)
Tommy Frank asked to have twice the numbers of soldiers. The politicians refuse it, and only give him half of these number. Now they can see that Frank was right and they give him more troops.
When politicians deal with strategy, mistakes are not impossible.
This new troops are tanks divisions, they must travel by sea, and they would not be ready before two or three weeks.
Pflamm, finally you made your point, nobody will contradict the author of that claim
"The fighting is fierce and we do not know its duration," GW Bush.
This thread is confusing because it seems to address the press reaction to the fighting, not so much the actual events per se. So it's a reaction to a reaction, but some are arguing about the press's reaction, some are arguing about the military reaction and their presumptions, some are arguing about the Amercian reaction at home, it's all over the place!
They built up their own expectations and are lambasting the administration because the war isn't living up to the press's expectations. It's like a gambler attacking a basketball player because his team didn't cover the spread.
Listening to Lesley Stahl lecture Powell about the different strategies war is a bit more than I can take.
They built up their own expectations and are lambasting the administration because the war isn't living up to the press's expectations. It's like a gambler attacking a basketball player because his team didn't cover the spread.
Righty ho. I could have sworn I heard talk about "shock and awe" and "decapitating the regime" and "we'll be in Baghdad by Monday" from a range of official and unofficial briefings before the war started.
Righty ho. I could have sworn I heard talk about "shock and awe" and "decapitating the regime" and "we'll be in Baghdad by Monday" from a range of official and unofficial briefings before the war started.
Baghdad by Monday, eh? Who said that?
I did a quick search and see that a UK military official said that to the BBC. (gay link)
As in all arguments, the burden is on the one making the accusation.
I never remember Bush saying a damned word about how the war would be quick.
Not that you are making the argument, but the media is. They are angry with Bush because their paid pundits told them something different.
A UK official spouts off a BBC reporter and suddenly the Bush administration is in Vietnam II.
But you rightly couched it in "a range of official and unofficial briefings". Non-specific enough to be shielded from direct attack but vaguely compelling enough to stand. I like you because you are clever.
"Perle : Secondly, Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991. But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder.
...
James P. Rubin: So what would your guesstimate be of the level of effort that would be involved?
Richard Perle: Well, I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
Poor poor bunge. Beating up on you is so easy I almost feel bad doing it. Almost.
The only quote you posted from that Perle interview that indicates the time it would take was the following: Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder.
Sounds like some hubris right there, until I click on the link and DIRECTLY AFTER THE PART YOU POSTED I see: Now, it isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either.
That's the *very next sentence*.
Not only that, but this is almost a year old from a guy who just quit the administration.
Comments
Originally posted by Randycat99
Question is, do you describe the opposition forces in your article as valiantly holding off coalition forces through pure might, or are they hiding behind civilian populations (using them as human shields) to ward off assured destruction?
I'll leave that for the Generals to decide since I'm not in Basra. All that matters to this thread is that those British Generals agree that the war is not going better than we are told. In fact, it might be worse.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Yes, of course "worse" is the only other explanation. How about "unanticipated resistance which will lead to a regrouping and reforming of strategies to respond effectively"? You act as if the British troops have thrown up their hands and said, "we can't break through so we'll be heading home now. Sorry!"
How abou simply "Even though we're still going to win this war and kill Saddam, his sons and most of his closest guards, and regardless of how I personally feel about the validity of the U.S. actions or their chances of success or failure, according to the British Military the premise of the thread is still incorrect".
I make absolutly no direct or implied claims about the ultimate resolution of the conflict. Either things are better, worse or exactly as expected. According to the article things are neither better or exactly as expected. That leaves worse. Worse doesn't mean in critical condition. Worse doesn't mean we're on the verge of defeat. Worse means that the war is not going better than we are being told.
I'm hoping an article like this will put an end to a thread like this.
Originally posted by bunge
Either things are better, worse or exactly as expected.
What about "not as expected"? What a convenient time to "forget" the 4th choice in your list.
Quote:
According to the article things are neither better or exactly as expected. That leaves worse. Worse doesn't mean in critical condition. Worse doesn't mean we're on the verge of defeat. Worse means that the war is not going better than we are being told.
I'm hoping an article like this will put an end to a thread like this.
Yes, of course your previously unelaborated definition of "worse" wasn't intended to convey the traditional state for which people typically associate "worse". If word play was like ice skating, you'd be an olympic contender, I swear!
