Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ybnormal · 03-31-2003, 02:53 PM

In any case, whether Arnett is right or wrong (and he's wrong), his interview will likely cause hundreds or thousands of additional deaths in this war.

Yet you are still speaking your mind... besides, this whole thing has gotten silly... now they're blurring out Geraldo's sand box and I'm told that Rush is defending Arnett.

christ-on-a-stick · 03-31-2003, 02:54 PM

markstake -

Quote:

Arnett may have given his misguided opinion, but did not tell the truth. Or perhaps you have some evidence somewhere? Some support that is a quote from someone who would know, as opposed to theory from strategists?

Evidence of what? That the war is not going as planned? That is *obvious* and whether or not the Pentagon admits it IN THOSE WORDS, they have conceded plenty (in doublespeak mostly) and in interviews, members of the military *on the front lines* have openly talked about things not going as planned.

Quote:

In any case, whether Arnett is right or wrong (and he's wrong), his interview will likely cause hundreds or thousands of additional deaths in this war.

Where on earth are you coming up with such a bizzare assertion? How exactly are his words going to cause hundreds or thousands of additional deaths?

Quote:

Although I don't expect anyone here to believe this source, at least Tommy Franks is someone who knows the original plan, knows where we are now, and knows what he's expecting to do next. I don't know how anyone could think the war plan would have been shared with Mr. Arnett to put him in such a position to speak about it with authority.

And do you *really* think that Tommy Franks is just going to be upfront and honest about what IS going wrong, if it is? Do you really not think that the Pentagon and the government spokespeople SPIN for the public? Do you think the U.S. is the only country that does not employ propoganda?

markstake · 03-31-2003, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ybnormal
In any case, whether Arnett is right or wrong (and he's wrong), his interview will likely cause hundreds or thousands of additional deaths in this war.

Yet you are still speaking your mind... besides, this whole thing has gotten silly... now they're blurring out Geraldo's sand box and I'm told that Rush is defending Arnett.

Yep, I'm speaking my mind. Which is beside the point. No matter my opinion or who I speak it to, it isn't going to get people killed. Peter Arnett is supposedly a "serious" journalist who showed an incredible lack of judgement, not to mention intelligence, and has used his credibility as a means to make a bad situation worse.

More people will die because of this, and we're arguing about whether he was right, and whether he was within his rights. I think a reality check is in order.

As far as rights as a U.S. citizen: He absolutely has the right to get up on a pedestal, on stage, and say whatever foolish thing he has to say without regard for the consequences. And his employer has the right to fire him for it. And I have the right to be pissed off. And you have the right to disagree with me and defend him. People are still going to die.

christ-on-a-stick · 03-31-2003, 03:09 PM

markstake, you still haven't addressed *why* "people are going to die" because of his remarks???

John Hancock · 03-31-2003, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
What happened to free speech?

Amen-Moses

US

christ-on-a-stick · 03-31-2003, 03:13 PM

F*ck.

I truly don't see how anyone can read something like that and if there is even a grain of truth to it, not be scared.

markstake · 03-31-2003, 03:41 PM

Christ-on-a-Stick wrote:

Quote:

Evidence of what? That the war is not going as planned? That is *obvious* and whether or not the Pentagon admits it IN THOSE WORDS, they have conceded plenty (in doublespeak mostly) and in interviews, members of the military *on the front lines* have openly talked about things not going as planned.

The men on the front lines have knowledge of the overall strategic plan? Oh, no. Our information is that there are several cases where things didn't go according to plan. They still may have met their objectives, but all we hear is that "resistence was stiffer than expected." We have been given no information about the overall strategic plan.

Christ-on-a-Stick wrote:

Quote:

Where on earth are you coming up with such a bizzare assertion? How exactly are his words going to cause hundreds or thousands of additional deaths?

From my earlier post:

Quote:

The United States will persist until they win. (This is, of course, an assumption, but is widely agreed upon). Much of the general population of Iraq hates Saddam, and fears retribution for assisting in his overthrow. Given reason to believe that the U.S. may not prevail, even those who wish to help the U.S. advance will not. Given reason to believe that the U.S. may not prevail, soldiers who may otherwise surrender will not. Since the U.S. will continue until they win, this means more deaths on both sides without changing the end result.

