• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Just saw Peter Arnett on Iraq TV

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: exp
If he really said this then he is insane.
Actually, I think the Iraqi regime realizes that someone like Arnett--a reporter with decades of dishonest anti-U.S. and anti-military reporting under his belt--can be a useful sock puppet for them, in which case it's not out of the question that they would allow him to report solo. They know he is no threat to them.
Most of the other reporters have already been kicked out for reporting the right stuff. Foxnews went first and CNN was not far behind.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: exp
If he really said this then he is insane.
Actually, I think the Iraqi regime realizes that someone like Arnett--a reporter with decades of dishonest anti-U.S. and anti-military reporting under his belt--can be a useful sock puppet for them, in which case it's not out of the question that they would allow him to report solo. They know he is no threat to them.
Most of the other reporters have already been kicked out for reporting the right stuff. Foxnews went first and CNN was not far behind.
I wonder, if the US forces him to leave Iraq then will we look like censors?

I wouldn't care if we sent him a smart bomb
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,384
3,510
126
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
How has he sold out anyone? It's not as if the Iraqi leadership is blind to the rest of the world. Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, and any other Global News source is likely monitored religiously.
26 million Iraqis are being told the US has failed by an American journalist. I don't think we are over there to libertate the Iraqi leadership.
No, he said the original plan failed. If the US had failed, they'd be leaving Iraq as we speak/type.
I won't even bother with his opinion of our progress or his knowledge of what our military planners had in mind.

The point that you don't seem to grasp is that there are 26 million people in Iraq who don't trust us to remove a brutal dictator that routinely executes anyone who challenges him. Making that populace believe we have failed (the distinction you draw matters little to the Iraqi people afraid for their lives and watching Saddam's henchmen already swaggering in the glow of victory) is not only a lie..but it is one that can only lead to more US casualties. It strengthens the resolve of those against us and the despair of those who want us to succeed.

It has been suggested that Arnett may be under duress:

Doesn't sound like it to me

"They're requiring no censorship at all. ... There are no minders around us when we broadcast. I'm sitting here in the hotel and ... we can talk on the phone freely," Arnett said.

Shame on anyone who defends scum like Arnett.
Shame? A little dramatic. He has not lied, he has not provided information that isn't readily available or obvious. His crime seems to be that he hasn't been Pro-Coalition enough. All in all, he has remained neutral.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,384
3,510
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
How has he sold out anyone? It's not as if the Iraqi leadership is blind to the rest of the world. Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, and any other Global News source is likely monitored religiously.
26 million Iraqis are being told the US has failed by an American journalist. I don't think we are over there to libertate the Iraqi leadership.
No, he said the original plan failed. If the US had failed, they'd be leaving Iraq as we speak/type.
Considering he has no access to the plan, I dont think he is qualified to call it a success or failure.
Whether it failed is really a matter of opinion. Like I said earlier, early expectations certainly haven't panned out. Um Qasr and Basra were expected to fall at Coalition troops arrival, some 20k(a few days after war started) Iraqi troops were expected to surrender.
Whose expectations? The generals or the media?
Bush Admins, so answer is neither.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,384
3,510
126
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
No where does he say that "Saddam is winning". He said the same thing that many are saying outside of Iraq, that being that the war plan has not worked as expected. Is he to be an agent of the US in order to be Objective?
Picture an Iraqi populace seeing Arnett's interview and then this:


The Iraqis are swaggering. Eleven days after the start of the coalition operation to overthrow Saddam Hussein, official Iraqi statements are already sounding victorious.

In his daily briefing yesterday in Baghdad, the Iraqi army's spokesman, Gen Hazem al-Rawi, said: "The enemy's plans, based on a poor assessment of the will of the Iraqi people, have failed.

"On the 11th day of the attack on Iraq by criminal invaders, this is the true military situation on all fronts," he began.

