Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

to all linguini spined defeatists:

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John Paul
    replied
    I'm glad that i'm not the only one to notice that the British,mainly the BBC,has been building up their troops while at the same time every report or comment about American forces seem to be derogatory.I have not heard one bad word mentioned about British forces in the US press,though i guess its a matter of nationalism on their part.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chuck?
    replied
    Originally posted by Deltapooh
    Actually my problem right now is not with the media, but the British command... However, some went further to make slants of the US military as a whole, calling us "standoffish" as if that's a bad term.
    Don't worry too much about this, the Saxons never learn. At Monongahela they bitched about Americans being too "standoffish" for taking cover behind the nearest tree. However all the red coats ended up face down in the river and GW survived to fight another day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltapooh
    replied
    Hey guys what about that Peter Arnett. He was hired by a British tabloid twenty-four hours after being fired by NBC after he made some comments in an interview on Iraqi TV.

    Peter Arnett Fired/Hired

    While I thought he had a right to his opinion. However, didn't he interview Saddam in 1991, and said the world was wrong then.
    Maybe the British tabloid have more credibility than they do here. However, it's the kind of stepdown I prefer for a man who was just too cozy with the Iraqi regime.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltapooh
    replied
    Actually my problem right now is not with the media, but the British command. They are "politely" degrading the American force while trying to portray themselves as an elite fighting force capable of doing anything. There was a big spat over a comment the 15th MEU commander about leaving the fight to the British who were better prepared for this kind of combat. Turns out the hole mess started because the British commander didn't like all the fire support Marines used.

    I believe the British army is an excellent force that is battle tested both in urban conflicts and counter-insurgency. However, it's far from the best. Constructive criticism is one thing. I could see the British commanders explaining why they would prefer not see so much indirect fire. However, some went further to make slants of the US military as a whole, calling us "standoffish" as if that's a bad term.

    I find the comments to be nothing short of overwhelmingly insulting. If it weren't for the fact that I believe maybe the British commanders were playing to the media and acting like our Marines, I would call for some dismissals, even at the cost of sending having the British quit the war. When Rumsfield downplayed the importance of Britian as an allie, the British people were angered and justly so. The same goes for the British commanders. If they don't have anything good to say (aka be more constructive and objective) then maybe they need to go be sent home. The last thing our soldiers need is some arrogant British commander saying they can't fight, then resorting to our tactics.

    Armies are good at some things and less perfect at others. If British commanders think themselves better, they undermine the sacrifice and commitment of those serving. As I stated, I'm not angry with the British military. I don't see them all making those kinds of comments. I just feel there are a few who want to play Rumsfield, and that should not be tolerated.

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    replied
    Originally posted by Chuck
    Good points about Afghanistan. The fact is the US/UK will prevail in the end. However that doesn't preclude criticism of the 'Rumsfeld Doctrine'. If we bring this to the pitch against the North Koreans we will get our butts kicked. I'm for the 'Powell Doctrine'.
    Agreed. Any conflict in North Korea will require a full effort.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chuck?
    replied
    Good points about Afghanistan. The fact is the US/UK will prevail in the end. However that doesn't preclude criticism of the 'Rumsfeld Doctrine'. If we bring this to the pitch against the North Koreans we will get our butts kicked. I'm for the 'Powell Doctrine'.

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    replied
    Hmmm ! Sounds a lot like the present media.

    Leave a comment:


  • kid kool
    started a topic to all linguini spined defeatists:

    to all linguini spined defeatists:

    Here's how Nicholas Von Hoffman summarized the war in Afghanistan literally moments before we won. Because the New York Observer is a weekly, Von Hoffman's diagnosis appeared days after the Taliban was in full retreat. From the November 14, 2001 New York Observer:



    "The war in Afghanistan, the one (Bush) should never have declared, has run into trouble. Just a few weeks into it and it's obvious that the United States is fighting blind. The enemy is unknown, and the enemy's country is terra incognita. We have virtually no one we can trust who can speak the languages of the people involved. With all our firepower and our technical assets and our spy satellites, it looks like we don't know if we're coming or going. ...

    "We are mapless, we are lost, and we are distracted by gusts of wishful thinking. That our high command could believe the Afghani peasantry or even the Taliban would change sides after a few weeks of bombing! This is fantasizing in high places. ...

    "Moreover, as hellish as the Taliban are, it appears that the ordinary people of Afghanistan prefer them to the brigands and bandits with whom we've been trying to make common cause ... ."

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X