Praise for the Rumsfeld War Plan

SandMan · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by Spud

Gotta love the guy.

Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang have been dealing with Saddam in the past, there is no question. Also the U.S. turned a blind eye when he gased the Kurds because the U.S. was doing so much business with Iraq, and let's not forget were he got the chemical weapons.... he basically got them form the U.S. Just watch Frontline on PBS, all this got reported by Frontline, and many other services.

The problem with Rumsfeld was that him and Richard Perle wanted to go into Iraq with a minimal force. Why? to prove that can take over a country cheaply and swiftly, so they can maybe repeat the senario. They both ignored warning from the CIA telling them they will not get the welcome that they wanted, from the Iraqi people. Let's not forget what was being seaid before the war started, "the troups might be even welcomed with flowers in the streets from the Iraqis"

DRB · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by SandMan
The problem with Rumsfeld was that him and Richard Perle wanted to go into Iraq with a minimal force. Why? to prove that can take over a country cheaply and swiftly, so they can maybe repeat the senario. They both ignored warning from the CIA telling them they will not get the welcome that they wanted, from the Iraqi people. Let's not forget what was being seaid before the war started, "the troups might be even welcomed with flowers in the streets from the Iraqis"

What would have more force got them? Would have it saved any US lives? Would have more fire power provided an improvement to the ability of coalition troops to fulfill the mission requirements as stated?

Would you rather have had the US simply carpet bomb the country from one end to the other? Or should they have used nuclear weapons? Maybe we should have disposed of the remaining chemical weapons by dumping them on Baghdad.

Last but certainly not least..... Cheaply?

SandMan · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by N8

I think you are a victim of the "fog of television."

Think again, "fog television" is CNN, Fox news and the rest of the so-called unbiased news services. Try getting reports from many other International news services, that maybe are not so biased.

So Rumsfeld knows better then the CIA, along with Paul Wolfawich and Richard Perle? That is a scary proposition.

SandMan · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by N8
I think you are a victim of the "fog of television."

1 more thing about "fog of television", most news US services nowadays make it seem that Iraq was behind 9/11. The way they report makes it appear that were really behind it.

There was a report this weekend, that tied a mosque in Saudi Arabia with the Bali bombing, which turned out to be the same mosque that produced 5 of the 19 terrorists involded in 9/11, this never got reported on American news.

LordOpie · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by SandMan
Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang have been dealing with Saddam in the past, there is no question. Also the U.S. turned a blind eye when he gased the Kurds because the U.S. was doing so much business with Iraq, and let's not forget were he got the chemical weapons.... he basically got them form the U.S. Just watch Frontline on PBS, all this got reported by Frontline, and many other services.

The problem with Rumsfeld was that him and Richard Perle wanted to go into Iraq with a minimal force. Why? to prove that can take over a country cheaply and swiftly, so they can maybe repeat the senario. They both ignored warning from the CIA telling them they will not get the welcome that they wanted, from the Iraqi people. Let's not forget what was being seaid before the war started, "the troups might be even welcomed with flowers in the streets from the Iraqis"

So what you're saying in the first paragraph is that the past dictates the future and we cannot and should not ever change our path?

Suppose you're right about proving that we can take a country cheaply and swiftly? If that's true and the result happens, then AWESOME! I think that sends a great message.

DRB · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by SandMan
1 more thing about "fog of television", most news US services nowadays make it seem that Iraq was behind 9/11. The way they report makes it appear that were really behind it.

Post the link for a news report that purports Iraq's complicity in the 9-11 attack. Everyone seems to say this but I've yet to see one of the major news channel report that Iraq was behind 9-11.

But back to Rumsfeld and war planning? You seem to be of the opinion that the plan was bad. Or is it just that you are basing your opinion on the fact that you don't like Rumsfeld and will side with anyone that is against him? Even if some of these folks would have had us fight a much more agressive, costly and destructive war.

