YEAH! enough with the facts already.

more pretend stuff, please.

Yeah - and we can get Bruce Willis to do a story about it!

The news is always like that. At best you get a fluff piece every once in a great while about some kids or a dog or some athlete beating cancer. Everything else is politicians fighting, shootings, bad car accidents, natural disasters, missing white women, and weird stuff. That's the news.

If soldiers want cheerier stories in the news, they should stop getting blown up, come home and open a puppy ranch or something.

Too bad if you don't like the tone of the news stories. I thought your job was to be a grunt and not ask questions!

No news is good news.
Conversely, good news is not news.

"Like many soldiers and marines returning from Iraq, Mayer looks at the bleak portrayal of the war at home with perplexity - if not annoyance. It is a perception gap that has put the military and media at odds, as troops complain that the media care only about death tolls, while the media counter that their job is to look at the broader picture, not through the soda straw of troops' individual experiences.

..

In Hit, where marines stayed in force to keep the peace, the progress was obvious, say members of the 3/25. The residents started burning trash and fixing roads - a sign that the city was returning to a sense of normalcy. Several times, "people came up to us [and said]: 'There's a bomb on the side of the road. Don't go there,' " says Pfc. Andrew Howland.

..

Part of the reason that such stories usually aren't told is simply the nature of the war. Kidnappings and unclear battle lines have made war correspondents' jobs almost impossible. Travel around the country is dangerous, and some reporters never venture far from their hotels. "It has to have some effect on what we see: You end up with reporting that waits for the biggest explosion of the day," says Mr. Hart."


... but it's different when we see from the straw of the Journalist in their hotel room, not the soldier who is warned about the IED from an Iraqi.


This is the point of the article, In my opinion.

Its war, not band camp. Keep up questioning the media and Pat Robertson will redirect a hurricane at you.

Uh, where's the good news coming out of Iraq, submitter?

We can train an American and send him to war in three months. We haven't been able to get Iraqi soldiers trained in three years. The civilians have less water, food, shelter, electricity, and other essentials than they had before we invaded. They have more of some things, such as IEDs, islamic terrorists, potholes from explosions, and god-only-knows how many dead people, but for some reason, they're less than thankful to us for bringing those things to them.

For every soldier coming home calling it a "place of hope," there are ten calling Iraq a deathtrap.

I thought the reason we paid soldiers was to STFU and kill brown people?

Really don't care what they 'think.'

the_gospel_of_thomas, if you highlight other parts of your C&P, such as "Kidnappings and unclear battle lines have made war correspondents' jobs almost impossible," it gives it a totally different tone.

/just sayin'

Yeah.

The media SHOULD show the kids flying their kites in downtown Baghdad. That way we'll know it's just as nice a place now as when Michael Moore visited and recorded films of kids flying kites in Baghdad.

Dictatorship by Saddam?
Post Saddam power vacuum?
Civil War?
Unpopular occupation?

None of those exist if you'll only just focus for a moment on the children and their kites. Look! Look at the pretty kites!

What do soldiers know about war anyway?

/probably not as much as me and my BLOG.

I used to get depressed when the market analysts downgraded my old company's stock. But it didn't change the reality that we were tanking it, big time. The truth hurts, but not nearly as much as living in ignorance.

Really don't care what they 'think.'

That's freaking pathetic.

BearToy: and some guy marvelling at an electric razor

I guess if he's reluctant to get rid of his beard and actually has electricity he can still use it as a makeshift stud finder... assuming his walls are still standing.

2005-11-28 05:40:40 PM Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark]
Heh. It's really quite funny to watch people biatch about this article.

Actually, the article's not bad. It makes a perfectly valid point: The experiences of the soldiers differ from the experiences of the journalists. I have no problem with that.

However, I'm inclined to give more credit to the ongoing reports of violence as indicative of the situation there than to lend the same credence to individual reports of things like Iraqi cooperation. The truth is, the violence hasn't even come close to abating.

"Kidnappings and unclear battle lines have also made Soldiers & Marines' jobs almost impossible," ... but they do it.

And their views from the ground by the soldiers is no less valid than the views of the journalists as they compose their stories on a laptop in the hotel lobby.

I don't blame the press for the bad news out of Iraq any more than I blame the troops for the failure to implement a policy that could never be successfully implemented.

elchip: No news is good news.
Conversely, good news is not news.


You just blew my mind, man...

I'd trust an LT before I trusted a reporter after ad revenue.

2005-11-28 05:40:40 PM Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark]

Heh. It's really quite funny to watch people biatch about this article.

You must have not RTFM. Libertarians don't like the war in Iraq and don't care for el Presidente too much.

So, are you a Republican or a Constitution Party member in Libertarian's clothing?

2005-11-28 05:51:43 PM Chester Fields [TotalFark]

I'd trust an LT before I trusted a reporter after ad revenue.

I'd trust the Christian Science Monitor before I trusted, oh, pretty much any other news source.

CSM for the win!

2005-11-28 05:51:43 PM Chester Fields [TotalFark]
I'd trust an LT before I trusted a reporter after ad revenue.

The problem is the soldier on the ground has, by necessity, a very myopic view of what's going on in-theater.

What's got their panties in a bunch?

2005-11-28 05:46:44 PM the_gospel_of_thomas [TotalFark]
And their views from the ground by the soldiers is no less valid than the views of the journalists as they compose their stories on a laptop in the hotel lobby.

Look at the example from your own comment, tgot. Several times, an Iraqi told a soldier that an IED was hidden on the road. To the soldier, this is helpful - possibly life-saving - and feels that this is a sign of returning normalcy and hope.

Take a look at the bigger picture that soldier doesn't comment on, though; the roads are riddled with IEDs. He wouldn't need to be warned about them unless they were there in the first place.

Thats true they are doing good things over there and I would be bummed out if I was in the sandbox. However if an IED went off in *your town here* and blew up a bus that would be news too so yes it's going to get reported. If you want to see a war with good press look at WWII when the Govt. had the reins of what got put out. So do we want to hear just the bad news or just the Govt's good news?

The problem is the soldier on the ground has, by necessity, a very myopic view of what's going on in-theater.

So, in sports (my analogy), you have a better perspective of the team's moral and attitude than they do? You can also sense a shift in momentum before they can?

My unit went to Iraq last year. Iraq isnt as bad as it was when we got there and we made many strides towards their freedom. If you want a good portrayal of life Iraq when my unit was there get the movie Gunner Palace.

If you were there, you would see that it's not as bad as the media makes it out to be.

2005-11-28 05:59:10 PM Civil_War2_Time [TotalFark]

So, in sports (my analogy), you have a better perspective of the team's moral and attitude than they do? You can also sense a shift in momentum before they can?

Your analogy does not scale well from a handful of people on a 100-yard playing field to tens of thousands of people on a California-sized playing field.

Civil_War2_Time

So, in sports (my analogy), you have a better perspective of the team's moral and attitude than they do? You can also sense a shift in momentum before they can?

Bad-bad-bad-bad analogy, IMHO. Anyways, no, I'd think it's more like "When your face to face with the opposing linemen, you aren't, and shouldn't be, paying attention to what's going on with every single other team member, the opposing team, your coaches, their coaches, the fans in the stands and the media coverage of the game."

2005-11-28 06:01:48 PM Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark]

Well, I guess that means that I don't march in lockstep with any one party eh? How about you?

