US Troops at Mexican Border, Part of an Iraq Exit Strategy? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-17-2006, 03:24 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




the numbers i posted had actual analysis around them by sources independent of the DOD.

i never said your numbers were incorrect. most of your numbers on a variety of topics are not incorrect. they are simply incomplete, misleading, and do a poor job conveying the reality of any particular situation.

as for "bias, lies, and sources," you're the one who whines about the "liberal" media.
You unneccessarily challenged the numbers above because you did not believe them and requested a source. The analysis from many civilian sources is often biased, and lacks informed analysis on military issues. In fact, the coverage is often laughable. I'd be a millionaire if I had a dollar for every time one of these civilian sources labled Soviet Equipment as American Equipment or refered to an Armored Personal Carrier as a Tank.

Bad news, shocking statements, and overall sensalitionism drive most civilian reporting which is a business and with its #1 goal being its profit margin. Civilian news sources are the ones guilty of incomplete, misleading, and doing a poor job of conveying the reality of any particular situation. There are to many journalist who don't have even a basic knowledge of history or the military and are out to find only information to support their political bias. Not all Civilian news sources are guilty of this, but many of them are.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 04:37 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


You unneccessarily challenged the numbers above because you did not believe them and requested a source. The analysis from many civilian sources is often biased, and lacks informed analysis on military issues. In fact, the coverage is often laughable. I'd be a millionaire if I had a dollar for every time one of these civilian sources labled Soviet Equipment as American Equipment or refered to an Armored Personal Carrier as a Tank.

Bad news, shocking statements, and overall sensalitionism drive most civilian reporting which is a business and with its #1 goal being its profit margin. Civilian news sources are the ones guilty of incomplete, misleading, and doing a poor job of conveying the reality of any particular situation. There are to many journalist who don't have even a basic knowledge of history or the military and are out to find only information to support their political bias. Not all Civilian news sources are guilty of this, but many of them are.


well, everything makes sense now.

i find it funny how you can lambast "civilian" news sources for their lack of understanding of military issues, when you don't have a clue as to how "civilian" news sources work or operate, or what the job of a reporter is.

the military has every interest in presenting biased news that presents itself in the most favorable light possible. it is the job of the reporter to see through this facade and get to the truth of the matter and not simply accept what the military says as unquestionable truth as one would in a fascist state.

and your numbers cited have been effectively challenged and understood to be what the DOD has reported, and also as to why DOD numbers cannot (and must not) be taken at face value.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 05:50 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail
To me it seems like a political stunt to say "look we're actually doing something" when in reality doing nothing might actually be a better alternative than the proposed plan. I just don't see how this will be effective at all.
What?

We've been "doing nothing" for decades. I missed all the praise for the lack of action.

Border Patrol has continually requested larger numbers to help. Perhaps they only wanted more union members or such.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 06:54 PM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


What?

We've been "doing nothing" for decades. I missed all the praise for the lack of action.

Border Patrol has continually requested larger numbers to help. Perhaps they only wanted more union members or such.


serious question: when did this morph from a state issue (CA, AZ, NM, TX, maybe FL) into a national crisis?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 07:24 PM   #35
Refugee
 
4U2Play's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,791
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
serious question: when did this morph from a state issue (CA, AZ, NM, TX, maybe FL) into a national crisis?

Your question is moot.


Border protection is not a state issue.

Immigration policy is not a state issue.

Federal tax avoidance is not a state issue.

Bulging prison populations are both state and federal issues.

Overburdened schools, bankrupt emergency clinics, and the undercutting of working-class wages are mainly state issues.
__________________
4U2Play is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 07:42 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




well, everything makes sense now.

i find it funny how you can lambast "civilian" news sources for their lack of understanding of military issues, when you don't have a clue as to how "civilian" news sources work or operate, or what the job of a reporter is.

the military has every interest in presenting biased news that presents itself in the most favorable light possible. it is the job of the reporter to see through this facade and get to the truth of the matter and not simply accept what the military says as unquestionable truth as one would in a fascist state.

and your numbers cited have been effectively challenged and understood to be what the DOD has reported, and also as to why DOD numbers cannot (and must not) be taken at face value.
Prior to the first 1991 Gulf War, the media was alive with reports about how the United States new weapons purchased during the 1980s did not work and were not good enough. The media was filled with predictions that up to 50,000 US troops would die when they attempted to retake Kuwait from Iraqi forces. Frank Sesno of CNN had a two hour special where he attacked US Army systems like the M1 Tank, the M2 Bradley fighting vehicle as being vulnerable and unreliable. They ignored what the military had told them about the performance of the vehicles as well as other weapon systems. One Journalist, can't remember the name, was estatic about the fact that "all the Pentagons toys are not going to work".

