Basic rules of war neglected?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-30 04:05am

Rumsfeld's bright idea- (note, he was the moron that originally thought they could fight it the way the did in Afghanistan- i.e. use special forces and the Iraqi Opposition).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay. ... tion=world

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-30 04:19am

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/ ... 01327.html

And another- on the general background insider don't name me "we fucked up" variety- well except for General Wallace.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-30 04:37am

David wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
And you imply that journo's should not question things when they appear wrong. A reporters job is to question, to play devils advocate, it is also true that it is incumbent on a reporter to educate themselves on the subject at hand. As such what you said above is something of a red herring given this

I imply no such thing. The reporters in this case are beating a dead horse, and they show their own ignorance with their questions. I made the comment which you call a red herring because I am tired of hearing the reporters at Centcom in Qatar and Florida ask the same questions at every meeting every time something insignifigant but new occurs. Everytime somethings happens the reporters bring in they're analysts and try to figure out if this has put the shedule ahead or behind of what the generals planned, and then procede to predict dire consequinces once they have it figured out. Of course it never occurs to them to announce that the generals in charge of this war have never announced what this shedule is, or even if they have one.

But you do imply, it does not matter that they beat a dead horse {mind you, they could be asking better questions and doing more research, but thats just my personal gripe} or ask questions on insignificant things, that their job. And if a reporter doe snot get a satifactory answer they will ask the question untill they do get a satisfactory answer. They dont have to announce their schedule for people to know things are not going as planned, the Iraqi people are not exactly throwing the Americans kisses and flowers, and the public perception is that all is not well and that perception is what counts.

Stuart Mackey wrote:Perhaps you think that reporters should just report whatever politicains and Generals say they should?

Excellent strawman, couldn't have made a better one if I tried.

I see I must quote you.

David wrote:I think it is rather cute to watch reporters question whether a group of generals with decades of experience under their belts really know what they are doing or not.

This is no strawman, your imposition is quite clear and you are damned by your own words.

Stuart Mackey wrote:Dont you think that if, for example, the Americans lost a major engagement that the public have a right to know why it was lost? did someone fuck up, was incompetnece involved? or was the enemy just better on the day?

Again, a strawman, but I will answer anyway. Of course I think we have the right to know these things, however, as I pointed out before, there have been no major engages up to this point, and until there is the point is moot.

It was an example

but as you seem to be covering your redherring with a strawman of your own, I shall quote you again.

David wrote: I think it is rather cute to watch reporters question whether a group of generals with decades of experience under their belts really know what they are doing or not.

And again, your imposition is quite clear. You seem to have an idea that just because reporters are not soldier that they must not question the authority of the generals.
snip

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-30 05:14am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 53,00.html

The media whirlwind o nthe recriminations continues... this time General Shinseki- head of the Army.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-30 05:19am

Vympel wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 53,00.html

The media whirlwind o nthe recriminations continues... this time General Shinseki- head of the Army.

Heh, American politicians must like eggs fro breakfast..frshly broken on their own face

Soulman · Post by **Soulman** » 2003-03-30 10:43am

Stuart Mackey wrote: But you do imply, it does not matter that they beat a dead horse {mind you, they could be asking better questions and doing more research, but thats just my personal gripe} or ask questions on insignificant things, that their job. And if a reporter doe snot get a satifactory answer they will ask the question untill they do get a satisfactory answer. They dont have to announce their schedule for people to know things are not going as planned, the Iraqi people are not exactly throwing the Americans kisses and flowers, and the public perception is that all is not well and that perception is what counts.

The problem is that many of the reporters haven't seemed to do any basic research on the military and the forces invloved. For example some comments about an attack by "American Stealth Eagles".