SandMan · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by DRB
Post the link for a news report that purports Iraq's complicity in the 9-11 attack. Everyone seems to say this but I've yet to see one of the major news channel report that Iraq was behind 9-11.

By reporting so called ties to El-qaeda, which never been proven. Powell even tried to do this, and still never got proved.

Originally posted by DRB
But back to Rumsfeld and war planning? You seem to be of the opinion that the plan was bad. Or is it just that you are basing your opinion on the fact that you don't like Rumsfeld and will side with anyone that is against him? Even if some of these folks would have had us fight a much more agressive, costly and destructive war.

I don't like Rumsfeld, just like the rest of the world.

LordOpie · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by SandMan
By reporting so called ties to El-qaeda, which never been proven. Powell even tried to do this, and still never got proved.

I don't like Rumsfeld, just like the rest of the world.

/em tosses the red herring back

SandMan · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
Suppose you're right about proving that we can take a country cheaply and swiftly? If that's true and the result happens, then AWESOME! I think that sends a great message.

This is the kind of American policy the world hates, I really don't think its an image the U.S. should project. This will basically cause more terrorism against the U.S.

fluff · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
So what you're saying in the first paragraph is that the past dictates the future and we cannot and should not ever change our path?

Suppose you're right about proving that we can take a country cheaply and swiftly? If that's true and the result happens, then AWESOME! I think that sends a great message.

There is a certain paradox apparent in this forum. A few people have made comments such as the one above. I would indeed hope that a nation could recognise its mistakes and take a better path.

The paradox is that many times (and perhaps the same posters (not necessarily LordOpie)) will refer people back to Hitler, appeasement pre-1939, France's rapid capitulation to superior forces, the US 'saving the world' in WWII and Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran and its own people.

That people will use such historical scenarios to illustrate or back up points about the current Iraq war implies two things;

1. People do not believe that nations other than the US are capable of change

2. People have long memories...

It should therefore not be a surprise that the Iraqi's are not welcoming liberation, after the Gulf war was a lot more recent that WWII.

Clearly however, Donald Rumsfeld has had a Damascene conversation regarding his views on Iraq, Saddam and bio/chemical weapons.

fluff · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by DRB
Post the link for a news report that purports Iraq's complicity in the 9-11 attack. Everyone seems to say this but I've yet to see one of the major news channel report that Iraq was behind 9-11.

But back to Rumsfeld and war planning? You seem to be of the opinion that the plan was bad. Or is it just that you are basing your opinion on the fact that you don't like Rumsfeld and will side with anyone that is against him? Even if some of these folks would have had us fight a much more agressive, costly and destructive war.

Look down to the thread 'What planet is Rumsfeld on' for a (non-verbatim) quote from a speech he made recently with implicitly and insidiously linked Iraq with 9/11. This was probably reported on various US news channels.

The fog of propagande works better when implicit rather than explicit as the links can go unnoticed yet still affect peoples' perception of past events.

I have seen reports of surveys that say over 40% (either that or 60% it's also in an old thread) of the US population sampled thought that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the 9/11 attack, if the media have not led them to believe that who has?

As you say, no direct link has been proven yet the belief is there. So if it's not been reported explicitly, the misconception has been nurtured and allowed to grow....

SandMan · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
There is a certain paradox apparent in this forum. A few people have made comments such as the one above. I would indeed hope that a nation could recognise its mistakes and take a better path.

The paradox is that many times (and perhaps the same posters (not necessarily LordOpie)) will refer people back to Hitler, appeasement pre-1939, France's rapid capitulation to superior forces, the US 'saving the world' in WWII and Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran and its own people.

That people will use such historical scenarios to illustrate or back up points about the current Iraq war implies two things;

1. People do not believe that nations other than the US are capable of change

2. People have long memories...

It should therefore not be a surprise that the Iraqi's are not welcoming liberation, after the Gulf war was a lot more recent that WWII.

Clearly however, Donald Rumsfeld has had a Damascene conversation regarding his views on Iraq, Saddam and bio/chemical weapons.