"The enemy advance has stopped. We have inflicted heavy losses. Several hundred dead and more than a thousand wounded and we have destroyed more than 130 tanks and armoured vehicles," he claimed.

"The Americans are asking for reinforcements. Everything points to their defeat."



What would you think if you were one of them?

Arnett's comments back that ridiculous view of reality to the hilt.
How much of those quotes are his and how much are Gen Hazem al-Rawi? Looks to me Arnett stated the first sentence, then quoted the Gen for the rest.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
0
0
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Hey, it's not like he was manning an anti-aircraft gun or anything.
True....but so many people here have no idea what you are talking about when you say that.

 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Shame? A little dramatic. He has not lied, he has not provided information that isn't readily available or obvious. His crime seems to be that he hasn't been Pro-Coalition enough. All in all, he has remained neutral.
I can see this is futile.

Some believe it when they see it. Others have it exactly backwards.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
How has he sold out anyone? It's not as if the Iraqi leadership is blind to the rest of the world. Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, and any other Global News source is likely monitored religiously.
26 million Iraqis are being told the US has failed by an American journalist. I don't think we are over there to libertate the Iraqi leadership.
No, he said the original plan failed. If the US had failed, they'd be leaving Iraq as we speak/type.
I won't even bother with his opinion of our progress or his knowledge of what our military planners had in mind.

The point that you don't seem to grasp is that there are 26 million people in Iraq who don't trust us to remove a brutal dictator that routinely executes anyone who challenges him. Making that populace believe we have failed (the distinction you draw matters little to the Iraqi people afraid for their lives and watching Saddam's henchmen already swaggering in the glow of victory) is not only a lie..but it is one that can only lead to more US casualties. It strengthens the resolve of those against us and the despair of those who want us to succeed.

It has been suggested that Arnett may be under duress:

Doesn't sound like it to me

"They're requiring no censorship at all. ... There are no minders around us when we broadcast. I'm sitting here in the hotel and ... we can talk on the phone freely," Arnett said.

Shame on anyone who defends scum like Arnett.
Shame? A little dramatic. He has not lied, he has not provided information that isn't readily available or obvious. His crime seems to be that he hasn't been Pro-Coalition enough. All in all, he has remained neutral.
He has lied.

1. He cited growing protests about the war plan. Untrue.

2. He said the original plan had failed and a new one is being made. Untrue.

Need any further proof? The man has been discredited over and over again. Is anyone really shocked that he has done this? He did the same thing in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Laos, and now this. Enough is enough....he is giving aid to the enemy and should be tried for treason.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
No where does he say that "Saddam is winning". He said the same thing that many are saying outside of Iraq, that being that the war plan has not worked as expected. Is he to be an agent of the US in order to be Objective?
Picture an Iraqi populace seeing Arnett's interview and then this:


The Iraqis are swaggering. Eleven days after the start of the coalition operation to overthrow Saddam Hussein, official Iraqi statements are already sounding victorious.

In his daily briefing yesterday in Baghdad, the Iraqi army's spokesman, Gen Hazem al-Rawi, said: "The enemy's plans, based on a poor assessment of the will of the Iraqi people, have failed.

"On the 11th day of the attack on Iraq by criminal invaders, this is the true military situation on all fronts," he began.

"The enemy advance has stopped. We have inflicted heavy losses. Several hundred dead and more than a thousand wounded and we have destroyed more than 130 tanks and armoured vehicles," he claimed.

"The Americans are asking for reinforcements. Everything points to their defeat."



What would you think if you were one of them?

Arnett's comments back that ridiculous view of reality to the hilt.
How much of those quotes are his and how much are Gen Hazem al-Rawi? Looks to me Arnett stated the first sentence, then quoted the Gen for the rest.

None of that is from Arnett. That is the view being portrayed to the Iraqi people. Arnett's little interview dovetails nicely with it.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,384
3,510
126
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
Shame? A little dramatic. He has not lied, he has not provided information that isn't readily available or obvious. His crime seems to be that he hasn't been Pro-Coalition enough. All in all, he has remained neutral.
I can see this is futile.

