[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Stellite


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.

Gee mate, if you believe that then you believe in the tooth fairy.
I think the problem with al Jezeera is that neither of us can watch it to make up our own minds so we have to rely on others to tell us about it, not the ideal situation.
As an aside, I've been watching mainly the BBC and CNN coverage (I can get Fox but don't, though I have watched it quite a bit in the past). I'm much preferring the BBC's coverage as the "froth and bubble" content is much less than on CNN. That Paula Zahn, f*ck me, she redefines the word bimbo.
Don't know if you guys in America saw it but the BBC footage of the latest friendly fire incident was pretty damn hardcore. John Simpson (BBC reporter of "first man into Kabul" fame) is a bit of a grandstander but there is no denying his gonad dimensions. The footage of him to camera with the blood from his cameraman's wounds smearing the lens was incredible. His translator was killed in the incident and his vehicle destroyed and he himself was slightly injured. Time to shake your head and mutter "there but for the grace of god...."

 

[Booker]

Originally posted by valve bouncer

Don't know if you guys in America saw it but the BBC footage of the latest friendly fire incident was pretty damn hardcore. John Simpson (BBC reporter of "first man into Kabul" fame) is a bit of a grandstander but there is no denying his gonad dimensions. The footage of him to camera with the blood from his cameraman's wounds smearing the lens was incredible. His translator was killed in the incident and his vehicle destroyed and he himself was slightly injured. Time to shake your head and mutter "there but for the grace of god...."

That was shown on "Good Morning America" this morning. It really put a lump in my throat.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
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.

When was the last time that the Marines "stormed the beach"? The fact of the matter is that the Marine tactical air assets are redundant with Navy and Air Force assets. The JSF is one of those systems that Rumsfeld has an eye on. I would not be surprised to see it bite the dust or at least be cut way back. Even if it survives the exclusion of the Marines would cause little or no disruption.

The V22s (should be called the Albatross not the Osprey) are considered tactical troop movers so would be exempt. With its on going problems and Cheney in a position of say, I would say that it is another program that is treading on thin ice.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Well... I'd say the Rumsfeld Plan worked just fine.

3 weeks from the border to downtown Baghdad.

Less than 100 casualties...

And all done with a smaller more lethal force than in 1991.

 

[Stellite]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Gee mate, if you believe that then you believe in the tooth fairy.
I think the problem with al Jezeera is that neither of us can watch it to make up our own minds so we have to rely on others to tell us about it, not the ideal situation.
As an aside, I've been watching mainly the BBC and CNN coverage (I can get Fox but don't, though I have watched it quite a bit in the past). I'm much preferring the BBC's coverage as the "froth and bubble" content is much less than on CNN. That Paula Zahn, f*ck me, she redefines the word bimbo.

The ALjezeera issue is from someone that I trust. Make no mistake, Aljezeera will show more negative US info than positive, FACT of life.

I find Fox and MSNBC to be better than CNN and the few times that I watched BBC I thought it was good.

I like Bimbos

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by DRB
When was the last time that the Marines "stormed the beach"? The fact of the matter is that the Marine tactical air assets are redundant with Navy and Air Force assets. The JSF is one of those systems that Rumsfeld has an eye on. I would not be surprised to see it bite the dust or at least be cut way back. Even if it survives the exclusion of the Marines would cause little or no disruption.

The V22s (should be called the Albatross not the Osprey) are considered tactical troop movers so would be exempt. With its on going problems and Cheney in a position of say, I would say that it is another program that is treading on thin ice.

I dont think its really redundant at all, but then again, my opinion doesnt count much to the big bosses. I mean, to have a fully reliable, readily deployable force..you need land, water and air power at the same time. The Navy and Air Force do not work at the same speed, or have as close communication or understanding of a MEU, as MC pilots and air ops guys do. Im not saying that its undoable, but that it would certainly hurt the effectiveness of our troops (the MEUs) that can be anywhere in the world in 24 hours. Just seems like a bad idea to me, in this instance.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont think its really redundant at all, but then again, my opinion doesnt count much to the big bosses. I mean, to have a fully reliable, readily deployable force..you need land, water and air power at the same time. The Navy and Air Force do not work at the same speed, or have as close communication or understanding of a MEU, as MC pilots and air ops guys do. Im not saying that its undoable, but that it would certainly hurt the effectiveness of our troops (the MEUs) that can be anywhere in the world in 24 hours. Just seems like a bad idea to me, in this instance.

Sure its redundant.

The problems you indicate, which are obstacles to overcome, have solutions. The Army has had to work with the Air Force, Navy and Marines in providing fixed wing tactical air support since the creation of the Air Force. So it has and can be done.

The fact of the matter is that the Army has greater flexibility in close air support because they can get it from a larger variety of sources. The Marines are more wedded to their own with less flexibility in calling from other sources.

In any case, air support is never fast enough. Ground troops want it now and rarely if ever is it available now.

Regardless, it requires a change in thinking.

 

[N8 v2.0]

The Rumsfeld Doctrine calls for smaller fighting forces who use speed to cut off the enemy before he can react. What Rumsfeld is likely to do is to push the Army and Marine Corps towards lighter, more lethal ground forces that can be airlifted to combat zones. Instead of concentrating ground forces in Germany and Korea, troops will be spread around where they can be quickly deployed to world hotspots.

I believe what we are seeing is an evolution in modern warfare.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8
The Rumsfeld Doctrine calls for smaller fighting forces who use speed to cut off the enemy before he can react. What Rumsfeld is likely to do is to push the Army and Marine Corps towards lighter, more lethal ground forces that can be airlifted to combat zones. Instead of concentrating ground forces in Germany and Korea, troops will be spread around where they can be quickly deployed to world hotspots.

I believe what we are seeing is an evolution in modern warfare.

I had said earlier that the "Rumsfeld Plan" is sort of a misnomer, as he really didn't develop the plan. His contribution was the guts to actually implement it.

Much of the actual warfighting as it stands now is outlined in basics in this article.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081388/

As you will see much of what we see today got its start in the late 70's and early 80's by two men Huba Wass de Czege and John Boyd.

The embedded links are also very good in providing more detail if you are interested. The John Boyd biography is also a good read. There is another website http://www.belisarius.com that has lots of info on Boyd.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by DRB

Much of the actual warfighting as it stands now is outlined in basics in this article.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081388/

Good read, THX
-N8