Bingo!!!!!!!

Very well said fluff.

fluff · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by N8
Hummm, you are concluding PBS is a non-biased news program then?

The CIA is no bastion of great information. After all, they never saw the collapse of the Soviet Union for crying out loud. Nor did they see the attacks on Sept 11th.

Rumsfeld's plan is working quite well. Troops who are actually in the theater report that if there were more US forces in the area they would be tripping over each other...

I think you are a victim of the "fog of television."

Maybe things get a different slant over here but the main issue I've heard with regard to more troops is to do with protection of the extended supply lines. The coalition effectively controls area in a direct line through the desert to the front line action. Troops protecting the supply lines would not interfere in the theater of action necessarily.

DRB · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by SandMan
By reporting so called ties to El-qaeda, which never been proven. Powell even tried to do this, and still never got proved.

I don't like Rumsfeld, just like the rest of the world.

So what you said was wrong? No one actually tied Iraq to 9-11, they just tied Iraq to Al-Queda. You made the leap from one to the other not the news media or even Powell.

So just because you don't like Rumsfeld, means that we should have used a more destructive strategy in Iraq.

SandMan · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by DRB
So what you said was wrong? No one actually tied Iraq to 9-11, they just tied Iraq to Al-Queda. You made the leap from one to the other not the news media or even Powell.

So just because you don't like Rumsfeld, means that we should have used a more destructive strategy in Iraq.

Read fluff's comment above, very well commented on the subject.

Plus the other day I was watching a couple of your troups being interviewed, and they said that they are happy to fight in Iraq because of 9/11.

SandMan · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by DRB
So just because you don't like Rumsfeld, means that we should have used a more destructive strategy in Iraq.

There should not have been a war in the first place, does not matter if I like him or not.

LordOpie · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
There is a certain paradox apparent in this forum. A few people have made comments such as the one above. I would indeed hope that a nation could recognise its mistakes and take a better path.

The paradox is that many times (and perhaps the same posters (not necessarily LordOpie)) will refer people back to Hitler, appeasement pre-1939, France's rapid capitulation to superior forces, the US 'saving the world' in WWII and Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran and its own people.

That people will use such historical scenarios to illustrate or back up points about the current Iraq war implies two things;

1. People do not believe that nations other than the US are capable of change

2. People have long memories...

It should therefore not be a surprise that the Iraqi's are not welcoming liberation, after the Gulf war was a lot more recent that WWII.

Clearly however, Donald Rumsfeld has had a Damascene conversation regarding his views on Iraq, Saddam and bio/chemical weapons.

Are you suggesting that Iraq can/could change their ways?

If so, I agree with you, but I do not think Saddam's Regime can or will change.

Societies can evolve, but individuals rarely change their ways.

Spud · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie

Societies can evolve, but individuals rarely change their ways.

I agree.

fluff · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
Are you suggesting that Iraq can/could change their ways?

If so, I agree with you, but I do not think Saddam's Regime can or will change.

Societies can evolve, but individuals rarely change their ways.

I certainly agree with the individual bit.

Sadly it seems that it is also extremely easy to stir up what appear to be long buried fears and hatred, as the genocide in the Balkans shows, there various ethnic groups have hated and feared each other for centuries and after 40 odd years of relative peace all hell let loose. Now the hatred is renewed, will it ever die?

I know I grew up believing all Germans were arrogant, racist and had fascist tendencies (due to the actions of the Nazi party 30 years before) and it's a damn hard thing to throw off...

LordOpie · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
I certainly agree with the individual bit.

Sadly it seems that it is also extremely easy to stir up what appear to be long buried fears and hatred, as the genocide in the Balkans shows, there various ethnic groups have hated and feared each other for centuries and after 40 odd years of relative peace all hell let loose. Now the hatred is renewed, will it ever die?

I know I grew up believing all Germans were arrogant, racist and had fascist tendencies (due to the actions of the Nazi party 30 years before) and it's a damn hard thing to throw off...