You must have not RTFM. You are required to march in lockstep with a political party.

Okay, in all seriousness, you're right. It's just that a libertarian supporting the war in Iraq is like an anti-death penalty, pro-choice Republican -- a bit of an oddity, but still valid.

Broadcastdave,

what do you do in the army?

Conspiracy Theory #1 - The Pentagon is deliberately relocating troops to areas known to be safer and less hostile to generate "soldiers stories" like these. Discuss.

Why does Broadcastdave hate America?

OBVIOUSLY, Iraq is a quagmire, and no good can come from this.



"Not as bad as the media says," eh, Get him!!! His point of view must not be tolerated here!

2005-11-28 06:10:23 PM the_gospel_of_thomas [TotalFark]

Why does Broadcastdave hate America?

OBVIOUSLY, Iraq is a quagmire, and no good can come from this.

"Not as bad as the media says," eh, Get him!!! His point of view must not be tolerated here!

Stop being funny. You're a conservative, so you're supposed to be constantly ignorant, inflammatory, and evil.

* shuffles out of the thread, head hung low ... mumbling incoherently *

I'll be back ... maybe ...

Chester Fields-

I am a 74D (Chemical Operations) that belonged to a medical unit (E Co, 27th MSB) during the time we were in Iraq. Now I am in a new unit (A Co, 15th BSTB)which consists of mostly 88M (truck drivers).

You_mean_Im_gonna_stay_this_color: It's funny when I hear that then hear some soldier in Iraq on TV telling the media It's a hellhole over there and he they wouldnt care if it burned to the ground.

Where and when did you hear a soldier say this? I haven't heard any soldiers saying anything like this.

2005-11-28 06:14:43 PM Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark]

Or will the conversation veer away from that to a "Bush lied" thing while completely ignoring the words of men like Cpl. Jeff Schuller?

Corporal Schuller... Look, Anson, this is a multi-billion dollar war, okay? He can't make that kind of decision, he's just a grunt! No offense...

21-7-b: you are joking aren't you dancin'? are you seriously suggesting that in a democracy in wartime, that reporting should be controlled by grunts in the army? jesus christ! even for you that is desperate. would you give lynndie england an anchoring role too? how about jessica lynch?

DIA never said the reporting should be controlled by the grunts in the army.

21-7-b, the thing about conservatives and the Iraq war is that they always take the little picture and pretend that it's representative of the big one, instead of actually looking at the big picture.

2005-11-28 06:02:01 PM Broadcastdave [TotalFark]

My unit went to Iraq last year. Iraq isnt as bad as it was when we got there and we made many strides towards their freedom. If you want a good portrayal of life Iraq when my unit was there get the movie Gunner Palace.

If you were there, you would see that it's not as bad as the media makes it out to be.

I'm very glad you made it back ok! My impression from the news is that there are long gas lines everywhere, higher unemployment than ever before (with consequent dangerous unemployment of young men, even educated), and violence (rape, robbery, and especially kidnapping of the middle class) has gone sky-high, to levels unknown before the US came.

Is that correct? What is your sense of how people feel on the street?

GoodDamon: 21-7-b, the thing about conservatives and the Iraq war is that they always take the little picture and pretend that it's representative of the big one, instead of actually looking at the big picture.

Not all conservatives support the war. Just like not all liberals are pillow biting pinko-comies.

Not as bad as the media portrays, eh?

Try telling that to the people having to be washed down the drain or scraped off the walls every day

/and they're getting fed up with it

GoodDamon ... and pretend that it's representative of the big one, instead of actually looking at the big picture."

That 'big picture' as seen through a soda straw ... from inside a hotel lobby inside the green zone ...

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SCHOOLS?

How often do you hear that when someone tries to explain what's really going on... how many schools are we building?... we must have built millions... did Iraq have atleast a few schools before we invaded?

"It's a giant shiat sandwich and we're all gonna hafta take a bite."

This should be fun...

I'm sure the soldiers take enough shiat from terrorist without the media getting on their case!

2005-11-28 06:25:57 PM the_gospel_of_thomas [TotalFark]

That 'big picture' as seen through a soda straw ... from inside a hotel lobby inside the green zone ...

No, the article said that the soldiers had the soda straws.

"We know we made a positive difference," says Cpl. Jeff Schuller of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, who spent all but one week of his eight-month tour with Mayer. "I can't say at what level, but I know that where we were, we made it better than it was when we got there."

wtf?

Dancin_In_Anson: Don't confuse him...he's on a roll...

Of I can only speak of what I've seen through the soda straw of your comment.

...did Iraq have atleast a few schools before we invaded?

I hear they had a pretty good flight school, even if it was a little weak on landing procedures.

2005-11-28 06:28:37 PM Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark]

Who is responsible for the IEDs and random bombings?

Jack Murtha and everyone else who opposes the handling of the war?

What do soldiers know about war anyway?

/probably not as much as me and my BLOG.

That just about sums it up. Cheers to that comment!

Come on, elchip, at least TRY.

2005-11-28 06:31:26 PM the_gospel_of_thomas [TotalFark]

Come on, elchip, at least TRY.

Quote the post you're referring to, I've made quite a few and I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Dancin_In_Anson
Who is responsible for the IEDs and random bombings?

The WMD?

Broadcastdave:

I am a 74D (Chemical Operations) that belonged to a medical unit (E Co, 27th MSB) during the time we were in Iraq. Now I am in a new unit (A Co, 15th BSTB)which consists of mostly 88M (truck drivers).

My guess would be that most people that havent been to Iraq are talking out their ass.

I know several who have been there off and on since the war started (mostly medical types), from what I have heard it isn't anything like the way the media portray it.

While I don't agree on many levels with the Bush administration, I still think the world is better off with one less ass-hat dictator (I am sure someone will retort with "BUT BUSH IZ TEH DICKTATOR TOOO!!11" *sigh*)

/probably going to Iraq or Kuwait in a year or so

Gavino: Really don't care what they 'think.'

You, sir, are the epitome, the apex, the very definition of the problem that this country has vis a vis the military.

/'sir' is actually pronounced 'cur'

Remember when the Iraq War was awesome a few years ago?

I remember when the war was patriotic... when people said stupid shiat like "fight them there, or we fight them here..." , as if a bunch of Iraqis were going to board a battleship and invade the Bronx or something.

This war was fueled by stupidity and now people want to pull out... after years of war and reelecting the guy who started it, suddenly people don't like it anymore... lets not act there was an intellectual debate on the war, it was revenge for 9-11.

2005-11-28 06:34:31 PM Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark]

Can't bring yourslef to say it...why?

Say what?

Terrorists following the likes of al-Zarqawi and Sunni insurgents pissed that they're being marginalized when they used to be on top?

I was being humorous, but I don't see what's so difficult about the truth here.

Apptly put a by a great man
"who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes!"

elchip: I'd trust the Christian Science Monitor before I trusted, oh, pretty much any other news source.


Yeah, they are actually a very good, if minor, newspaper. A well-respected source.

/used to subscribe

2005-11-28 06:25:57 PM the_gospel_of_thomas [TotalFark]
That 'big picture' as seen through a soda straw ... from inside a hotel lobby inside the green zone ...