Some believe it when they see it. Others have it exactly backwards.
Hehe, I can agree on all points! ;) :)
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Hey, it's not like he was manning an anti-aircraft gun or anything.
True....but so many people here have no idea what you are talking about when you say that.
I haven't had much luck with them anyway.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,384
3,510
126
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
No where does he say that "Saddam is winning". He said the same thing that many are saying outside of Iraq, that being that the war plan has not worked as expected. Is he to be an agent of the US in order to be Objective?
Picture an Iraqi populace seeing Arnett's interview and then this:


The Iraqis are swaggering. Eleven days after the start of the coalition operation to overthrow Saddam Hussein, official Iraqi statements are already sounding victorious.

In his daily briefing yesterday in Baghdad, the Iraqi army's spokesman, Gen Hazem al-Rawi, said: "The enemy's plans, based on a poor assessment of the will of the Iraqi people, have failed.

"On the 11th day of the attack on Iraq by criminal invaders, this is the true military situation on all fronts," he began.

"The enemy advance has stopped. We have inflicted heavy losses. Several hundred dead and more than a thousand wounded and we have destroyed more than 130 tanks and armoured vehicles," he claimed.

"The Americans are asking for reinforcements. Everything points to their defeat."



What would you think if you were one of them?

Arnett's comments back that ridiculous view of reality to the hilt.
How much of those quotes are his and how much are Gen Hazem al-Rawi? Looks to me Arnett stated the first sentence, then quoted the Gen for the rest.

None of that is from Arnett. That is the view being portrayed to the Iraqi people. Arnett's little interview dovetails nicely with it.
Oh, ok. What does it prove?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,384
3,510
126
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
How has he sold out anyone? It's not as if the Iraqi leadership is blind to the rest of the world. Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, and any other Global News source is likely monitored religiously.
26 million Iraqis are being told the US has failed by an American journalist. I don't think we are over there to libertate the Iraqi leadership.
No, he said the original plan failed. If the US had failed, they'd be leaving Iraq as we speak/type.
I won't even bother with his opinion of our progress or his knowledge of what our military planners had in mind.

The point that you don't seem to grasp is that there are 26 million people in Iraq who don't trust us to remove a brutal dictator that routinely executes anyone who challenges him. Making that populace believe we have failed (the distinction you draw matters little to the Iraqi people afraid for their lives and watching Saddam's henchmen already swaggering in the glow of victory) is not only a lie..but it is one that can only lead to more US casualties. It strengthens the resolve of those against us and the despair of those who want us to succeed.

It has been suggested that Arnett may be under duress:

Doesn't sound like it to me

"They're requiring no censorship at all. ... There are no minders around us when we broadcast. I'm sitting here in the hotel and ... we can talk on the phone freely," Arnett said.

Shame on anyone who defends scum like Arnett.
Shame? A little dramatic. He has not lied, he has not provided information that isn't readily available or obvious. His crime seems to be that he hasn't been Pro-Coalition enough. All in all, he has remained neutral.
He has lied.

1. He cited growing protests about the war plan. Untrue.

2. He said the original plan had failed and a new one is being made. Untrue.

Need any further proof? The man has been discredited over and over again. Is anyone really shocked that he has done this? He did the same thing in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Laos, and now this. Enough is enough....he is giving aid to the enemy and should be tried for treason.
1) they are not?
2) it is?