I dunno. I'm a jew... i hate nazi's, white supremacists, etc, but I like Germans. At least those I met when i visited and the ones i've met who've visited here.

No, the hatred will never die. Take the Albanians and Azerbijans -- i think that's the two groups. They have similar, but different enough religious beliefs. Both believe that you must convert others, kill them to save their soul, or die trying (which makes you a martyr).

In otherwords, if someone doesn't police the world, it'll only get worse.

Damn True · Apr 4, 2003

Saddam and his Ba'ath party are a very small minority group within Iraq. They came to power through violence and the installation of fear in the populace. They have remained in power thourgh violence and the installation of fear in the populace. The only way they can remain in power is....well you get the point.

DRB · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
Look down to the thread 'What planet is Rumsfeld on' for a (non-verbatim) quote from a speech he made recently with implicitly and insidiously linked Iraq with 9/11. This was probably reported on various US news channels.

The fog of propagande works better when implicit rather than explicit as the links can go unnoticed yet still affect peoples' perception of past events.

I have seen reports of surveys that say over 40% (either that or 60% it's also in an old thread) of the US population sampled thought that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the 9/11 attack, if the media have not led them to believe that who has?

As you say, no direct link has been proven yet the belief is there. So if it's not been reported explicitly, the misconception has been nurtured and allowed to grow....

Again BULL$HIT. The quote, in your own Planet post, was "'Whatever the cost of defeating Saddam Hussein, it will be lower than the cost of another attack like 9/11" I know the speech and the body of it doesn't go anywhere near tying Iraq to 9-11. Your commentary is where it says Rumsfeld ties the two together. So if anyone is guilty of tying the two together.......

DRB · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
There is a certain paradox apparent in this forum. A few people have made comments such as the one above. I would indeed hope that a nation could recognise its mistakes and take a better path.

Such as completely and fully cooperating with all inspectors and inspections in the course of verifying the complete destruction of all WMD within one's country. They had, during UN inspections researched, produced and deployed chemical and biological weapons. When given the opportunity to come clean the second time, they still stalled and decieved. So yes you can hope that a nation with recognize its mistakes and take a better path but..... that's not what happened with Iraq. He did little or nothing to comply with UN resolutions and showed no really intent of every doing so.

I do believe that nations and individuals can change. But after you have screwed up, you should be viewed with a keener eye.

SandMan · Apr 4, 2003

Originally posted by DRB
I do believe that nations and individuals can change. But after you have screwed up, you should be viewed with a keener eye.

Hence....

Spud · Apr 4, 2003

As Fluff was saying, the misconceptions are allowed to grow...

Donald Rumsfeld testifying before congress on the cost of the Iraq incursions slips in Al Qaeda and links this Iraq thing to a Global War on Terrorism. Nowhere is there A+B=C but that's not the point of what they are doing. From Uncle Rummy's mouth:

As the battle unfolds in Iraq, coalition forces are also engaged in operations elsewhere in the world in support of the global war on terror. Just a few weeks before the Iraq campaign began, the al-Qaeda network was dealt a serious blow with the capture of one of their most senior operatives - Khalid Sheik Mohammed. And last week, as Operation Iraqi Freedom got under way, coalition forces also launched a major assault on terrorists operating in the southern mountains of Afghanistan - Operation Valiant Strike. Many other anti-terrorist efforts are under way throughout the world - efforts that are, of necessity, often unseen, but which are helping to protect our people from further acts of terror.

The point is this: all elements of national power are fighting the global war on terror on all fronts. The coalition is putting steady pressure on al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan and across the globe. And the Iraqi regime is discovering they made a serious miscalculation in rejecting 12 years of efforts to secure their peaceful disarmament.

Our mission in the global war on terror is to do everything in our power to prevent a chemical, biological or nuclear attack that would make 9/11 seem modest by comparison - an attack where we could lose not 3,000 people, but 30,000 or 300,000, or more.