I don't think there has ever been a group of people that were proved so profoundly wrong about everything they said about the military's weapons as well as the military itself. I could go into specific detail about how every claim made by the media about the US military and US weaponry purchased during the Reagan build up was proved wrong during the 1991 Gulf War. They had an opportunity to produce and objective and accurate picture prior to the start of the war with evidences and sources from military and non-military sources, but instead they produced what proved to be a laughable and embarrassing critique of the US military and the capabilities of its weapons.

The job of every reporter should be to produce reports that are informed, honest, accurate, unbiased, and consider various sources, instead of these sensational documentary's that only use questionable sources that produce an hour long show that says the US military will get crushed as it crosses the border.

No organization can claim to be perfect, but you will not receive more accurate and honest information from another organization than you will from the US military in regards to its abilities and performance on the battlefield. The US military has one purpose, to serve and protect the United States Of America. Thats a bit different than those competing for market share and selling Newspapers and Magazines.

If you have evidence that the above DOD numbers are incorrect, lets see it. If there is anything that cannot be taken at face value, its your average civilian reporting on the US military and US foreign policy. These people should take some time to sufficiently educate themselves on these issues, before they attempt to analyze and report on them.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 08:29 PM   #37
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

I don't think there has ever been a group of people that were proved so profoundly wrong about everything they said about the military's weapons as well as the military itself.
I can, when Bush said he knew where the WMD's were...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-17-2006, 08:33 PM   #38
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Prior to the first 1991 Gulf War, the media was alive with reports about how the United States new weapons purchased during the 1980s did not work and were not good enough. The media was filled with predictions that up to 50,000 US troops would die when they attempted to retake Kuwait from Iraqi forces. Frank Sesno of CNN had a two hour special where he attacked US Army systems like the M1 Tank, the M2 Bradley fighting vehicle as being vulnerable and unreliable. They ignored what the military had told them about the performance of the vehicles as well as other weapon systems. One Journalist, can't remember the name, was estatic about the fact that "all the Pentagons toys are not going to work".

I don't think there has ever been a group of people that were proved so profoundly wrong about everything they said about the military's weapons as well as the military itself. I could go into specific detail about how every claim made by the media about the US military and US weaponry purchased during the Reagan build up was proved wrong during the 1991 Gulf War. They had an opportunity to produce and objective and accurate picture prior to the start of the war with evidences and sources from military and non-military sources, but instead they produced what proved to be a laughable and embarrassing critique of the US military and the capabilities of its weapons.

The job of every reporter should be to produce reports that are informed, honest, accurate, unbiased, and consider various sources, instead of these sensational documentary's that only use questionable sources that produce an hour long show that says the US military will get crushed as it crosses the border.

No organization can claim to be perfect, but you will not receive more accurate and honest information from another organization than you will from the US military in regards to its abilities and performance on the battlefield. The US military has one purpose, to serve and protect the United States Of America. Thats a bit different than those competing for market share and selling Newspapers and Magazines.

