Oh well. I was willing to hope things were better than I thought, but according to this article this thread is still utter crap.
With all due respect to Peter Arnett...wait, he doesn't deserve any respect. This is the guy who got himself fired from CNN a few years back for reporting a false (libelous, even) story about supposed US atrocities in Laos. He works for "National Geographic Explorer" now, but apparently the Pentagon keeps him and National Geographic well appraised of its warplans? The quotes they mention in that article make him sound like an Iraqi propaganda tool, and the article even insinuates the same judgement. In fact, I think you could make a reasonable case (he's a US citizen, right?) that his making comments like that on Iraqi-sponsored TV, at the behest of the Iraqi government, crosses the line from honest journalism into giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
In fact, I think you could make a reasonable case (he's a US citizen, right?) that his making comments like that on Iraqi-sponsored TV, at the behest of the Iraqi government, crosses the line from honest journalism into giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Could we first make a reasonable case that the war is not going better than we are told?
It's also extremely important to note that reports of stiff resistance are vastly more credible than those that discount difficulties since the latter is a tool for boosting morale.
Until someone can seriously refute the facts and numbers that SDW2001 outlines, none of the "war is going badly" folks have a leg to stand on. Opinion, speculation or offhand quotes don't mean jack. Its facts. And the fact is that we are on the winning side of a lopsided battle. Just ask all the Iraqi pow's we have in custody.
If you prefer coalition forces could just level Basra instead of attempting to preserve civilian lives to meet the liberal media's "omg we're doing good" timetable? Is that preferrable?
Please don't get sucked into the sensationalism some publications use to keep the public glued to tv or get hits for their sites. This 4-6 day pause bit is a good example. Not sure where that comes from but what part of continued bombing and ongoing ground battles is a pause?
Bunge were your parents cousins? Did you even read my post troll? I think if I posted "The sky is blue.", you'd come back and tell me it was green.
Read my post again... get to the point where I'm talking about the "pause"... go get a drink of water because i know this going to be hard... but theres a question right at the very end. Please answer it.
Also do explain how our overwhelming number of enemy POW/KIAs, quick advancment into Iraq, and total dominance of the air vs low casualties on the coalition side equates to "going badly" I'd sure like to hear you distort that. I really would. I'm interested in how you'd do it. (see numbers in SDW2001's post)
The war can't be going quite as well as they tell us. If so, why would Coalition forces be (desperate enough?) to start using NAPALM, a banned weapon, on Iraqi troops? Even CNN are reporting this with their embedded journalist Martin Savidge...but bank on CNN pulling this article fairly pronto:
And talking about banned weapons....the plan is to use toxic CS and other "calmative" gasses, which are also banned on the battlefield according to the Geneva Convention. Perhaps the Geneva Convention only applies to the 'playground wimps', but the bullies get to use all the best toys.
I think it's the part where we stopped advancing and actually back tracked to engage a city we originally were going to ignore.
So let me get this straight. Because we have some troops re-engaging a city we swept pass, we're doing poorly in the war? Hahaha. You might as well stop here Bunge you don't have a point.
First how exactly is that a "pause" like you were saying is happening? And secondly, its a big army. They are capable of walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time. Just because they swept past a city on the way to Baghdad (primary objective) and are now focusing more attention on it in no way proves anything is going poorly.
When we start losing troops/armor/territory on the scale that the Iraqis have then you can say were doing poorly or "things aren't going well". Until then please give it up.
The purpose of this thread was to show that 'The War is going better than we are told.' My point isn't to show that we are doing poorly, but that we're not doing better than we are told. We are not doing as well as we are being told in the media, but that does not mean we are doing poorly.
If you can show that we're doing better than we're being told, please do so. Otherwise please admit that we're not doing better than we are told.
Given that the original post to this topic was illustrating that the "doom and gloom" by some media participants seems to be highly overrated, that would seem to fit the premise that the war is going better than we are told. Obviously, who is doing the "telling" matters quite a bit. In this case, it is the media pundits. However, your tactic inevitably involves cherry picking your own "optimistic" sources and then concluding the opposite.
This report out of Qatar by The Scotsman indicates a delay of between 35-40 days for the advance on Baghdad. The troops are digging in 50 miles south of Baghdad, but the supply line is now some 300 miles long.
This report out of Qatar by The Scotsman indicates...
So Randycat99, since I didn't pick out this source is it still me somehow 'cherry picking' my sources? Or is it perhaps that the war isn't going better than we are told?
Given that the original post to this topic was illustrating that the "doom and gloom" by some media participants seems to be highly overrated, that would seem to fit the premise that the war is going better than we are told.
If you are coming up with the complete opposite, bunge, then that simply speaks of which sources you are catering to. You seem perfectly content to believe that only pro-Iraq war propaganda can exist in this world, so suit yourself. Anything just to garner the pleasure of saying, "See, I was right. bunge is always right." At some point, you got to realize if you are really finding out about your world by picking up info with an objective mind, or are you just waiting for and picking up the stories that support your preconceptions (what do they call it- a self-fulfilling belief?).
[B]At some point, you got to realize if you are really finding out about your world by picking up info with an objective mind, or are you just waiting for and picking up the stories that support your preconceptions (what do they call it- a self-fulfilling belief?).
Don't worry about me, I change my beliefs every day.
If us anti-war folks are picking our stories to support a dogma, where is the evidence that we're actually advancing faster than expected?