Those 2 points are a matter of opinion, not fact. An Opinion can't be a lie.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
How has he sold out anyone? It's not as if the Iraqi leadership is blind to the rest of the world. Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, and any other Global News source is likely monitored religiously.
26 million Iraqis are being told the US has failed by an American journalist. I don't think we are over there to libertate the Iraqi leadership.
No, he said the original plan failed. If the US had failed, they'd be leaving Iraq as we speak/type.
Considering he has no access to the plan, I dont think he is qualified to call it a success or failure.
Whether it failed is really a matter of opinion. Like I said earlier, early expectations certainly haven't panned out. Um Qasr and Basra were expected to fall at Coalition troops arrival, some 20k(a few days after war started) Iraqi troops were expected to surrender.
Whose expectations? The generals or the media?
Bush Admins, so answer is neither.

Ari Flieshers press breifing pretty much debunked that the Bush Admin thought it would be quick and easy.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
I've explained exactly why Arnett's comments are both untrue and improper in great detail.

You agree with him so I'm wasting my time.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
How has he sold out anyone? It's not as if the Iraqi leadership is blind to the rest of the world. Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, and any other Global News source is likely monitored religiously.
26 million Iraqis are being told the US has failed by an American journalist. I don't think we are over there to libertate the Iraqi leadership.
No, he said the original plan failed. If the US had failed, they'd be leaving Iraq as we speak/type.
I won't even bother with his opinion of our progress or his knowledge of what our military planners had in mind.

The point that you don't seem to grasp is that there are 26 million people in Iraq who don't trust us to remove a brutal dictator that routinely executes anyone who challenges him. Making that populace believe we have failed (the distinction you draw matters little to the Iraqi people afraid for their lives and watching Saddam's henchmen already swaggering in the glow of victory) is not only a lie..but it is one that can only lead to more US casualties. It strengthens the resolve of those against us and the despair of those who want us to succeed.

It has been suggested that Arnett may be under duress:

Doesn't sound like it to me

"They're requiring no censorship at all. ... There are no minders around us when we broadcast. I'm sitting here in the hotel and ... we can talk on the phone freely," Arnett said.

Shame on anyone who defends scum like Arnett.
Shame? A little dramatic. He has not lied, he has not provided information that isn't readily available or obvious. His crime seems to be that he hasn't been Pro-Coalition enough. All in all, he has remained neutral.
He has lied.

1. He cited growing protests about the war plan. Untrue.

2. He said the original plan had failed and a new one is being made. Untrue.

Need any further proof? The man has been discredited over and over again. Is anyone really shocked that he has done this? He did the same thing in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Laos, and now this. Enough is enough....he is giving aid to the enemy and should be tried for treason.
1) they are not?
2) it is?

Those 2 points are a matter of opinion, not fact. An Opinion can't be a lie.
Those are facts....not opinions. Tell me....how has the original plan failed. Oh I guess if you want to call the fact that they moved to the outskirts of Baghdad faster than they thought a failure then yes, it has been a failure. As for the growing protests over the war plan. I haven't heard of any.....if there are some then it's because the people doing it are ignorant of the plan or how a military operation works.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Those are facts....not opinions. Tell me....how has the original plan failed. Oh I guess if you want to call the fact that they moved to the outskirts of Baghdad faster than they thought a failure then yes, it has been a failure. As for the growing protests over the war plan. I haven't heard of any.....if there are some then it's because the people doing it are ignorant of the plan or how a military operation works.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

Arnett is a US citizen. His comments embolden our opposition and demoralize our troops. We will have a harder time convincing the Iraqis to give up the fight and both sides will suffer more casualties due to the agitprop campaign aided by Arnett. The fact that he tries to pass his opinion off as fact only means he's a crappy journalist with an agenda but everyone already knew that from Tailwind. The fact that his behavior actually aids the Iraqis war effort is indefensible to anyone but them and their apologists.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
0
0
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Those are facts....not opinions. Tell me....how has the original plan failed. Oh I guess if you want to call the fact that they moved to the outskirts of Baghdad faster than they thought a failure then yes, it has been a failure. As for the growing protests over the war plan. I haven't heard of any.....if there are some then it's because the people doing it are ignorant of the plan or how a military operation works.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

Arnett is a US citizen. His comments embolden our opposition and demoralize our troops. We will have a harder time convincing the Iraqis to give up the fight and both sides will suffer more casualties due to the agitprop campaign aided by Arnett. The fact that he tries to pass his opinion off as fact only means he's a crappy journalist with an agenda but everyone already knew that from Tailwind. The fact that his behavior actually aids the Iraqis war effort is indefensible to anyone but them and their apologists.
I agree 100%.....he needs to be tired for treason. His actions have been overlooked for too long and it's time he be made to pay for them.

