DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on October 06, 2014, 10:47:59 PM
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/report-islamic-state-fights-in-syria-iraq-with-arms-produced-worldwide/ar-BB7QLxA
Army Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, who directed the training and equipping of Iraqi police and army security units from 2009 to 2011 and now favors rearming the Iraqis. "It's gonna happen. It's combat. You get tactically defeated, you lose equipment."
Isis has captured a lot of weapons , bought a lot of weapons , and looks to capture and buy a lot more.
-
The Iraqi Army likes the uniforms, the perks and the job security, but when faced with even a bunch of ragtag troops like ISIS, they turned tail and left their weapons behind. Very much like the Army of the Republic of South Vietnam (ARVIN).
-
It is worse than the ARVIN.
I caught an interview on "morning edition" (NPR) with a reporter who had toured the battle zones.
He said that the troops that deserted claim that the officers deserted first, some of them after a few years of graft , such as not reporting desertions , but pocketing the paycheck of the deserted instead.
Poor leadership and poor motivation has produced a hollow force , it needed a lot more time and a lot better reason to exist.
Now that everyone on the scene can see how desperately bad the ISIS rule is , there may be a lot better motivation, but time is lacking.
-
I heard the NPR report as well. I will not dispute that the Iraqi Army is worse than ARVIN.
I am surprised that you refer to NPR as a credible source. Sirs would never do that.
-
wrong again.......when have I ever claimed they weren't "credible"? Partisan, absolutely. That doesn't make a source uncredible.....it simply makes it one sided
-
In what way was this report one sided?
You only recognize one side. You therefore are going to see everything that shows both sides as one sided. You powers of reason and incapable of telling the difference,
-
I didn't say this report was 1 sided. I said that groups like NPR are partisan, and that their reporting is generally 1 sided. Still doesn't make that side uncredible. It simply makes it less objective than it could be ::)
-
Yeah, so prove it, you dip. In what way was NPR's reporting biased on this issue?
-
ONE MORE TIME, LANGUAGE PROFESSOR.....I DIDN'T SAY THIS REPORT 1 SIDED
-
I heard the NPR report as well. I will not dispute that the Iraqi Army is worse than ARVIN.
I am surprised that you refer to NPR as a credible source. Sirs would never do that.
I like NPR but not for objectivity.
They give a thorough and fair report , so I listen to them a lot .
They are cheerleaders for progressive causes but they are blissfully unaware of this bias.
I don't think this hurts their credibility. I give them full credit for sincerity and honesty, their bias is founded in their worldview so it can be compensated for on my end much easier than it can be changed on their end.
-
Sirs cannot answer because he does not listen to NPR.
NPR and PBS are many times more detailed and objective in their reporting than any of the other sources. Their only real competition us BBC America.
-
I have listened and read NPR......so wow....wrong yet again. At least you're consistent
-
NPR does a good job , I do not watch PBS quite as often, on the TV the science channel and history channel are more interesting and FOX seems more focused on relevant news.
FOX is pretty good, it is the real news including a lot of things that CNN ignores . MSNBC is terribly pedantic and is probably the most slanted.
I watch BBC America a lot , the news is well done and Top Gear , Dr Who are among my favorites.
Looking over my own post , I think I may be watching too much TV.
-
Fox is mostly commentators and interminable, inane ads. MSNBC, CNN and the rest of them are also plagued with annoying ads. I watch the Sunday morning gasbag shows and McLaughlin, and I read newspaper columns.
-
I think any of them work better if you take in some disagreement .
-
As a rule, PBS and NPR clearly separate facts and events from opinions. Fox combines the two very often.
-
Examples please. Your mere opinion does not make it a fact
-
I normally find PBS and NPR to be factually accurate, more so than CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and Fox, all of which are much less complete in presenting all the facts.
I certainly do not agree with all the commentators. Te biggest fallacy is the one in which it is assumed that there are only two alternatives: this or that, stay or leave, fight or get out, buy or sell. Usually there are more than one alternatives. Usually there are nuances. Morons compare everything to Munich, to the Cuban Missile Crisis, to the Cold War. That is just a waste of time when it comes to a deep understanding.
-
Your opinion that Fox blends opinion in their reporting the news is duly noted
-
It is also bloody true. here are a couple of recent examples.
Syria
Report: Syria response stalled under micromanaging White House.
If this said that someone claimed that Obama was micromanaging, then that would be news.
Labeling it micromanaging is an OPINION.
Chris Stirewalt
Fox News First
Grimes jumps shark, won't say she voted for Obama. "Jumps shark" is an OPINION here.
by Chris Stirewalt
Fox does this ALL THE TIME. It is not reporting, it is editorializing. It is not fair, it is not balanced.
-
When you can start leveling that critique objectively, in the direction of outlets that are far more abusive in that tactic, such as the evening news at NBC, CBS, ABC, New York Times, etc., etc., etc. Now, if you're gonna pull the symmetry card, I never claimed Fox doesn't lean right. However, the vast predominance of the MSM SIGNIFICANTLY LEANS LEFT. So, if you want any of your criticism at Fox to mean anything, you best start aiming at those places that attempt to manipulate and editorialize far more than Fox could possibly catch up to
-
What the crap is the MSM?
There is no such thing. You can't lump all the broadcasters together as thought they were all working for the same people for the same reasons. That is utterly stupid.
-
What the crap is the MSM?
It's what its been since its been referenced, for YEARS here...the Main Stream Media ::) So yea, there is such a thing, and yea, I can lump all those who have a left leaning, circle-the-wagons approach in defending this President and administration. That's not their function. But if you want, you can list them all out, 1 by one. I gave you a head start with the last post.
And no one claimed that they were "working together", professor deflection. They simply have a common goal
So, when you start demonstrating some objectivity in lamenting a news agency daring to editorialize the news....hint, Fox can't even compete with the other boys on the block, then your decrying how bad Fox is, can be taken with a little credibility
-
That is like saying"The National Highway System", "Campbells Soup" or "The Press". Rarely do all of these sources agree on anything.
-
The exception being the MSM
-
You only recognize one side.
You therefore are going to see everything that
shows both sides as one sided.
I know you are responding to SIRS....but
LOL.....you are describing XO to a "T".
You seem incapable of giving Bush credit for anything.
Yet I cite numerous credits to Clinton...and some to even Obama.
You are the one that is blind!
-
I have not murmured one word about Juniorbush for a very long time.
He funded AIDS in Africa, that was a good thing. There! Take that!
-
What the crap is the MSM?
There is no such thing. You can't lump all the broadcasters together as thought they were all working for the same people for the same reasons. That is utterly stupid.
You can't believe that there is an oligarchy attempting to manipulate public opinion?
I think there are several oligarchies.
A few are formal organizations, a bunch are loose or temporary confederations , and some are just influential individuals willing to spend what it takes to sway the public.
-
He funded AIDS in Africa, that was a good thing. There! Take that!
Finally after being shown your double-standard you state a truth!
-
And let's not forget the frequent use of Bush as the end-all be-all reason for everything bad that Obama is supposedly having to clean up. Nothing is related to anything Obama or the Dems have done. It's all Bush's fault
-
Much of it ISA Juniorbush's fault. Hie stupid war has not improved one damned thing. On the contrary, it has started conflicts that would never have otherwise occurred.