Originally posted by Randycat99
Yes, of course your previously unelaborated definition of "worse" wasn't intended to convey the traditional state for which people typically associate "worse". [/B]
Winning only 99 million US dollars is worse than winning 100 million dollars. I'm sorry, but I didn't create the English language. I only use it, among others.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Yes, of course your previously unelaborated definition of "worse" wasn't intended to convey the traditional state for which people typically associate "worse". If word play was like ice skating, you'd be an olympic contender, I swear!
Oh please
The war is going worse than expected. If you try to deny that it really colour the rest of your arguments.
They have stopped further advantages for four to six days.
New troops are on the way to the gulf.
Major regrouping.
If things went as expected all that wouldn´t have been nessesary because it would have been done before the war. They stopped the advantages because the resistence came nfrom another point than expected.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Yes, because every stategic war plan before that has gone down exactly as planned.
Lets take the hold position part of the situation. What is more likely:
1) That the military just went ahead like cowboys and didn´t think of supply lines untill they were cut off from the base. "Ooops. We forgot to think of gas and food. Lets sit here, not use any gas and restrict the rations from three meals to one a day. But remember its because we were so succesful we need to do this"
or
2) The supply lines are threatened by Iraqi forces (some of them disquised as civilians) and that is what is holdning them back, needing to establish more secure supply lines.
I´m not saying anything about "were losing the war. TIme to head home". I´m still optimistic about ending the war in the end of April (still one month too late for political reason but thats another thing)
Originally posted by Randycat99
What about "not as expected"? What a convenient time to "forget" the 4th choice in your list.
Please refrain from mangling logic and my mother tongue in future when arguments start to go against you.
If word-play was international diplomacy, you'd be George W Bush.
90,000 troops, tens of thousands of vehicles... that's an assload of resources.
We've got 120,000 more on the way.
I think we'll be fine.
FIERCE FIERCE FIERCE
just that our prez said FIERCE
When politicians deal with strategy, mistakes are not impossible.
This new troops are tanks divisions, they must travel by sea, and they would not be ready before two or three weeks.
Pflamm, finally you made your point, nobody will contradict the author of that claim
"The fighting is fierce and we do not know its duration," GW Bush.
Originally posted by pfflam
*ehem*
just that our prez said FIERCE
Bush is a moron. What does he know?!
This thread is confusing because it seems to address the press reaction to the fighting, not so much the actual events per se. So it's a reaction to a reaction, but some are arguing about the press's reaction, some are arguing about the military reaction and their presumptions, some are arguing about the Amercian reaction at home, it's all over the place!
They built up their own expectations and are lambasting the administration because the war isn't living up to the press's expectations. It's like a gambler attacking a basketball player because his team didn't cover the spread.
Listening to Lesley Stahl lecture Powell about the different strategies war is a bit more than I can take.
Originally posted by groverat
The press reaction is amazing.
They built up their own expectations and are lambasting the administration because the war isn't living up to the press's expectations. It's like a gambler attacking a basketball player because his team didn't cover the spread.
Righty ho. I could have sworn I heard talk about "shock and awe" and "decapitating the regime" and "we'll be in Baghdad by Monday" from a range of official and unofficial briefings before the war started.
Blame the media now. Brilliant.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Righty ho. I could have sworn I heard talk about "shock and awe" and "decapitating the regime" and "we'll be in Baghdad by Monday" from a range of official and unofficial briefings before the war started.
Baghdad by Monday, eh? Who said that?
I did a quick search and see that a UK military official said that to the BBC. (gay link)
As in all arguments, the burden is on the one making the accusation.
I never remember Bush saying a damned word about how the war would be quick.
Not that you are making the argument, but the media is. They are angry with Bush because their paid pundits told them something different.
A UK official spouts off a BBC reporter and suddenly the Bush administration is in Vietnam II.
But you rightly couched it in "a range of official and unofficial briefings". Non-specific enough to be shielded from direct attack but vaguely compelling enough to stand. I like you because you are clever.
Originally posted by groverat
I never remember Bush saying a damned word about how the war would be quick.
The Bush Administration certainly did.
Click here.
"Perle : Secondly, Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991. But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder.
...
James P. Rubin: So what would your guesstimate be of the level of effort that would be involved?
Richard Perle: Well, I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
The only quote you posted from that Perle interview that indicates the time it would take was the following: Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder.
Sounds like some hubris right there, until I click on the link and DIRECTLY AFTER THE PART YOU POSTED I see: Now, it isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either.
That's the *very next sentence*.
Not only that, but this is almost a year old from a guy who just quit the administration.
Excellent work.