If you have evidence that the above DOD numbers are incorrect, lets see it. If there is anything that cannot be taken at face value, its your average civilian reporting on the US military and US foreign policy. These people should take some time to sufficiently educate themselves on these issues, before they attempt to analyze and report on them.


i'm sorry, but this is a gigantic load of crap.

do you only read Salon as "civilian" journalism?

besides, you don't understand how the news makes money. it's not about circulation but about advertisitng, and because no one wants to piss off the advertisters, an inherent corporate bias manifests itself, especially in television news, and this bias tends to be conservative.

again, it's not INCORRECT numbers but INCOMPLETE numbers. your posts offer a highly selective, cherry-picked vision of reality, kind of how you go around trumpeting a "majority" by Bush Jr. when he barely won the election -- 3% is not a landslide, it's very nearly a tie, and the "majority" you point to (51%) isn't much of a majority and due to the lack of credible 3rd party candidates in 2004 that we previously have had in every election since 1988.

you do this consistently, about a multitude of issues, and this isn't a personal attack (though i expect moaning) -- it is a critique of how you present facts and use them to build arguments.

as for the above post, i can only go through this so many times. most of what you wrote above as NOTHING to do with the difficulty of National Guard recruiting and retention over the past 3 years -- you've gone onto some masturbatory soliloquy about weapons when that's utterly inconsequential to what is being discussed. i'd love to see you cite each and everyone of these articles you seem to remember off the top of your head -- though i don't hear you complaining when the newspapers get things wrong in your favor, like Judy Miller and the NYT getting WMDs incredibly wrong as she was led around by Ahmed Chalabi, administration stooges both.

and i love "your average civilian." how condescending. how elitist. how junta-like.

most journalists are deeply educated in the issues they cover, and their job is to dig past the spin, dig past the DOD representation of events (which isn't by default incorrect, but it must be clarified).
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 09:31 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i'm sorry, but this is a gigantic load of crap.

do you only read Salon as "civilian" journalism?

besides, you don't understand how the news makes money. it's not about circulation but about advertisitng, and because no one wants to piss off the advertisters, an inherent corporate bias manifests itself, especially in television news, and this bias tends to be conservative.

again, it's not INCORRECT numbers but INCOMPLETE numbers. your posts offer a highly selective, cherry-picked vision of reality, kind of how you go around trumpeting a "majority" by Bush Jr. when he barely won the election -- 3% is not a landslide, it's very nearly a tie, and the "majority" you point to (51%) isn't much of a majority and due to the lack of credible 3rd party candidates in 2004 that we previously have had in every election since 1988.

you do this consistently, about a multitude of issues, and this isn't a personal attack (though i expect moaning) -- it is a critique of how you present facts and use them to build arguments.

as for the above post, i can only go through this so many times. most of what you wrote above as NOTHING to do with the difficulty of National Guard recruiting and retention over the past 3 years -- you've gone onto some masturbatory soliloquy about weapons when that's utterly inconsequential to what is being discussed. i'd love to see you cite each and everyone of these articles you seem to remember off the top of your head -- though i don't hear you complaining when the newspapers get things wrong in your favor, like Judy Miller and the NYT getting WMDs incredibly wrong as she was led around by Ahmed Chalabi, administration stooges both.

and i love "your average civilian." how condescending. how elitist. how junta-like.

most journalists are deeply educated in the issues they cover, and their job is to dig past the spin, dig past the DOD representation of events (which isn't by default incorrect, but it must be clarified).
Advertisers flock to shows that get viewers, it works both ways. Regardless its a far cry from what the military is tasked to do.

I never claimed that Bush's election victory was a landslide, but getting a majority of the votes was significant as was increasing the Republican's seats in the House and Senate, the first time that had happened in an incumbent election in half a century.

I could write a book about the things that the civilian media got wrong about the first Gulf War and the US military. There was plenty of information provided by the US military about their equipment and their capabilities. This was not something that was hidden and difficult to get information on like WMD in another country trying to hide such things.

As for the National Guard issue, a big reason that their numbers have not been at 100% is the much higher retention rate for the Active Army from which the National Guard normally gets a significant number of its recruits. Regardless the reality of the numbers show that your initial claims were incorrect.

Some journalist are intelligent and are very educated on the issues they cover. But when it comes to the US military, many are not.

As for your irrelevant "critique's" of my post, you should try reading your own sometime.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 09:44 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I can, when Bush said he knew where the WMD's were...
Not really comparable since in the case of the journalist, the information was publically available that showed their analysis was incorrect. Locating where WMD's specifically are in any country when the regime that controls has been hiding them and disrupting inspections for a decade is a very different matter. In addition, Bush's central case for military action was Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD per the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement, not intelligence that indicated that WMD was located in specific spot.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com