That is part of the 'big picture,' yes. Think about what you're saying: The journalists have to stay inside a hotel in the 'Green Zone' because it's too dangerous anywhere else.

From there, they report on what they can see and what the U.S. military gives them in the form of official documentation. In that sense, they're reporting extremely conservatively.

The fact that it's too dangerous to go anywhere else is, in and of itself, news. And more importantly, it's indicative of how dangerous Iraq really is.

I work for the media that is giving such a bleak portrayal of Iraq.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic... Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cuz some Farkers believe anything they hear.

Actually, the media are dreadgful. Really dreadful. Everytime I see a media article on Fark, unless it's about Iraq, everyone chimes in about how reporters can't get anything right. If it's Iraq, the reporters suddently have the BIG PICTURE, read "my bias", and the people there don't know shiat. Personally, I wonder about the effect of so many people hearing how the media distored the story from the troops coming back. I NEVER beleive anything about Iraq in the media. I try not to belive El Presidente, but the media is a poor source for news. Always has been.

BearToy: I guess if I was over there I too would desperately try to find some sort of positive outcome of my life being put at risk every day. My mind would probably reject the reality that the reasons I'm there are a Lie De Jure from my Commander In Chief. Yeah, I would cherish the image of children playing and tell myself every night that that made it all worthwhile. Constantly seeing evidence of a larger reality from the media would be depressing.


On the flip side of that are the people looking for anything and everything negative about the war and living in their own little negative reality.

Sorry just had to point that out. I do agree though that there are people who only look at the positives just like there are people that only look at the negatives.

Would the soldiers prefer that the media lie?

2005-11-28 06:38:53 PM elchip [TotalFark]

Dude, that's a C&P of something you said from an earlier thread. Cut it out.

2005-11-28 06:41:15 PM GoodDamon [TotalFark]

Dude, that's a C&P of something you said from an earlier thread. Cut it out.

If I posted the O RLY owl or the HA HA guy in two threads, would you be saying this?

It's a cliche... it's supposed to get posted ad infinitum. But it's a textual cliche, so it's harder to immediately detect.

Civil_War2_Time: So, in sports (my analogy), you have a better perspective of the team's moral and attitude than they do? You can also sense a shift in momentum before they can?

The military is FAR different than sports.

Your stadium is an entire country.

You only come into contact with and communicate with approximately 0.1% of your team.

In the military, especially in a field or training environment, you find yourself VERY insulated from everything that's not happening in your very small AO. It's a very hard thing to explain to someone that hasn't served, but myopic is a very good term to describe the view a soldier has while deployed.

"...many members of one of the hardest-hit units insist that they saw at least the spark of progress."

Well, considering how much of our money is getting pumped into that country on a daily basis, I should hope that there are at least some sparks of progress.

Of course, it would have been better if we'd've been in and out in under a year, and the Iraqi people had been left with a better infrastructure than the one they had before we got there. Oh, and some stability.

But I guess the fact that the troops are having a pretty good time and seeing some progress (after years and billions) means that invading Iraq was a good idea in the long run.

/obfuscate the issue

elchip, my apologies. After realizing I'd seen this before, I googled it. Very funny, actually. :)

21-7-b: i think he did actually, untrustworthy. you are wrong. he was suggesting that some grunt's view be given a far greater role in the overall reporting on the war - because it was not 'negative' and he was one of the 'fine, brave, yak, yak, yak'

He simply asked why the journalist perspective of Iraq should be held in higher regard than the soldiers. He never said that the troops should have control over the reporting. So it is you that is wrong.

i also think another point of yours, namely that you hadn't heard any military people calling for what is sometimes known asthe glass parking lot, was pretty pathetic, and like so much current bush apologism requires above all a worldview that is almost blind

I stated a fact that I've never heard a soldier say that Iraq was a hellhole and they didn't care if it burned to the ground. I was simply asking where this was heard so that I could look up the source.

I'm not a Bush apologist. Far from it. But when people either make claims about what another farker or a soldier in the field has said, I intend to challenge them if they are wrong or lack any evidence of accuracy.

What I'm wondering is why the leadership such as Rumsfeld who kept saying there was no insurgency haven't been sacked. They basically said that the grunts were lying, that there was no insurgency. Only after it became undeniable, was it admitted by the paper pushers in the Pentagon that there was an insurgency. Yet, they still have their jobs. Why? Also, they still claim we have enough troops there, even though we obviously don't have enough to even pretend to guard the borders.
The troops are doing an amazing job, especially considering all the bad leadership and "cult of denial" in the Pentagon and Whitehouse.

Libertarians can come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is better than leaving Saddam in power and that the prospect of a democracy in the MidEast is better than the status quo. Being libertarian doesn't mean you have to be impractical or too rigid to flex your views on a question-by-question basis.

leathermidget: The problem is the soldier on the ground has, by necessity, a very myopic view of what's going on in-theater.


This is SO TRUE. I have friends in one part of the theatre who don't HAVE A DAMN CLUE what's going on 50 miles up the road. It might be chill where they are (where they can lift weights and get big and not worry about insurgent attacks) but a few miles up the road, another friend is telling me the opposite.

That their PT is running from house to house avoiding bullets. (these are fellow officers and devil dogs, mind you)

I think the media is giving a pretty accurate picture of the war and the situation. I have TWO questionS to ask for those who say the media is jacking the war up:

If everything is not as bad as they say it is, then HOW COME WE WON'T LET THE IRAQIS DO THEIR OWN SECURITY?

HOW COME WE HAVEN'T LEFT YET, AND WHY DEPLOYMENT ORDERS ARE STILL IN THE PIPELINE FOR IRAQ TOURS?

Seems to me that everything is not as rosy as some would like to believe....

Wait, hold on. It's too dangerous to venture outside of the Green Zone for anyone affiliated with the US unless they are in, like, an armored convoy. Soldiers have been killed at a rate of around 3 per day since the "liberation" of Iraq. The trend is not declining. Reporters only see what the army lets them see, and they still find that the situation is deteriorating in Iraq.

And yet, as we've heard every day since March 2003, the situation in Iraq is "getting better" or "just about to get better."

Who would you believe?

How's the electrical grid? I hear they are back to pre-war output, but not many people can get it because the grid keeps going down.

And what's with the big road to Baghdad? You know, the one that even today is bad lands where people have to book top speed for safety?

Yeah...real bright and wonderful over there.

But it doesn't really matter, we should not be there. So even if Bush's plan is 100% successful...it doesn't matter...because he cheated.

inTheJungle

"Wait, hold on. It's too dangerous to venture outside of the Green Zone for anyone affiliated with the US unless they are in, like, an armored convoy. Soldiers have been killed at a rate of around 3 per day since the "liberation" of Iraq. The trend is not declining. Reporters only see what the army lets them see, and they still find that the situation is deteriorating in Iraq.

And yet, as we've heard every day since March 2003, the situation in Iraq is "getting better" or "just about to get better."

Who would you believe?"
---

Rummy loves me! He's good to me when he isn't drunk!

Everyone I know over there says it is incredibly farked up and getting worse all the time. The new "Iraqi" army is full of farkups and insurgents and if we have to hang around until they are able to fight for themselves we will be in there forever.

Way to fark up, Bush.