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
Nope, all Arabs hate us, didn't you hear?
That's propaganda.
There are lies, damned lies and then there's anything that's positive about America.
Who got your Scott Spot?
Originally posted by bunge
Oh well. I was willing to hope things were better than I thought, but according to this article this thread is still utter crap.
With all due respect to Peter Arnett...wait, he doesn't deserve any respect. This is the guy who got himself fired from CNN a few years back for reporting a false (libelous, even) story about supposed US atrocities in Laos. He works for "National Geographic Explorer" now, but apparently the Pentagon keeps him and National Geographic well appraised of its warplans? The quotes they mention in that article make him sound like an Iraqi propaganda tool, and the article even insinuates the same judgement. In fact, I think you could make a reasonable case (he's a US citizen, right?) that his making comments like that on Iraqi-sponsored TV, at the behest of the Iraqi government, crosses the line from honest journalism into giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Originally posted by Towel
In fact, I think you could make a reasonable case (he's a US citizen, right?) that his making comments like that on Iraqi-sponsored TV, at the behest of the Iraqi government, crosses the line from honest journalism into giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Could we first make a reasonable case that the war is not going better than we are told?
Pause due to stretched supply lines and stiff resistance
resistance on 'every inch' of road to baghdad
It's also extremely important to note that reports of stiff resistance are vastly more credible than those that discount difficulties since the latter is a tool for boosting morale.
If you prefer coalition forces could just level Basra instead of attempting to preserve civilian lives to meet the liberal media's "omg we're doing good" timetable? Is that preferrable?
Please don't get sucked into the sensationalism some publications use to keep the public glued to tv or get hits for their sites. This 4-6 day pause bit is a good example. Not sure where that comes from but what part of continued bombing and ongoing ground battles is a pause?
Originally posted by dviant
This 4-6 day pause bit is a good example.
It is a good example...of how the war isn't going as well as we were told.
Read my post again... get to the point where I'm talking about the "pause"... go get a drink of water because i know this going to be hard... but theres a question right at the very end. Please answer it.
Also do explain how our overwhelming number of enemy POW/KIAs, quick advancment into Iraq, and total dominance of the air vs low casualties on the coalition side equates to "going badly" I'd sure like to hear you distort that. I really would. I'm interested in how you'd do it. (see numbers in SDW2001's post)
This is the "War Is Going Better Than We Are Told" thread.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
dviant, I think you meant to post that in the "War Is Going Well" thread.
This is the "War Is Going Better Than We Are Told" thread.
eh?
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...c.irq.savidge/
And talking about banned weapons....the plan is to use toxic CS and other "calmative" gasses, which are also banned on the battlefield according to the Geneva Convention. Perhaps the Geneva Convention only applies to the 'playground wimps', but the bullies get to use all the best toys.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=383006
Or are CNN and The Independent now relegated to conspiracy theory sites?
Originally posted by dviant
Not sure where that comes from but what part of continued bombing and ongoing ground battles is a pause?
I think it's the part where we stopped advancing and actually back tracked to engage a city we originally were going to ignore.
Originally posted by bunge
I think it's the part where we stopped advancing and actually back tracked to engage a city we originally were going to ignore.
So let me get this straight. Because we have some troops re-engaging a city we swept pass, we're doing poorly in the war? Hahaha. You might as well stop here Bunge you don't have a point.
First how exactly is that a "pause" like you were saying is happening? And secondly, its a big army. They are capable of walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time. Just because they swept past a city on the way to Baghdad (primary objective) and are now focusing more attention on it in no way proves anything is going poorly.
When we start losing troops/armor/territory on the scale that the Iraqis have then you can say were doing poorly or "things aren't going well". Until then please give it up.
The purpose of this thread was to show that 'The War is going better than we are told.' My point isn't to show that we are doing poorly, but that we're not doing better than we are told. We are not doing as well as we are being told in the media, but that does not mean we are doing poorly.
If you can show that we're doing better than we're being told, please do so. Otherwise please admit that we're not doing better than we are told.
Nice try though!
http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics....692003&tid=518
Originally posted by sammi jo
This report out of Qatar by The Scotsman indicates...
So Randycat99, since I didn't pick out this source is it still me somehow 'cherry picking' my sources? Or is it perhaps that the war isn't going better than we are told?
If you are coming up with the complete opposite, bunge, then that simply speaks of which sources you are catering to. You seem perfectly content to believe that only pro-Iraq war propaganda can exist in this world, so suit yourself. Anything just to garner the pleasure of saying, "See, I was right. bunge is always right." At some point, you got to realize if you are really finding out about your world by picking up info with an objective mind, or are you just waiting for and picking up the stories that support your preconceptions (what do they call it- a self-fulfilling belief?).
Originally posted by Randycat99
[B]At some point, you got to realize if you are really finding out about your world by picking up info with an objective mind, or are you just waiting for and picking up the stories that support your preconceptions (what do they call it- a self-fulfilling belief?).
Don't worry about me, I change my beliefs every day.
If us anti-war folks are picking our stories to support a dogma, where is the evidence that we're actually advancing faster than expected?
Originally posted by Randycat99
If you are coming up with the complete opposite, bunge, then that simply speaks of which sources you are catering to.
Just for clarification, does this mean that the sandstorm that slowed us down combined with the current heat wave was actually part of the war plan?