I dislike unnamed sources

Post #15,087 by wharris2 10/25/01 7:54:18 AM Reply	I dislike unnamed sources "A senior US official" could be almost anyone willing to unload to a reporter. Bush said at the beginning that it was going to be a long campaign. And nobody has yet won a war by precision bombing. This so-called senior official doesn't understand that? We've crippled a lot of the Taliban infrastructure - such as was left after the Soviets and ten years of civil war. I suppose continued bombing makes us feel better about how we're doing something, but unless we're very lucky we aren't likely to take out many of the Taliban leaders or binLaden. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #15,092 by dmarker2 10/25/01 8:29:20 AM Reply	Re: I am wary of the poisoning threat That smacks of classic propaganda & villification. Hmmm, I would even take bets that in 6 months it will be exposed as propaganda.\\ Cheers Doug
Post #15,099 by Arkadiy 10/25/01 9:51:57 AM Reply	Kosovo conflict was won by precision bombing... I do realize that Afganistan is no Serbia.
Post #15,178 by dmarker2 10/25/01 10:53:04 PM Reply	Re: I dislike unnamed sources - NOT unamed any more Was on prime time news & in yesterday's papers. US stated it point blank. I take these statements incl today's that OBL may not be found, as leading to a settlement that satisfies all sides. See my new post above. Cheers Doug Marker
Post #15,179 by addison 10/25/01 10:56:07 PM Reply	Re: I dislike unnamed sources - NOT unamed any more as leading to a settlement that satisfies all sides. Given what's happened, that's not the choice of words I'd pick. Additionally, I don't know if that's a message, or the US Armed Forces being actively surprised again. Their track record's spotty on that. Addison
Post #15,187 by Ric Locke 10/25/01 11:53:15 PM Reply	Surprises are a given When there's a war on, the premium in the armed forces is people who can win battles and/or wars. Between wars, the military becomes just another bureaucracy: advancement comes to those who do politics and appearances best. White rocks, spiffy uniforms (berets anyone?) and sucking up to congresscritters yield promotion. After some time, all the important positions are held by politicians, not soldiers. The proablem is not alleviated by our practice, since Truman, of using the military as a social experimentation lab. The success -- debatable, according to some of my sources -- of racial integration has led to calls for like integration of gays and women. Then comes the war, and the military forces are basically congresscritters in nifty suits. We -- the U.S. -- have pretty much a policy of not attacking; this means that whoever we're fighting will have reorganized their military to be more effective prior to the war, so our guys are hopelessly outclassed. Bullets, bombs, claymore mines, etc., are notoriously immune to political infighting. As a result, we start out 'way behind the curve. "We always sacrifice a few of our comrades to the Liberals," said Gen. Muraschenko (science fiction fans are encouraged to find the original of that). As the war progresses, the soldiers win and the politicians lose, and the criteria for promotion change -- eventually we start getting Pattons, and the tide turns. The trick is to hold on until the politicians get worked out of the system. It worked in WWII; it may not be possible any more, since it takes time, and by the time the deadwood starts getting piled, the "news cycle" has turned and the whole thing isn't newsworthy. This may mean we can no longer win wars. Regards, Ric
Post #15,193 by dmarker2 10/26/01 12:15:00 AM Reply	Re: I dislike unnamed sources - NOT unamed any more "Given what's happened, that's not the choice of words I'd pick." From my knowledge of military & press briefings & politics, Rumsfield would not be supporting such admissions in public press releases unless they serve a purpose. The logic I am applying here is that when progress is being made we can make what appear to be concessions & this looks like one. Being antagonistic to Afghan (any factions) wouldn't achieve the same progress & the fact that the Afghan council in Peshwar issued their condemnation of the Sept 11 attacks and at same time US says what tough warriors the Taliban are, just looks exactly like an agreed set of compromise statements. That this same council bluntly told OBL to buggar off is all just very coincidental. I am sure a settlemnent is in the air. Cheers Doug
Post #15,243 by addison 10/26/01 9:50:05 AM Reply	Re: I dislike unnamed sources - NOT unamed any more From my knowledge of military & press briefings & politics, Rumsfield would not be supporting such admissions in public press releases unless they serve a purpose. You missed the point. You said that "satisfies everybody". With a death toll pushing 7000 or so, what with the US bombings, and etc - I don't think anybody should be "satisfied" about any solution. It might be acceptable, but I'd not say "satisfactory". Addison
Post #15,250 by dmarker2 10/26/01 10:05:51 AM Reply	Re: I dislike unnamed sources - NOT unamed any more Thank god I missed the point - points can be dangerous. Cheers Doug
Post #15,207 by wharris2 10/26/01 2:43:03 AM Reply	News sources my ascii Rumsfield has already come out saying he was misquoted. Has not said "we may never get binLaden" (according to him) but said "It's going to be hard." If that's what you're referring to, that is. The US papers and media have gotten so bad that I don't know I believe anything or anyone they quote unless I actually hear the person. In context. It's not just with this so-called war on terrorism, it's with damn near anything, from baseball to global warming. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #15,226 by dmarker2 10/26/01 6:32:35 AM Reply	Re: News sources my ascii You are right of course - these are tough times for getting clear pitures of what is going on. The piture varies dramatically depending on where you are & who paits the picture (your news sources). I think US is applying a lot more restrictions on 'news' that I have seen in a long time. Also I read the 'quote' from Rumsfeldt from UK & US sources so there is always the possibility that there is a bit of a twist being added by someone. Cheers Doug

Welcome to IWETHEY!