Would the soldiers prefer that the media lie?
or
OMG IRAQ IS A QUAGMYRE THE ARTICLE IS SO WRONG AND TEH SOLDIER IS TEH STUPID

Yeah, people posting on Fark from their chair know more about Iraq than the soldiers over there.

Broadcastdave: My unit went to Iraq last year. Iraq isnt as bad as it was when we got there and we made many strides towards their freedom. If you want a good portrayal of life Iraq when my unit was there get the movie Gunner Palace.

If you were there, you would see that it's not as bad as the media makes it out to be.


There isn't a healthy balance in the news. The media doesn't stray far from the green zone, so they don't get a very good view of the improvements (and other areas truly lacking). People like yourself (and my husband) who have done multiple tours in Iraq can see there are improvements. His first deployment was pure hell. Now on his second deployment, things are better in Iraq than when he was there the first go around.

The problem is we hear about all the bad and very little of the positive. I'm not saying it is peaches and cream over there by a long shot. Just saying the media tends to get a little pre-occupied talking about body counts and the big explosion of the day.

My husband and I were talking about this the other day online. They found a weapons "factory" over the summer in Mosul that had "homemade" mustard gas and anthrax like shiat going on there. It was active. This is stuff that insurgents salvaged from previous or old operations ran by Saddam and made a hod-podge operation. This wouldn't seem dangerous, however, the cocktails of crap they were brewing in this place were "scary" according to my husband and others. Yet, something like this doesn't make the news. They saw it pass on the CNN ticker at the bottom of the screen once, and that was it.

In addition, when a reporter from a local newspaper was with my husband's unit and the reporter was able to talk to locals in the area, they said they wanted to be heard and would like to tell the American reporters about what life is life for them. However, the most excitement they had as far as any reporters to the area was Geraldo, who made a quick visit during the elections and then was never heard from again. Some of the soldiers are upset as well that the media never seems makes it out to their location as well. If it involved leaving the greenzone, you might as well forget seeing a reporter.

The U.S. military stops the rain of mortars on Mosul from insurgents, people are starting to have their lives return to normal and the troops are experiencing safer conditions. That isn't news. But if another mess hall were to get blown up again, that'd be news.

Just saying.

Assuming for the moment that what the US is trying to do in Iraq is a good thing, we need to put the numbers into perspective.

Freedom is never won without a struggle. There can by now be no doubt that the insurgency does not have the best interests of Iraq in mind. They are simply trying to disrupt a process that, if it succeeds, repudiates the actions of Islamist extremists and terrorists everywhere.

American losses are high to be sure. But compare the 2100 soldiers we have lost taking and holding an entire country to the 6821 killed and 19217 wounded taking Iwo Jima during WWII, if you want to get some perspective. This is a war and people will die. If one of your family was killed, I am sorry. But if Iraqis can have a peaceful, free democracy, then we will have done something very good in the world.

EnormousJuan: But it doesn't really matter, we should not be there. So even if Bush's plan is 100% successful...it doesn't matter...because he cheated.

But we are there. Are you suggesting that we cut and run?

It's not easy to make happy talk about death and destruction, but the corporate media infotainers have sure tried! It seems that they are getting no credit for their attempts to spin-doctor shiat into roses, though.

Oh, wow.

Sorry, my favorite soldier in Iraq (he just finished up last month) went thinking he would be helping people, and did no such thing.

He also said they often didn't get credit for things they HAD done. They'd bust up some insurgents, and the news articles would give the credit to the Iraqi army.

Maybe it's different in some parts of Iraq, but Tom felt that they did squat, and he couldn't wait to leave.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

Anyone who was stupid or desperate enough to volunteer to fight in a made-up war needs all the help they can get...

"How's the electrical grid? I hear they are back to pre-war output, but not many people can get it because the grid keeps going down."



and



and



/what a hopeless quagmire

War is Hell.

Media sensationalizes.

A fart is a term for obnoxious bodily emission.

/All true.
//Fark the media.
///The sky is falling.

2005-11-28 06:45:21 PM GoodDamon [TotalFark]

elchip, my apologies. After realizing I'd seen this before, I googled it. Very funny, actually. :)

Yeah... the first time I ever saw it (and, based on the responses it got, it might be the first time it was ever posted) was a guy claiming to work for Karl Rove, in a thread about the CIA leak investigation. He was presumably trying to be serious (though I'm guessing he was probably lying).

I think that's how it originated.

I think it's hilarious... but hey, cliche comedy is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, Iraq sounds so great that I'm ready to move there. We should round up the whole gang. You know Dancin, the Weavester, Tommy Boy and that Civil War dude. We'll start a commune! What'd ya think?

grytpype-thynne: Everyone I know over there says it is incredibly farked up and getting worse all the time. The new "Iraqi" army is full of farkups and insurgents and if we have to hang around until they are able to fight for themselves we will be in there forever.

Way to fark up, Bush.

Depends where you are. Some areas are pretty farked up still. No arguing with that. Same would go for local police force and "Iraqi" armed forces. I think it depends on what area of the country you are in and the influences that are there. Some places are better than others. Some areas are definitely worse than others.

Sir Charles

Have any data before 2003 for comparison? There are 26 million people in Iraq - 3.7 million phone subscribers might be a small amount.

snorkblaster: Libertarians can come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is better than leaving Saddam in power and that the prospect of a democracy in the MidEast is better than the status quo. Being libertarian doesn't mean you have to be impractical or too rigid to flex your views on a question-by-question basis.

Libertarians don't actually exist... it's just a hipster party every 4 years. Voting for someone who has no chance of winning means you don't have to take any heat if your choice wins and farks up the country.

It's like Michael Moore always supporting a canidate who can't win... Brown 92' Nader 2000...etc.

Badnarik 2004!

Who gives a shiat about Iraq.

The truth is that the people profiting from the war will never admit that the war is going good enough that we can leave or bad enough that we should leave. They are making farking billions as long as the war continues.

It really has nothing to do with how "good" or "bad" the Iraq war is going.

Broadcastdave


Thanks for protecting my freedom. I mean it.

trippdogg: Anyone who was stupid or desperate enough to volunteer to fight in a made-up war needs all the help they can get...

Please don't say things like this.

All you need to do is take a trip down to BAMC and visit the burn ward for a little bit.

You'll see that there's nothing made up about this war.

There are soldiers, a lot of them very young, who are going to be living very hard, very rough lives due to their time over there.

The few people I know that have come back from the war have not said nice things. 1 guy who was kinda nuts and a trouble maker came back and became really cristian and really against war.

He said he killed lots of people and he has difficulty dealing with the children that were lost, good or bad.

But I have no doubt there are soldiers that see the opposite side of the terrible face of war.

1 - I am not there, and therefore truly know nothing concerning the "war".
2 - "News" in general is a money making machine and cannot be entirely trusted no matter what it's reputation.
3 - I try to gather information from many sources, temper it with a skeptic's ear, factor in human's propensity to twist the truth for their own gain, reduce it to it's basic components and try to form an opinion of things which I will not later berate myself for having been naive in forming.

Hey, let's all read 1984!

The new "Iraqi" army is full of farkups...

We should dust off some old Gomer Pyle scripts, maybe with a little Hogan's Heroes thrown in for the insurgents... It'd be a hell of a sitcom.

mothmaan nails it.

Every time I have ever read or seen a mainstream media report on any subject I'm knowledgeable about, I can spot glaring errors and ommisions. I'm sure most of you have had the same experience.

