Any East Coast Freepers watching 60 Minutes?

[Muleteam1]

>>I stopped watching any and all CBS 20 years ago.<<

Interesting! I too stopped watching CBS twenty years ago. In 1984 I took all three of the networks out of my home and have never let them back in. I'm retired now, but for most of my career I was always at a loss at the watercooler when someone would ask me about something that happened the night before on a network sitcom. Alas, I continue to be amazed how many of the conservatives here at FR continue to aid and abet their enemies, ABC, CBS and NBC.

Muleteam1

[Raycpa]

You really don't get it. This was a late hit. This is anti-Bush-- that was the intent. This is designed to hurt Bush, face it.

We all get it. The 60 minutes hit piece is all part of getting an R elected president. Get over it. Its part of life.

[faithincowboys]

I'm over it. If you get it, tell Killjoy because he doesn't get it. He somehow thinks that segment was neutral.

[GunnyB]

60 Minutes is suggesting that armored HumVees could be safer from IEDs and that the President is responsible for the death of Troops because Congress failed to authorize armor for their vehicles.

The problem with acronyms is that they leave the "truth" of the acronym up to the media to interpret. I am will to bet that most people have no concept of what, exactly, and "IED" is. To most, I'd assume, they are deadly little "boxes", that we should be able to find with ease. In reality, most IEDs are constructed of unexploded ordinance - e.g. 155mm Artillery shells, 105mm howitzer shells, bombs, etc. A Hummer is an excellent vehicle - but not in the role it's being used. True to form, the military (mostly Marines and Army in this case) have superb vehicles for offering more protection to the troops - The Bradley comes to mind. Except that we won't use Bradleys - because they'd tear up the roads. Also, it is difficult to use a Brady in built-up areas (read cities, towns, etc.). The net impact of all of this is that we are using vehicles that are ill-equipped for the role. Troops will die, and that is NOT a good thing. But, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airman and Marines will get the mission done - in spite of all the garbage that the Dims and the media screams about.

[Wolverine]

LOWER IQ = SMARTER WAR? (AND WHY DOESN'T KERRY SIGN FORM 180, ANYWAY?) http://members.aol.com/mspeel2/KERRY122V180.swf

 

Send John Kerry a Standard Form 180

[killjoy]

I'm over it. If you get it, tell Killjoy because he doesn't get it. He somehow thinks that segment was neutral.

It wasn't neutral but it wasn't near as bad as it could have been. It was nothing out of the ordinary for 60 Minutes.

[faithincowboys]

Yeah, it could've been worse. I don't deny that, but it was still pretty bad.

[Radix]

I am no expert on Military vehicles. Urban warfare is not something that the very latest armored Military vehicles were designed for.

The very newest tanks have so much technical devices inside that it is difficult to get a four man crew fully inside. This is why I believe that the very latest tanks were not used in Iraq. Having a Troop in a tank within city areas and a target for snipers is simply ill advised. The older models were utilized for this reason.

It is probable that newer planners will consider urban warfare as a more likely battlefield than previous designers considered.

IEDs can be of any size and if camouflaged adequately can be difficult to discern, especially from within the confines of an armored vehicle.

Our Troops are not properly armed for urban warfare. It would make more sense to simply level the target cities and rebuild the slums later if neccesary. The life of even one of our Troops is worth whatever it costs. I do not care about the insurgents or their supporters one iota when it comes to the life of even one of our heroes.

[killjoy]

For anyone on here who might know, how does Israel deal with the threat of IEDs?

[Wolverine]

CBS said 40% of casualties were by IED.

 

NOT TRUE.

 

To date: 

Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

231

18.3%

 

VOTING AGAINST TROOP FUNDING

Kerry Voted Against The $87 Billion Iraq Supplemental. These funds provided body armor and other force protection measures such as armored Humvees, as well as health care for reservists, support for families and meals for injured soldiers.

[cookcounty]

"No But I just watched an interview of Kerry by Tom Brokaw and they edited out the part of the transcript when Kerry said he didn't know how they could have known what his IQ test results were becuase his records were not public"

I don't think they necessarily did that to help Kerry. Thet did it to hide the fact that Tip-Toe Tommy is too dumb to ask a good follow-up question.

[OldFriend]

Showing the south as full of racist bigots bent on murder.

[Piranha]

Maybe that's what happens when they market "an army of one."

[BJungNan]

After Clinton gutted the military, and Kerry voted against funding for the military equipment, what does CBS expect? But they don't mention that.

Call them up on Monday morning. You will get through. Ask them - politely - the same thing you raised here. Tell them you thought journalists covered all sides of an issue. You won't get anywhere with them, but they will have to concede your point.

[tiki]

I really don't know but all they ever talked about was the peace dividend and they were determined to spend every cent and more. I would have to do some more research on it but I'm sure there are Freepers out there who know all about it.

I think Mc Peak and the Clinton administration spent most of their efforts on "don't ask, don't tell" and uniforms. They didn't want to waste money on weapons.