Posted on 03/13/2005 4:21:35 AM PST by W04Man
That would put an end to this sensationalist crap.
Balance in this case means that different points of view are articulated.
What's wrong with that? I don't mind liberal points of view if the conservative point of view is explored also.
So far I'm just finding handy man and pet shows. Let me know if you find a good news/politics show before I do.
Thanks
Sorry again [*LOL*].
You make some excellent points and ask some good questions. SH did not play dead during Desert Storm. I can still see the night time pictures of Baghdad with all the anti aircraft fire going up during our bombing raids. He lobbed missiles at our troops in Saudi Arabia, at our ships and even scuds into Israel (thank goodness for the Patriots). I believe we were expecting a similar response. Heck, Israel was bracing for it big time. His Republican Guard did fight until they realized it was get out of Kuwait or see death. Most chose to flee when they saw the situation was hopeless. The stragglers got cut down on the Highway of Death.
So you could make the case that SH had a history of being pretty erratic and unpredictable and we had to plan for most all eventualities.
We cut through Iraq like a hot knife through butter once the invasion started. I really don't know if that was anticipated, but even if it was, what do you do? Do you postpone the operation a year until you can get a humongous force in place (I don't think the Saudis would have put up with that and it would have given SH all the time in the world to hide his transgressions) or do you just get the force in place that you know can do the job as quickly as possible, then improvise as conditions become better known? The latter is the course of action Rummy and his team took.
They might have thought they would cut through quickly, but what were they to do about it? Hold back, slow down, wait for reinforcements? Or do you just take the advantage, press ahead, capture as much ground as you can and deal with the negatives later? I say the latter. An invading force can't do everything, so it has to prioritize. Capturing the ground and getting in a good position to defend it was more important at the time than guarding ammo dumps.
There was one big difference, between Desert Storm and 2003. SH knew Bush41 had no mandate, and no inclination for regime change. I think that between the French, the Russians and the Saudi's that SH had every expectation that there would be no regime change - even though we could have.
But in 2003, he had every expectation (and was told by the Saudis) that the jig was up.
That should have made us question his possible response, and like I said, he had once before gone through a regime change in Iraq where he planned for and did 100% of what he planned for this time - empty defense, looting the good stuff, underground insurgency to destroy civil order, material, financees and bases in Syria, etc.
I don't want to point fingers. I also don't want future plans to ignore/discount history.
I do understand that there is no way to plan for everything. You plan for what you think is most likely and it is difficult to also provide, simulateously, for every contingency if your opponent does not respond as anticipated.
And no, waiting any longer was never going to improve anything beyond the additional difficulties that waiting longer would also produce.
What I want to do is to get a bunch of new people at the Pentagon and the State Department and the CIA - really new people - reading everything they can about North Korea, China, Korean War, Taiwan, Chinese civil war (1930s - 1949), Chinese-Japanese military operations (1930-1949) and everything Intel has now on China and Korea. Then I want that group to find out what "outside the box" ideas that the "pros" at the Pentagon, CIA and State Dept are not looking at. Then I want our Intel to look for signs of those ideas at work in China and North Korea.
Left to the stable set of pros in our national security apparatus, they think they are already looking at the right stuff and asking the right questions. They just want admin and congress support to do enough of what they are doing.
The Iraq experience shows us that they alone will not do enough.
We will still prevail, but our human and material costs could be less if we plan smarter.
Although not all Fox programs are to my liking, there are two programs I absolutely WILL NOT watch--F&F Weekend and The Big Story Weekend with Rita Cosby.
I concur. There are some new people in the national security apparatus, but there are still a huge number of long time entrenched bureaucrats whose credentials came from fighting the Cold War. The War on Terrorism and rogue countries with nukes presents entirely new challenges and requires thinking outside the box. It's hard to teach old dogs new tricks.
I think that they really just want to cover as many sides as possible. So they more or less let the libs and conservatives duke it out on Sundays. I appreciate being able to see both sides actually.
Hey, its just a morning show and those peopel have opinions. Normally, most of the Fox & Friends morning people are very friendly to Bush.
Although Juliet Huddy is quite hot, I have the same reaction when Kiran Chetry is on the show.
Happier still at CNN.
bttt
Although Juliet Huddy is quite hot, I have the same reaction when Kiran Chetry is on the show.
___________________________________________________________
Kiran is quite nice viewing early in the morning. But back on the topic, I don't think F&F is too liberal, showing both sides even if you disagree with one isn't really a bad thing IMO.
I think FNC definitely shows all sides to the story, which for me is crucial when watching the news. Obviously others agree-the ratings speak for themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.