Why assume that they are any more accurate when dealing with subjects that you don't know intimately? Of course they are botching the Iraqi war reporting. It's what they do.

dougiezerosag
Libertarians don't actually exist... it's just a hipster party every 4 years. Voting for someone who has no chance of winning means you don't have to take any heat if your choice wins and farks up the country.

Uh, who said I voted for the Libertarian party? I try to apply my (small "l") libertarian philosophy to real-world votes. It can be tough, though, since both major parties have huge logical inconsistencies in their announced platforms.

>>>>>> Civil_War2_Time [TotalFark]
So, in sports (my analogy), you have a better perspective of the team's moral and attitude than they do? You can also sense a shift in momentum before they can? <<<<<


In case you didn't notice with the TO debacel, athletes are not allowed to tell the truth about their team lest they get suspended for the remainder of the season.

How many times have you seen an athlete say "Yeah, we trust our coach, and we trust each other, and I'm in the best shape of my life"... only to continually get spanked on the field and eliminated from playoff contention?

The point is, you really can't trust an "insider" any more than an "outsider". Everybody has an agenda. That's why it's best to get your news from multiple sources and come to your own conclusions.

If everything is going so well in Iraq now, then bring the troops home already. Enough.

Clavis: If soldiers want cheerier stories in the news, they should stop getting blown up

Aaaaahahahahahaha!

We train these guys to be the roughest toughest guys around and thrive in war zones, so naturally their judgment on what constitutes a livable country is a wee bit skewed. Plus, they may not be getting the news about the size of the insurgency staying roughly the same no matter how many insurgents we kill. They kill a bunch of guys and think, "Progress!"

They should read Dilbert once in a while. Perfect execution of tasks handed down from management doesn't guarantee anything.

GoodDamon: Kidnappings and unclear battle lines have made war correspondents' jobs almost impossible

Gosh, I hope nobody sold the correspondents on the idea that combat was easy.

2005-11-28 06:53:54 PM Sir Charles

interesting that your first graph starts two months after the war when there was NO electricity so there's no comparison to pre-war numbers and no way to go but "up".

your second and third graphs start at, again, the lowest possible points giving no pre-war context.

Without even checking, I'd guess these three figures are all well below pre-war levels.

i call shenanigains.

21-7-b: he is suggesting, quite clearly, that the word of army grunts should be given mnore priority in reporting, regardless of veracity - in fact almost in-spite of it. that quite clearly hands control of the reporting to those same grunts.

No it doesn't. Sources of information can come from a variety of places. He only puts the validity of the sources up for debate. He never once suggested that the control of the reporting should be left to the soldiers.

rubbish. you were trying to dismiss the allegation. unfortunately anyone with half a brain knows that it is exactly the type of sentiment that one would expect from a large percentage of the less capable within the army

How is asking for a source dismissing an allegation? I don't think that is too much to ask. And while I'm sure many US soldiers have probably even said worse, I question the context of the comment or character of anyone who would wish that upon an entire country. That is why I asked for a source. I want to know who said it in what context.

BTW, you should know better than to claim to know what I or DIA meant by what we said. We can both clarify our statements if you seem to get the wrong meaning from them, but don't try to tell me what I meant by what I said.

Ironpoint


Who gives a shiat about Iraq.

I do.

"But most of all, it is the hope he saw in a young Iraqi girl who loved pens and Oreo cookies."

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

fatladysings: He also said they often didn't get credit for things they HAD done. They'd bust up some insurgents, and the news articles would give the credit to the Iraqi army.

Typical. It happens quite a bit. It pisses a lot of soldiers off. I would be honked, too.. not getting credit for the things I had done.

Like when my husband's BN found a major weapons cache -- I'm talking MAJOR -- and destroyed it. They didn't get the credit in the news. The Iraqi army did.

Nevermind the fact when they blew the sucker, the explosion was so big it shifted the water table in the area.

Heh. Then again, maybe they don't want credit for that.

Still would have been cool as hell to see that explosion.

....

Anywho, you are right. It depends on where you are. Some places better/worse than others.

I don't have any figures, but I do have some very persuasive anecdotal evidence.

Anyone watch "Off to War" on the Discovery Channel? Good show. Pretty much sums things up.

Hmmm. Today I learned:

1] Two soldiers didn't have a bad day when they were in Iraq. So their experience wasn't as bad as they see on TV.

2] Because these guys were lucky - not a single IED blew up in their faces! - they think maybe it's because the war coverage is biased.

3] Because these two soldiers think the coverage might be biased, they speak for all troops stationed in Iraq. I see that right from the title: "How Troops See It".

4] This editorial is itself completely unbiased. Which is why the positive experience of two soldiers from Iraq - that some IEDs were pointed out to them - is proof that Iraqis want us there. And polls that show that more than 80% of Iraqis consider us occupiers and want us to leave doesn't mean anything.

5] Poisoned kool-aid is fun - so long as you or your kids aren't the ones who have to drink it. Or, like these two soldiers, they run out of it before its your turn to swig.

"But most of all, it is the hope he saw in a young Iraqi girl who loved pens...

Er, I read that totally wrong the first two times through...

But how could kids be flying kites in Baghdad without the winds of freedom?

The media paints a much worse picture than reality. Even though it isn't all smooth sailing. I've talked to people ranging from low level just enlisted grunt in the Marines to head of operations full Colonel in the Air Force. It is more like two steps forward, one step back. The bulk of the people there actually think things are getting better all the time. Even the 20 year old kids driving Humvees in the worst areas.

How about reserving some of our anger and outrage for the cowards who would rather blow people up than let them run their own government. Remember, the Sunnis were an oppressive minority during Saddam's reign. They are behind this insurgency. If they are supported by Iran and Syria, how about a little anger toward those other countries--who are not even part of this conflict? Where is your anger toward the real bad guys here?

TheRealKlaatu: Who gives a shiat about Iraq.

I do.

Let's be honest... no one really cares about Iraq... We can stop pretending that purple thumbs make up misty eyed. If we were such humanitarians we would quit mocking Bono... Africa is closer to us than Iraq...

the build up to the war the media kept showing footage from the 80's of gassed Kurds, but come on America... talk about a delayed reaction... even the Kurds must be like: "don't worry about it... really... the 80's were a crazy time.".

It's a defense mechanism.

When you're in the field, living in horrid conditions, have seen people you've come to know get blown to pieces when you were talking to them no more than a minute ago, and know full well that any minute you might meet the same fate, because you have no idea which of those faces you see surrounding you as you walk down the street might be carrying the gun or sporting the bomb-belt with your name on it...

Are you going to start asking questions? Are you going to start doubting yourself? Are you going to start entertaining the notion that the efforts of you and those in your company were pointless and for naught?

Of course not. You'd wind up blowing your brains out.

So instead, you put on the blinders, and whether it's a steaming load of bullshiat or not, you convince yourself "I'm doing the right things for the right reasons. And all is going well because of it."

That's the mindset of a soldier.

I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, but that's how it is. That's how it's GOT to be.

Wow, soldiers on the ground with first hand experience complain about the news, and immediately, several farkers jump on the soldiers calling them idiots for not trusting the media to know better than they do.

Broadcastdave: If you were there, you would see that it's not as bad as the media makes it out to be.