 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
23,932
1,678
126
I have a hunch that Peter Arnett would say ANYTHING that would allow him to say in Baghdad for the remainder of the war. He wants to be there to cover the US invasion of the city, as it will be the biggest event for him in his career.

If National Geographic really wanted to punish him, they would force him to leave Iraq and cover another story. This guy doesn't deserve a Pulitizer prize for his actions.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
I have a hunch that Peter Arnett would say ANYTHING that would allow him to say in Baghdad for the remainder of the war. He wants to be there to cover the US invasion of the city, as it will be the biggest event for him in his career.
Well he has succeeded in one thing...he won't be remembered for Tailwind.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,384
3,510
126
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
How has he sold out anyone? It's not as if the Iraqi leadership is blind to the rest of the world. Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, and any other Global News source is likely monitored religiously.
26 million Iraqis are being told the US has failed by an American journalist. I don't think we are over there to libertate the Iraqi leadership.
No, he said the original plan failed. If the US had failed, they'd be leaving Iraq as we speak/type.
I won't even bother with his opinion of our progress or his knowledge of what our military planners had in mind.

The point that you don't seem to grasp is that there are 26 million people in Iraq who don't trust us to remove a brutal dictator that routinely executes anyone who challenges him. Making that populace believe we have failed (the distinction you draw matters little to the Iraqi people afraid for their lives and watching Saddam's henchmen already swaggering in the glow of victory) is not only a lie..but it is one that can only lead to more US casualties. It strengthens the resolve of those against us and the despair of those who want us to succeed.

It has been suggested that Arnett may be under duress:

Doesn't sound like it to me

"They're requiring no censorship at all. ... There are no minders around us when we broadcast. I'm sitting here in the hotel and ... we can talk on the phone freely," Arnett said.

Shame on anyone who defends scum like Arnett.
Shame? A little dramatic. He has not lied, he has not provided information that isn't readily available or obvious. His crime seems to be that he hasn't been Pro-Coalition enough. All in all, he has remained neutral.
He has lied.

1. He cited growing protests about the war plan. Untrue.

2. He said the original plan had failed and a new one is being made. Untrue.

Need any further proof? The man has been discredited over and over again. Is anyone really shocked that he has done this? He did the same thing in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Laos, and now this. Enough is enough....he is giving aid to the enemy and should be tried for treason.
1) they are not?
2) it is?

Those 2 points are a matter of opinion, not fact. An Opinion can't be a lie.
Those are facts....not opinions. Tell me....how has the original plan failed. Oh I guess if you want to call the fact that they moved to the outskirts of Baghdad faster than they thought a failure then yes, it has been a failure. As for the growing protests over the war plan. I haven't heard of any.....if there are some then it's because the people doing it are ignorant of the plan or how a military operation works.
Protests: Besides the daily protests in the US, Canada, Britain, and Europe, Egypt has been forced(protest is illegal) to allow protests. China is in a similar situation as Egypt. Protests are occuring throughout Asia, Central and South America, Australia, Indonesia.