(Excerpted from a testimony as prepared for delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H Rumsfeld, Senate Appropriations Committee and House Appropriations Committee - Subcommittee on Defense, Thursday, March 27, 2003.)
http://headlines.sify.com/1947news3.html

One example. Plenty of room for interpretation and arguement on either side of the issue.

fluff · Apr 5, 2003

Originally posted by DRB
Again BULL$HIT. The quote, in your own Planet post, was "'Whatever the cost of defeating Saddam Hussein, it will be lower than the cost of another attack like 9/11" I know the speech and the body of it doesn't go anywhere near tying Iraq to 9-11. Your commentary is where it says Rumsfeld ties the two together. So if anyone is guilty of tying the two together.......

I'm surprised by your vehement response.

There has to be a reason why so many people are under the impression that Iraq is directly linked to 9/11. Comments like the above (from Rumsfeld) certainly do nothing to dispel that belief and it has to have originated somewhere and almost certainly must have been spread by the media. The US administration have certainly linked the current action to the 'war on terror'.

If it occured to me from Rumsfeld's speech I doubt I was alone.

fluff · Apr 5, 2003

Originally posted by Damn True
Saddam and his Ba'ath party are a very small minority group within Iraq. They came to power through violence and the installation of fear in the populace. They have remained in power thourgh violence and the installation of fear in the populace. The only way they can remain in power is....well you get the point.

Very true. I hope that the Iraqi's get a better government after the war, it's not going to be easy though.

fluff · Apr 5, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
I dunno. I'm a jew... i hate nazi's, white supremacists, etc, but I like Germans. At least those I met when i visited and the ones i've met who've visited here.

No, the hatred will never die. Take the Albanians and Azerbijans -- i think that's the two groups. They have similar, but different enough religious beliefs. Both believe that you must convert others, kill them to save their soul, or die trying (which makes you a martyr).

In otherwords, if someone doesn't police the world, it'll only get worse.

Don't get me wrong I know that the German people are just like you and me, I work throughout Europe and the most difficult people I currently work with are English...

What I was trying to illustrate is that prejudices are built into you when you are very young and operate in a very subconcious emotional level and to overcome them takes an effort. (There's a whole other topic here).

A world policeman would be good if done correctly and that's the idea of the UN really I suppose. If the US were to apply the same principles of dealing with tyrants consistently and altruistically (prob. spelt wrong) it would be good but it would also probably bankrupt them. (Some people who view the British Empire through rose-tinted glasses see this as the reason the Empire crumbled - the cost of doing the right thing. A bit simplistic I fear.)

Stellite · Apr 5, 2003

Good discussion even though it strayed off topic a little.

First off, Rummsfeld did not create any war plan, his top general did and it was a great war plan. Well thought out. The plan differed from 1991 in that instead of a 5 week bombing campaign there was a 3-5 day bombing campaign and then and lightning assault that would encompass all the major cities, thereby isolating them, causing a choking effect through which only civilians can get through. Eventually, the enemy either has to concede or be price bombed into submission within the cities. The noose around each city slowly closes allowing more civilians to get out, reducing casualties. Make no mistake about it, this plan was thought out to be the most casualty efficient plan and I think it works. We could have bombed them into submission without entering but the loss to civilians would have been easily as high as the enemy.

As for the same old subject, whether it is right or wrong, I think it is being proven that it is right to have gone in there as the refugees are proving this with their accounts of what that monster did to them. For every anti-american Iraqi Al-Jezeera shows there is another 30-50 that speak out against Saddam. Al-Jezeera is an Islamist propaganda tool. In any case... the conclusion is a moot point. We'll see what comes of the post war Iraq. Hopefully, they can avoid getting another monster in control.

I agree that it is impossible to get rid of hate in this world. The muslim world has proven that. Maybe the peaceful muslims can have some say, someday. For now the war on Terrorism will continue. If the Terrorist organizations did not want to be attacked or did not want their supporters and suppliers (Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc.) attacked then they should have avoided attacking the US on 9/11. I think Syria and Iran have a real reason to be worried. If those two countries don't change their tune and stop backing the terrorists groups like hizballah and hamas they may have some serious consequences.