Well, that's the whole problem. Nobody can give us an accurate overall picture of this mission, and that's getting to be really frustrating for everyone.

The journalists are scared to wander the streets on their own and report what they see (for the most part). They sit in the hotels and report what they see from their windows far away and from talking to the hotel staff.

Where have the brave journalists gone? We had journalists all over the place in Vietnam...so either the Iraqi war is more dangerous than Vietnam or the journalists aren't as brave as back then. OR...the journalists aren't allowed to wander around, period.

Everybody just wants to know the truth of what's happening. Why can't anybody deliver this?

I did see a journalist's account of walking around with some Iraqi police officers on the streets on C-SPAN last week. THAT was interesting and seemingly honest.

Things they talked about:
* Most Iraqi police officers greatly prefer to patrol the streets in cars, either because they're too lazy to walk or because they're a tougher target. The US soldiers have to keep telling them to get out of the cars and be a presence on the streets.
* Many Iraqi police officers haven't been paid yet, and most have been on the force for months on end. If I wasn't paid for months on end, I don't think I'd take my job very seriously either.
* They're painting IED's to look like cinder blocks, and there's tons and tons of cinder blocks lining the Iraqi streets, so finding IED's is getting harder.

I don't know, man. If I looked like an Iraqi and could speak their language, I think I'd be over there trying to find out the truth of the situation. Do we not have ANY journalists that could fit that description?

Maybe incidents like random shootings of civilians aren't helping perception? Way to win the hearts and minds!

Video of Random Shootings in Iraq

Of course soldiers have to believe they're doing something positive. Not doing that is suicidal. The same goes for life.

I think most people would agree that, morally speaking, what soldiers are doing--have done--is righteous. Politically, however, this war was ill-begotten in so many ways (I won't bother listing them). The media focuses on the political debate; that is, "Look at our men and women dying for a cause that was politically ill-begotten". The media's job isn't to argue morality, and by and large it doesn't (thankfully). This is the CSM's contention (I think?), that the media focuses too heavily on the political implications of the war instead of the moral ones. I think that point is moot considering that this conflict was initiated with political (not moral) impetus, i.e. that we were to disarm Hussein due to his negligence in responding to UN resolutions; not that we were to free the Iraqi people; not that we were to rid the world of a dictator (hell, there are far worse dictators than Hussein that need dealing with); not to promote democracy.

dougiezerosag

I care about Iraq. I do not mock Bono. He's a fine, decent Christian doing a lot of good things right now. We should do more about Africa. Yes, we took too long to do something about Iraq, but that is no reason not to do anything.

>>>>> TheRealKlaatu [TotalFark]
Where is your anger toward the real bad guys here? <<<<<

If somebody throws you or your friends into an alligator pit, it makes more sense to be angry at the person who threw them into the pit rather than the alligators themselves.

I' certainly not happy about islamofascist nutjobs killing our soldiers, but WTF else did anyone expect to happen? We shouldn't have gone there.

Dancin_In_Anson:

"Heh. It's really quite funny to watch people biatch about this article."

You can just STFU right now, you 4F sack of crap. How in the hayell would you have any idea about what's going on in Iraq? Oh, I forgot, you're a Rear Admiral in the 81st Keyboard Brigade. Jeebus Tapdancin Cripes, you chickenhawks are really, really some gutless, pissy farks.

Sign up or shut up.

/20 year Marine
//support our troops... bring them home

Funny, I know a man from my church who's an army medic over there. He got a little wounded when his transport got blown up, miraculous he survived, so he got to come home and talk about it. He showed us slideshows of the aftermath at the church, the 16 cylinder engine that landed behind the remains of the vehicle. And he said that the media was NOT reporting that these sorts of attacks were a daily occurrence. Of course, that was several months ago, the media situation has probably changed some.

jvoight0205 Gosh, I hope nobody sold the correspondents on the idea that combat was easy.

Maybe they were sold on the idea that combat would be done and over with by now. If the only report journalists can send back about most parts of Iraq is "It's so bad we can't even go and look at it" I'd say that reflects poorly on the state of Iraq, not on the journalists.

2005-11-28 05:22:20 PM PegoTheJerk

YEAH! enough with the facts already.

more pretend stuff, please.

Read a few posts from this website if you want boots on the ground facts. Warning: it might interfere with your 'knowledge' of things you haven't a farking clue about. Be sure and write a letter thanking them for fighting for your right to be a complete asshat.

ANY SOLIDER

I mock Bono.

He's stupid: when he performed in San Francisco, he thought the fan-written "SF" sign meant "Sinn Fein."

He's pretentious: Lose. The. Farking. Eyeglasses.

He's *really* pretentious: Hey, dude. Your name is Paul. You come from the land of potatoes and my ancestors. Paul. Paul. Paul. Sting's asshattery wasn't a license to follow his example.

... Doesn't the media ALWAYS do this? I mean, focus on the bad news, and not the good. That's what SELLS! What brings in the money is Chaos! Destruction! Death! Blood! Hatred! Scandals! Famine! Plauges! IS YOUR FAMILY IN DANGER?!?!!

No one gives a crap about peace and love and harmony. Why do you think we don't hear about muslim protests, about moderate christains, about good things in Iraq, about people being good to others? Because that doesn't sell!

Media has become more about ratings and less about truth, and gloom and doom and explosions drags people in. Always follow the money...

Fakk: Everybody just wants to know the truth of what's happening. Why can't anybody deliver this?

DING. DING. DING. We have a winner.

Unfortuantely, everyone here just turns it into a pro-war/anti-war flame war.

There's good and there's bad. Unfortunately, we hear about who died today or what place was bombed today. We don't hear about the things (as you mentioned) or hear the positive things either. We all want facts: good, bad, or indifferent. We aren't getting that. Instead the media is more about spinning the information (what little they can give you) to spawn off a political debate and finger pointing.

You guys act like we have no idea what's happening when it's all been pretty clear for months now.

The insurgency isn't going anywhere. The majority of Iraqis want a democratic government, but a strong enough minority is going to continue to kill/bomb/kidnap/murder with impunity. Some of that minority is sponsored from outside of iraq and some of it is entirely home grown.

Our soldiers do a great job but they're hamstrung because the political situation makes their jobs impossible. Our leadership *should* just get them the hell out of the way (and reposition the big guns just off shore), but that would be admitting that this was a bad, unwinnable war.

So here we sit, making incremental gains and incremental losses while we hemorrhage money and lives.

If reporters can't even wander around to report all the good news for fear of kidnap/murder/torture, things can't be going all that well. It's dumb to paint that as a fault of teh medias!!1!

buttsecks

So we shouldn't have gone there? How can you be so sure? Who will resist brutal, facist dictators if not the US? The UN is basically a joke with no moral authority. I am not saying that it was necessarily the right thing to do, but Saddam sure wasn't going to leave on his own. And he needed to go.

I think isolationism in the face of extreme brutality is morally indefensible.

orrinbloquy: I mock Bono.

He's stupid: when he performed in San Francisco, he thought the fan-written "SF" sign meant "Sinn Fein."

He's pretentious: Lose. The. Farking. Eyeglasses.

He's *really* pretentious: Hey, dude. Your name is Paul. You come from the land of potatoes and my ancestors. Paul. Paul. Paul. Sting's asshattery wasn't a license to follow his example.

