"reinforcements"


L

LaMont

New Member
WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!!!

If we are winning "119-0", then why are we sending in "reinforcements"? Don't you get it? Don't you get the propaganda?

Things are NOT going as planned. The American hubris that we would be able to take the country in a short time is WRONG. These military types live in a theoretical world. They have theories that are distorted by their culture. They always underestimate the willingness of an enemy to fight to the death - which, of course, is compounded by the fact that we aren't as barbaric and don't want to fight that kind of fight.

I find this whole thing amazing. You know that Saddam is a student of Stalin. Why wouldn't you anticipate that he would use Stalinist war tactics of having the enemy overextending itself too soon. We, of course, fell right for the "rope a dope" tactic.

Now, in the paper, it says that our advancement has "stalled." And that we don't have enough supplies and personal to win just yet.

We have no end in sight. This is Bush's own rhetoric coming back to haunt us. No nation building. And, don't get into foreign conflicts WITHOUT AN OUT STRATEGY. That's what Bush said in the 2000 campaign.

Now, Bush is preparing us for more deaths and a longer war. We, Americans, will have to watch our boys die and the financial burden of our country, as the war may throw us into a level of debt that will take the better part of two decades to pay off, grow by astromical portions.

During WWII, the rich used to conserve and forego their luxuries in order to help win the war. During this war, the rich get more tax breaks and certain industries get more corporate welfare.

WHEN WILL WE WAKE UP?
 
I got this off of another message board.
-----

Philly News

WHERE DID 'SHORT, HAPPY WAR' GO?

SHOCK AND AWE was supposed to swiftly disarm our enemy.

Now, instead, the shock reverberates at home.

What happened to the war we were expecting? The "short, happy war," as one analyst called it?

The defection of Saddam's Republican Guard? The joyous welcome of liberated civilians? The mass surrender of demoralized soldiers?

Instead, there are victorious Iraqis posing on a downed helicopter. Terrified POWs and bloody corpses of other Americans broadcast on Arab television. Guerrillas feigning surrender and then engaging in fierce and deadly ambushes.

American leaders scramble to change our expectations, but the wound to our confidence is ominous.

Because if our vision of the war wasn't true, what else isn't true?

And how long will we be willing to put our husbands, sons, wives and daughters in jeopardy when we begin doubting what we're told?

A week ago, even before the first bomb was launched, world oil prices plummeted on the anticipation of a quick victory in Iraq.

Military analysts predicted Saddam would be vanquished in short order by massive military might, by an onslaught of unprecedented proportion.

The smug confidence of Washington leaders overshadowed words of caution.

"A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict," Bush said the night the war began.

But it sounded like nothing more than a mandatory, insincere disclaimer.

And when the war's first moments unfolded as they did - when we bombed Saddam in his bunker and supposedly injured or killed him and some of his top advisers, when we moved unhindered into Iraq from Kuwait - our unrealistic expectations were reinforced.

By late last week, the New York Times reported, 63 percent of respondents to a poll said they expected the war to end quickly, a 20 percent increase over a poll conducted earlier in the month.

And then came the grim reality of the last couple of days.

"Gen. Tommy Franks said this morning that he was not surprised by the tenacity of the Iraqi resistance - 'not unexpected,' he said - but if that was what the military was saying before the war began, it certainly wasn't communicated to the country by the political leaders," Jon Delano, political analyst at Carnegie Mellon University said yesterday.

Gen. Franks conducted yesterday's press briefing instead of a military spokesman of lower rank, Reuters reported, no doubt to shore up the nation's unraveling confidence.

Progress in the war was "rapid and in some cases dramatic," Franks insisted - but his words sounded more like spin than certainty.

Sure, there's a difference between wrongly predicting a quick victory in war, and willingly dispensing misleading information.

But now, we may become wary of everything we're told.

Did we actually injure Saddam? Are we discussing surrender with high-level members of the Republican Guard? Or are we collateral victims of a psychological war against Iraq?

"The U.S. has a strong interest both in reinforcing doubts about [Saddam's] survival - and in signaling its ability to track him," a Wall Street Journal report said yesterday.

"If the Iraqi leader is alive, the idea that there may be a traitor in his midst, tipping the U.S. to his whereabouts, could be one of the most potent weapons the U.S. has working for it."

An analyst quoted by MSNBC said the "rumor mill... is very much being used to put the Iraqi regime on edge."

But the same rumor mill is also distorting American expectations.

Shock and awe was supposed to be inflicted on Iraq. Now, instead, the shock reverberates at home.
 

Nine days and the chicken littles of the world are ready to give up. Reinforcements? Man this is a war, not a video game. But during the late '80's and '90's, anything that takes longer than 30 minutes is a disaster. :shame:

Things are not going as planned? Our forces are being routed? The Iraq's dammaged 2 tanks, a helicopter, and a Bradly. On the other hand, on Tuesday night along the British and American soilders knocked out 2 different convoys of Iraq armor. REMEMBER, that was in one night!!

Properganda? Who's?
Saddams or Al Jazeera?
 
Originally posted by jstate83
Nine days and the chicken littles of the world are ready to give up. Reinforcements? Man this is a war, not a video game. But during the late '80's and '90's, anything that takes longer than 30 minutes is a disaster. :shame:

Things are not going as planned? Our forces are being routed? The Iraq's dammaged 2 tanks, a helicopter, and a Bradly. On the other hand, on Tuesday night along the British and American soilders knocked out 2 different convoys of Iraq armor. REMEMBER, that was in one night!!

Properganda? Who's?
Saddams or Al Jazeera?
Click to expand...

I hope this war is not long. I hope that people like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are correct. But one needs to tell people like Paul Wolfowitz and much of the media that this is not a video game. I am not sure that they get it.

There is no excuse for this. \|/


U.S. Arabs, Muslims Reporting Hate Crimes
 
No Reinforcments

We are not sending in reinforcements; we are sending in the 4th Infantry Division from Ft. Hood whose equipment was shipped months ago and was awaiting approval from the Turks to use their ports.. This unit was notified to deploy months ago but due to the hardball tactics of the Turks, their equipment could not be offloaded until we established a "Northern Front" as well as the complete deployment from Kuwait of the 3rd Infantry Division as well as movement through the Red Sea and Suez Canal.
 
Originally posted by jstate83


Yea, I know.

Anything comming from the coalition is a lie. Anything released from Iraq or France is the truth. What else is new?
Click to expand...

No. But I just wanted to add it to the list because EVERYONE uses propaganda at some time.
 
Re: No Reinforcments

Originally posted by ALCORNITE 86
We are not sending in reinforcements; we are sending in the 4th Infantry Division from Ft. Hood whose equipment was shipped months ago and was awaiting approval from the Turks to use their ports.. This unit was notified to deploy months ago but due to the hardball tactics of the Turks, their equipment could not be offloaded until we established a "Northern Front" as well as the complete deployment from Kuwait of the 3rd Infantry Division as well as movement through the Red Sea and Suez Canal.
Click to expand...

Thankyou ALCORNITE 86 for pointing that out. My original reply was going to be :rolleyes: because if it wasn't this issue it would be something else negative no matter what (basically like when the doc martins was on the other foot and Clinton was in office. no matter what, the right was never going to say anything positive or to support Clinton activities. Same here except the script is flipped.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top