Plan failure: Um Qasr and Basra offered fierce resistance, they were supposed to fold at the sight of the Coalition forces. All other cities between them and Baghdad remain under Iraqi control. Yes, the Coalition reached their position outside of Baghdad more-or-less as scheduled, but they are insufficient(waiting for reinforcements) and supplies are low. Supply lines are not secure and need more forces. This can certainly be considered a failure of the original plan.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: sandorski
How has he sold out anyone? It's not as if the Iraqi leadership is blind to the rest of the world. Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, and any other Global News source is likely monitored religiously.
26 million Iraqis are being told the US has failed by an American journalist. I don't think we are over there to libertate the Iraqi leadership.
No, he said the original plan failed. If the US had failed, they'd be leaving Iraq as we speak/type.
I won't even bother with his opinion of our progress or his knowledge of what our military planners had in mind.

The point that you don't seem to grasp is that there are 26 million people in Iraq who don't trust us to remove a brutal dictator that routinely executes anyone who challenges him. Making that populace believe we have failed (the distinction you draw matters little to the Iraqi people afraid for their lives and watching Saddam's henchmen already swaggering in the glow of victory) is not only a lie..but it is one that can only lead to more US casualties. It strengthens the resolve of those against us and the despair of those who want us to succeed.

It has been suggested that Arnett may be under duress:

Doesn't sound like it to me

"They're requiring no censorship at all. ... There are no minders around us when we broadcast. I'm sitting here in the hotel and ... we can talk on the phone freely," Arnett said.

Shame on anyone who defends scum like Arnett.
Shame? A little dramatic. He has not lied, he has not provided information that isn't readily available or obvious. His crime seems to be that he hasn't been Pro-Coalition enough. All in all, he has remained neutral.
He has lied.

1. He cited growing protests about the war plan. Untrue.

2. He said the original plan had failed and a new one is being made. Untrue.

Need any further proof? The man has been discredited over and over again. Is anyone really shocked that he has done this? He did the same thing in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Laos, and now this. Enough is enough....he is giving aid to the enemy and should be tried for treason.
1) they are not?
2) it is?

Those 2 points are a matter of opinion, not fact. An Opinion can't be a lie.
Those are facts....not opinions. Tell me....how has the original plan failed. Oh I guess if you want to call the fact that they moved to the outskirts of Baghdad faster than they thought a failure then yes, it has been a failure. As for the growing protests over the war plan. I haven't heard of any.....if there are some then it's because the people doing it are ignorant of the plan or how a military operation works.
Protests: Besides the daily protests in the US, Canada, Britain, and Europe, Egypt has been forced(protest is illegal) to allow protests. China is in a similar situation as Egypt. Protests are occuring throughout Asia, Central and South America, Australia, Indonesia.

Plan failure: Um Qasr and Basra offered fierce resistance, they were supposed to fold at the sight of the Coalition forces. All other cities between them and Baghdad remain under Iraqi control. Yes, the Coalition reached their position outside of Baghdad more-or-less as scheduled, but they are insufficient(waiting for reinforcements) and supplies are low. Supply lines are not secure and need more forces. This can certainly be considered a failure of the original plan.
So when did Franks let you see the plan?

Can you show me where there are widespread shortages on the front lines?

Can you show me where releif aid is not reaching Basrah and other cities in Iraq?

Can you show me where the 4thID was not planned to show up before the shooting started?

Can you show me where Franks did not mention a rolling start a few weeks ago?

I know you have no clue as to what the original plan was.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Interesting. Quite the extremist views here. So which is it going to be? A hanging, a trial for treason, revoked citizenship...or all three? What is so damaging about what this guy said? Just because he didn't give a favorable report of the war up to this point he is suddenly commiting treason? Do we have a requirement that all reporters will report only US favorable news only, and anything else is collaborating with the enemy? This seems in line with the view that considers all anti-war protestors un-american and non-troop supporting. Doesn't being a reporter mean you report the facts as you see them? Maybe from his vantage point, what he reported is an accurate representation of what he has seen so far. Have you guys been in Baghdad from the get go? Oh wait...you watch Fox news...that is much more accurate than actually being there.

Oh wait, I'm probably un-american for posting this....


 

ASK THE COMMUNITY