Christ-on-a-Stick wrote:

Quote:

And do you *really* think that Tommy Franks is just going to be upfront and honest about what IS going wrong, if it is? Do you really not think that the Pentagon and the government spokespeople SPIN for the public? Do you think the U.S. is the only country that does not employ propoganda?

Of course our government is engaging in propoganda. But why would you think any source available to you (or me) is more (or less) reliable than Tommy? Truthfully, it's ridiculous that something as easily predictable as a little resistance completely derailed our plans, and that we are now busy rewriting them to accomodate unforeseen circumstances. I don't know about anyone else here, but I have seen very little that surprised me so far.

Attacking the supply lines? They'd be stupid not to.
Holdouts in the cities? Duh.
Sandstorm? In Iraq? Really?
Prisoners of war? In a war? No way!
Citizens pissed off? After we abandoned them in '91? Who can blame them?
Citizens fighting back? After reading their own state-run media for the last 12 years, who can blame them?
Worldwide protests? Who would have thought?

Turkey was unexpected, but came well before the war. This isn't a war time surprise that requires us to scrap our plans and rethink our strategy. We may have more forces working on protecting our supply line and securing cities than we wanted, but this isn't a major strategic issue, it's a minor detail. The media may well have been surprised, since they've been talking about a short war from the very beginning, but I haven't seen anything so far that would have surprised our military.

Tommy Franks isn't about to tell us the whole plan, and therefore anything that doesn't fit the popular media version of what should be happening according to their retired generals and best case scenarios will be seen as a deviation from the plan. Everything unexpected will be a reactionary deviation from strategy. They'll play it up for the hype and the ratings.

Gurdur · 03-31-2003, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by markstake

....Truthfully, it's ridiculous that something as easily predictable as a little resistance completely derailed our plans, and that we are now busy rewriting them to accomodate unforeseen circumstances. ...

What is ridiculous is that you would try getting away with this exactly at the same time that various Pentagon officials are giving off-the-cuff briefings to journalists blaming Rumsfeld for micro-managing the war plans into balls-up's.

Optional · 03-31-2003, 04:12 PM

markstake, boy are you in for a shock. If, that is, you take up the challenge and honestly look for information. You're right, a lot of that stuff would have been stupid to put in the plan. That's why I'm so concerned about the fact that it was manifestly IN the plan. Let me axe you a question: If you were aware of the fact that there was likely going to be stiff resistance from the Iraqis, and cognizant of the idea that there probably won't be mass surrenders, would you say it was a GOOD idea or a BAD idea to bypass a lot of Iraqi forces and strongholds in a rush to Baghdad, stretching your supply line paper thin right through territory with active enemy military forces? Would you say it was GOOD planning or BAD planning that led to a bunch of marines being on one MRE and one bottle of water per day rations?

-me

christ-on-a-stick · 03-31-2003, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Would you say it was GOOD planning or BAD planning that led to a bunch of marines being on one MRE and one bottle of water per day rations?

Errr... "we meant to do that!" /pee-wee herman

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-31-2003, 02:53 PM	#31
ybnormal Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 430	In any case, whether Arnett is right or wrong (and he's wrong), his interview will likely cause hundreds or thousands of additional deaths in this war. Yet you are still speaking your mind... besides, this whole thing has gotten silly... now they're blurring out Geraldo's sand box and I'm told that Rush is defending Arnett.

03-31-2003, 03:09 PM	#34
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	markstake, you still haven't addressed why "people are going to die" because of his remarks???

03-31-2003, 03:13 PM	#36
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	F*ck. I truly don't see how anyone can read something like that and if there is even a grain of truth to it, not be scared.

03-31-2003, 04:12 PM	#39
Optional Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 1,049	markstake, boy are you in for a shock. If, that is, you take up the challenge and honestly look for information. You're right, a lot of that stuff would have been stupid to put in the plan. That's why I'm so concerned about the fact that it was manifestly IN the plan. Let me axe you a question: If you were aware of the fact that there was likely going to be stiff resistance from the Iraqis, and cognizant of the idea that there probably won't be mass surrenders, would you say it was a GOOD idea or a BAD idea to bypass a lot of Iraqi forces and strongholds in a rush to Baghdad, stretching your supply line paper thin right through territory with active enemy military forces? Would you say it was GOOD planning or BAD planning that led to a bunch of marines being on one MRE and one bottle of water per day rations? -me

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.