Yeah... but in Bono's mind he thinks U2 is more like The Clash than Sting.

Soldiers on the ground are often less informed than civilians at home for morale reasons.

Common knowledge.

>>>>> QQue
Be sure and write a letter thanking them for fighting for your right to be a complete asshat. <<<<<<


If you think soldiers in Iraq are protecting freedom here at home, then I've got a bridge to sell ya.

Seriously, this "preotecting my freedom" nonsense is just about the worst propoganda line I've ever heard.

Yes, I thank the WWII vets for protecing my freedom from Hitler. How have any other soldiers since then protected my freedom?

And how.

/chairbourne ranger
//has lots of battles over there, many good stories as well as many bad.

So we shouldn't have gone there? How can you be so sure? Who will resist brutal, facist dictators if not the US?

Maybe the Iraqi resistance forces that President Clinton agreed to have the US provide funding for shortly after Operation: Desert Fox?

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit - its the only way to be sure.

/they mostly come at night... mostly

Good Damon
Uh, where's the good news coming out of Iraq, submitter?

We can train an American and send him to war in three months. We haven't been able to get Iraqi soldiers trained in three years. The civilians have less water, food, shelter, electricity, and other essentials than they had before we invaded. They have more of some things, such as IEDs, islamic terrorists, potholes from explosions, and god-only-knows how many dead people, but for some reason, they're less than thankful to us for bringing those things to them.

For every soldier coming home calling it a "place of hope," there are ten calling Iraq a deathtrap.

That is amazing! Every single one of your "points" is incorrect. Talk to a soldier who's done active duty in Iraq, Good Damon, and you'll get the real picture. They're not just blowing people up, they're rebuilding and making friends with the Iraqis. Yes, the Iraqis actually DO like our soldiers there. And yes, the Iraqis are utterly SICK of the insurgents killing their own. Talk to a real soldier, and not just a liberal reporter who loves to report on death.

So we shouldn't have gone there? How can you be so sure? Who will resist brutal, facist dictators if not the US?

Little boy, there is a list a mile long of brutal fascist dictators around the world doing horrible things to innocent people. And the current adminstration of the US has absolutely no intention of doing anything about them. Stop pretending that "liberation" had so much to do with this war and ask yourself why Iraq was picked out of a list of many, many horrible dictator situations in the world.

Sir Charles: /what a hopeless quagmire

Nice try. Don't forget the other 2:




Phones and internet aren't much use when you're dead.

Shut the fark up.
You guys are hired thugs. When we need you to go to a country and blow the fark out of little helpless brown people we'll farking give you a call.

"Talk to a real soldier, and not just a liberal reporter who loves to report on death."

Whether or not the majority of Iraqis like our soldiers is completely and utterly beside the point. And you know it.

How have any other soldiers since then protected my freedom?

Well, you could argue that the soldiers in Korea and Vietnam were attempting to contain Communism and protect our freedom. There coul dbe a substantial argument there. But Iraq didn't have the ability to threaten our freedom militarily, and it apparently didn't have terrorist ties.

I think our soldiers have done some great things for the Iraqi people. I think they are doing what they have to over there to survive. I support them just as much as I did when I served.

That being said, our government needs to get their act together. They need to find a way to get them home in a timely manner. They need to actually formulate a plan instead of playing it by ear. I guarantee we are going to start to see many more bitter serviceman coming from there. Some are on their third or fourth deployment already. Even they are going to get sick of being dicked around after a while.

Or maybe we could have just invaded and within 25 days turned Iraq into a microcosm of the United States!

I swear some of you have the most media-slanted opinions I have ever heard. What did you expect? The reason the Gulf War was so quick was because we didn't go into Baghdad - we weren't aiming to reform their society, just dismantle Hussein's army.

Now, Bush states his purpose - to reform the Iraqi political process and create the beginnings of a democracy, and people go nuts when it takes longer than two-three years.

How about this, I would NEVER degrade the value of a human life, but 2,500 deaths is nothing compared to EVERY other occupation in military history. Since we've been there, the Iraqi people have ALREADY had a democratic election, an occurrence that has typically taken decades to accomplish. Of course it's not perfect - this will take time, but we are accomplishing EXACTLY what was stated as our goals - to instill democracy in the middle east.

Of course there are business interests you tools - every war in history has had business interests; we understand that oil may be an advantage to this conflict.

But, now to get a bit deeper, famed political scientist Fahreed Zakaria has stated that oil-rich countries that are able to rely on their natural resources rather than economic infrastructure take the longest to convert to a democracy. It is also widely acknowledged that in 150+ years, a democracy has NEVER fought another democracy. In my opinion, it is worth the negatives to instill democracy in one of the most influential countries in the armpit of the world (the middle east).

And as for an exit date - how about the one the media mentions EVERY day, yet people refuse to acknowledge. We are training their army from scratch. We will leave when their army (which is rumored to be a year or two away from self sustanance) is ready.

Don't get me wrong - I know there are negatives, but I can also use a bit of comparitive logic to discover some monster positives too.

If we ignore "sunk costs" for the moment and focus only on the future, we should not leave Iraq until it can stand on its own.

If Iraq can't be stabilized as a democracy, there's a reason for that. The reason is that the "good" folks in the country, the ones who don't view America and Israel as the Great Satan, aren't strong or numerous enough to contain the "bad" folks, the ones who suicide bomb and chop off heads.

We will have to fight those people sometime. They are the ones that will not rest until Israel is a smoldering ash heap. They are the ones that destroyed the WTC long before we invaded Iraq. If we leave now, we give them a base of operations with great resources and fabulous strategic position in the middle east. Not a good idea.

No I'm not suggesting Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. But islamic militants did, and that is also the group currently fighting us in Iraq. That is the group behind all the killing; US soldiers aren't setting any car bombs. That group transcends any given country, and that is our enemy.

Let's see, islamic extremist militants are busy bombing and killing over in Iraq. On 9/11 islamic extremist militants killed over 3,000 American CIVILIANS in a single day. Since then (2.5 YEARS) they've killed just over 2,000 American soldiers, lost at least that many of their own number, and haven't attacked the US mainland again.

But yeah we should probably just leave. If anyone who's clamoring for us to leave so that people "stop dying" could also present a workable solution to militant islamic extremism, (keyword: workable) I'd be the first person to support you. But no one I've seen on Fark can, so all the "bring the soldiers home" talk amounts to so much random biatching.

Gesthemane
Don't forget to mention that we're actually quite buddy-buddy with some of the brutal, horrible dictators. (Uzbekistan, anyone?). We keep using the policy of "The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend", and it keeps biting us in the ass...

ginrei724: Yes, the Iraqis actually DO like our soldiers there. And yes, the Iraqis are utterly SICK of the insurgents killing their own.


Are you sure about that? I'm not too sure the Iraqis are delighted by the torture at Abu Gharib, the torture by the US-supported government, and now the video showing Iraqi civilians being shot for sport.

Another comment: none of the islamic militant killers over there are disenfranchised Saddam-loving patriots. They wouldn't kill thousands of their countrymen with random suicide attacks if that were the case...

Now, Bush states his purpose - to reform the Iraqi political process and create the beginnings of a democracy, and people go nuts when it takes longer than two-three years.

Oh. I thought his purpose was to get WMDs. And didn't Bush say he wasn't a fan of nation building?

