Gulf War "Source" P*ssing Match (hehe...)

> Chris Lowrey wrote:

> > sources to be absolutely correct in all aspects. Question your

John Atkinson replied:

> Not analogous situation.

Now me:

Oh, really? While I'll admit that whether a tank is destroyed or not is pretty
much a statement of fact (like the fact that a crime has occured), HOW the
damage happened to a tank, and the weapon used would quite likely depend on
who you asked (the 10 witnesses). I think it's a good analogy for combat
AAR's.

I think the important point of Mr.Lowrey's post was that it is quite possible
for two equally reliable sources to not agree 100%.

Howdy!

> On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Colfox wrote:

> Now me:

Yes.

> I think the important point of Mr. Lowrey's post was that it is quite

Yup. Zaloga culled his info from people who were there, AARs for the VII
Corps, the analysis from Aberdeen, and other sources. A number of these may be
slightly politically biased, or baised in some other fashion (to save jobs,
etc.). However, they are some of the best sources available for what occured.

Laterish!