I personaly think that Syria and Iran want peace and are willing to betray the terrorist groups they fund to avoid being wiped out. Good for them.

DRB · Apr 5, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
I'm surprised by your vehement response.

There has to be a reason why so many people are under the impression that Iraq is directly linked to 9/11. Comments like the above (from Rumsfeld) certainly do nothing to dispel that belief and it has to have originated somewhere and almost certainly must have been spread by the media. The US administration have certainly linked the current action to the 'war on terror'.

If it occured to me from Rumsfeld's speech I doubt I was alone.

Every word that comes out of everyone's mouth can be interpreted a ton of ways. The adminstration as done nothing to dispel their connection to big oil. The adminstration as done nothing to dispel that this invasion is a cover for an invasion of North Korea. The adminstration has done nothing to dispel that this invasion is meant to destroy the UN and reclaim the land the UN is on in NYC to build a hotel. Each of these have been things people think based on the actions and words of the administration.

It all comes down to intent. I do not believe that their intent is to confuse or lead anyone to believe that Iraq was behind 9-11. They don't have to. They have said it a million times that Osama and his crew are the ones responsible for that. My belief if the intent is to lead people to believe that Saddam thru his WMD programs and ties to terrorists could lead to an attack of 9-11 proportions or worse.

Stellite · Apr 5, 2003

What do Saddam Hussein and General Custer have in common?
They both want to know where the heck those Tomahawks are coming from!

manimal · Apr 5, 2003

Originally posted by DRB
Are you so naive to think that Rumsfeld came up with this plan all by himself?

There is a lot more to this then just this simple battle plan. A large chunk of the military has an axe to grind with Rumsfeld because he wants to change the military to be more mobile and responsive to localized threats. The 4th ID is an example of what he is looking to do. Under his plans the Army would virtually do away with its heavy armor divisions and meld them into existing infantry units. This has a lot of old timers chafing (a la Stormin' Norman) that the old ways are being tossed aside.

Again there is a lot riding on this in regards to the future of the military so everyone is getting their jabs.

COOL! so he's planning on making the army more like the marines; smaller, self contained groups with fewer numbers but higher capabilities. ie: air,ground,mech all in one unit.

it works.

valve bouncer · Apr 5, 2003

Originally posted by Stellite

As for the same old subject, whether it is right or wrong, I think it is being proven that it is right to have gone in there as the refugees are proving this with their accounts of what that monster did to them. For every anti-american Iraqi Al-Jezeera shows there is another 30-50 that speak out against Saddam. Al-Jezeera is an Islamist propaganda tool. In any case... the conclusion is a moot point. We'll see what comes of the post war Iraq. Hopefully, they can avoid getting another monster in control.

Didn't know you spoke and understood such good Arabic Stellite, bully for you.

Actually I'm sure al Jezeera is probably more sympathetic to the Iraqis than say Fox but it is a bit of a stretch to say it's a propaganda tool for Islam. I saw the other day that 2 of al Jezeeras journalists have been expelled from Iraq so obviously they aren't exactly toeing the Saddam line. In the Arab world al Jezeera has been shaking things up a bit by tackling controversial subjects and criticising those in charge, not exactly things that are par for the course in the Arab world. Of course their criticisms are mild by our standards but they should be encouraged rather than dismissed so easily.

Stellite · Apr 5, 2003

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Didn't know you spoke and understood such good Arabic Stellite, bully for you. Actually I'm sure al Jezeera is probably more sympathetic to the Iraqis than say Fox but it is a bit of a stretch to say it's a propaganda tool for Islam. I saw the other day that 2 of al Jezeeras journalists have been expelled from Iraq so obviously they aren't exactly toeing the Saddam line. In the Arab world al Jezeera has been shaking things up a bit by tackling controversial subjects and criticising those in charge, not exactly things that are par for the course in the Arab world. Of course their criticisms are mild by our standards but they should be encouraged rather than dismissed so easily.

Actually, I have an Arab friend and even my Arab friend who does get Al jezeera, stated how one sided it is. It shows nothing about the good the Allies do, they do however, show alot of Saddam and his guys in a better light, so for an Arab to say this tells me that it is one sided. It only confirms what other newstations have said of AlJezeera, so again confirmed. I'm sure there are much more radical newstations in the Arab world, but none as large and widespread as Aljezeera.

Takiye... You don't fool us.:angry:

DRB · Apr 6, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
COOL! so he's planning on making the army more like the marines; smaller, self contained groups with fewer numbers but higher capabilities. ie: air,ground,mech all in one unit.

it works.

Well the long term plan would also call to strip the marines of their fixed wing air units.

BurlyShirley · Apr 6, 2003

Originally posted by DRB
Well the long term plan would also call to strip the marines of their fixed wing air units.

What would become then of the new V22s (well, sort of fixed wing) and the Joint Strike Fighters that we're spending billions on for the Marine Corps.

I think that the Harriers,F-18s, and JSFs certainly add something to a Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is the most deployable force we have. Taking away those assets would cause a major problem. Marines storming the beach without immediate airpower doesnt sound like a good idea to me.

valve bouncer · Apr 6, 2003

Originally posted by Stellite
Actually, I have an Arab friend and even my Arab friend who does get Al jezeera, stated how one sided it is. It shows nothing about the good the Allies do, they do however, show alot of Saddam and his guys in a better light, so for an Arab to say this tells me that it is one sided. It only confirms what other newstations have said of AlJezeera, so again confirmed. I'm sure there are much more radical newstations in the Arab world, but none as large and widespread as Aljezeera.

Takiye... You don't fool us.:angry:

One-sided? Well of course they're one-sided, Fox is one-sided too but I'd be hesitant to say that Fox is "Bush propaganda". My point is that calling Al Jezeera Muslim propaganda is a bit strong. A point to consider Stellite; not all Muslims are Arabs and not all Arabs are Muslims.
P.S- I have no idea what your last line means. Bit too esoteric for me I'm afraid.

Stellite · Apr 7, 2003

Originally posted by valve bouncer
One-sided? Well of course they're one-sided, Fox is one-sided too but I'd be hesitant to say that Fox is "Bush propaganda". My point is that calling Al Jezeera Muslim propaganda is a bit strong. A point to consider Stellite; not all Muslims are Arabs and not all Arabs are Muslims.
P.S- I have no idea what your last line means. Bit too esoteric for me I'm afraid.

Muslims come in all nationalities as do Christians Budhists, etc, that is obvious. What we all discuss is the Radical elements of any religion, which are usually the dangerous ones and I'm sure that's true for any religion.

Well we all know that most media leans to the left in this country, like cnn and msnbc. Fox leans to the right giving a little balance to the other two. However, none of these stations outright lie or leave out news to make Saddam look bad. If they did, the stories of Friendly fire deaths and all other negative reports would be quelled.

My point is that AlJezeera is only showing the negative parts of the allies and nothing positive and that has been obvious to the "unbiased" people that have watched Aljezeera.

Praise for the Rumsfeld War Plan

Monkey

unemployed bum

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Monkey

Monkey

MOTHER HEN

unemployed bum

Monkey

MOTHER HEN

Monkey

Monkey Turbo

Monkey Turbo

Monkey

Monkey Turbo

unemployed bum

Monkey

Monkey

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

MOTHER HEN

Monkey

Monkey Turbo

MOTHER HEN

Monkey Pimp

unemployed bum

unemployed bum

Monkey

Attachments

Monkey

Monkey Turbo

Monkey Turbo

Monkey Turbo

Monkey

unemployed bum

Monkey

Ociffer Tackleberry

Master Dildoist

Monkey

unemployed bum

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Master Dildoist

Monkey