I guess he was wrong.

2005-11-28 07:22:44 PM buttsecks

Yes, I thank the WWII vets for protecing my freedom from Hitler. How have any other soldiers since then protected my freedom?

I would argue that the soldiers in the Afghanistan campaign were protecting our freedom. But of course, we couldn't finish that job, had to go off and make more terrorists in Iraq.

>>>>> TheRealKlaatu [TotalFark]
but Saddam sure wasn't going to leave on his own. And he needed to go.

I think isolationism in the face of extreme brutality is morally indefensible. <<<<<<


What a selective memory you have. The US is friends with many of the brutal dictators in the world (as long as they enforce the economic policy that benefits us), just as we were friends with Sadam until he started acting on his own rather than be our puppet.

Don't kid yourself. Like all wars, this war is about money and power, not about freedom or protecting life of Iraqis.

Sad as it may seem, Isolationism IS the least tragic of all options. If the Iraqis rose up and started a revolution on their own, then MAYBE it would be good to send some US troops along with an international coalition to HELP them, but it's not our job to do it FOR them.

Felgraf
We keep using the policy of "The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend", and it keeps biting us in the ass
You'd think there'd be lessons learned and our foreign policy would change to be more in line with our rhetoric.

/you'd think

buttsecks: Yes, I thank the WWII vets for protecing my freedom from Hitler. How have any other soldiers since then protected my freedom?

The soldier in peace time who sat on a guard tower and had presence. All the soldiers who volunteer their time and effort to serve this country -- good or bad -- so you don't have to.

I tell you what. How about everyone in the Army, Marines, Navy just put down their weapons and go home. No one will bother manning the posts. And tell the National Guard to stay or go home. No one needs them to help out here at home in a crisis either.

Let you way of life as you know it now go by the wayside. Let's see you formulate that stupid assinine thought in that little head of yours again.

Just because you don't agree with the war in Iraq doesn't mean the soldiers aren't doing their job. YOU disagree with the political machine in place that puts out soldiers in this situation. Regardless of how you feel about the war and our government, soldiers are still doing their job. They are still serving.

Now, remove your head that is so firmly planted between both your cheeks and get a clue.

If those darned soldiers weren't such failures maybe the news would be more positive. We give them billions of dollars in fancy equipment, and they can't even find a single WMD. And getting blown up by some rag-tag untrained, barefoot resistance fighters? What's up with that?

nwarlick

Now, Bush states his purpose - to reform the Iraqi political process and create the beginnings of a democracy, and people go nuts when it takes longer than two-three years.

Well, you see, he didn't properly prepare the American people for how long and grueling this course that he was taking could be. He told them we'd be out in 6 months. He did not prepare them for the brutality, bloodshed, and cost, and that is yet another reason why I cannot with good conscience support him.

darkenergy
Wow. So you're saying it's good that we stay there, so that we can fight the islamic militants there, instead of here?

That's one of the most morally bankrupt propositions I've heard in quite a while. Considering that said militants weren't really there until we invaded, you agree, then, that we drew the miltants there?

And you'd rather fight them there, then here? In other words, you are quite ready and willing to sacrifice the lives of Iraqi civillians in order to preserve your own safety?

I really hope you aren't a christian, for the path you advocate is the path of a Judas.

RealKlaatu

Need to bone up on your "facts" a little bit. Iran is a shiite predominate country and they consider the Iraqi shiites (the only other country in the region with a shiite majority) their "cousins." They are not supplying the Sunni insurgents. Who they are supplying are the Shiite militia groups who are getting their revenge on their former Sunni overlords. (Saddam was a Sunni)

However, just because the shiite militias have a bone to pick with the Sunnis, doesn't mean that they themselves haven't taken the time to pick fights with the US and to plant IED's throughout the country to fight off a group they consider an "occupier" and unwelcome guest in their country. The "insurgency" is far from being limited to former Baathist and Sunnis, but is comprised of many Iraqi's and a few foreign fighters who oppose the US being there at all and who want to dominate the country in their own way.

Part of the reason that such stories usually aren't told is simply the nature of the war. Kidnappings and unclear battle lines have made war correspondents' jobs almost impossible. Travel around the country is dangerous, and some reporters never venture far from their hotels. "It has to have some effect on what we see: You end up with reporting that waits for the biggest explosion of the day," says Mr. Hart."

So, travel is dangerous. Bombs kill soldiers. Suicide attacks kill civilians. Being an attorney can be a death warrent. People are kidnapped. What part is overblown?

Seriously. If the problem is that journalist can't know what it's like out there because it's too dangerous for them to leave their hotel, then they can't possibily be over blowing how bad it is. Just because some civilians keep it from being worse by warning americans of where bombs are, doesn't mean it's not bad.

I love how guys who only go out in groups, armed to the teeth, wearing body armor, talk about how they're loved and welcomed. I don't even tell my boss what I think of him. Do you think I'd tell a guy with a frickin' gun and ten of his gun-toting friends who invaded my country? Especially if I didn't want my house to go onto a list of places to periodically raid in search of militants?

In that circumstance you can't go by what people say. I'd say go by their actions. On the one hand, everyone says they love you. On the other hand, you're under constant threat of murderous attack everywhere you go.

Gosh... do you think... maybe some Iraqis are, how to put it, less than entirely honest when they say they love Americans?

If anyone who's clamoring for us to leave so that people "stop dying" could also present a workable solution to militant islamic extremism, (keyword: workable) I'd be the first person to support you.

Well, now that we don't have the Russians to worry about anymore, we could stop arming and training them.

We could also stop installing dictatorships, only to have their leaders turn on us a decade or two later.

In other words, we could swallow our pride, admit that these people live in a society based on a mindset that we just can not comprehend and, furthermore, they have no apparent desire to change, and pull out, completely and utterly, leaving this part of the world to eat itself out like the cancer it is.

We could... If not for two crucial factors;

1. This area of the world is located right next to one of our foremost allies*

2. This area of the world contains the majority of a commodity by which the richest industry of our nation, and therefore the one with the most political clout, makes its living

(*For the record, just what DOES Israel have hanging over our head that forces us to kiss their ass at every given opportunity?)

>>>>> nwarlick
we are accomplishing EXACTLY what was stated as our goals - to instill democracy in the middle east. <<<<<

Wrong, you tool. Our stated goal was to find and destroy Sadamms WMD. it turned out to be nonexistent.

And all your banter about fighting terrorists, democracy, and strategic bases in the ME, could have and should have been done in Afghanistan, since we already had a semi-legitimate war going on over there.

We didn't need to go into Iraq, period. There is no argument for Iraq that couldn't be applied to Afghanistan, exept one - OIL.

Gesthemane: Little boy, there is a list a mile long of brutal fascist dictators around the world doing horrible things to innocent people. And the current adminstration of the US has absolutely no intention of doing anything about them

Well..we didn't just pick Saddam and Iraq at random out of that long list of asshats. If you remember, there was that whole Kuwait thing, and the decade+ nose snubbing of various UN resoulutions.

"Well..we didn't just pick Saddam and Iraq at random out of that long list of asshats. If you remember, there was that whole Kuwait thing, and the decade+ nose snubbing of various UN resoulutions."

No, mostly we picked Saddam because:

1) 9/11 meant we had political impetus to pick a middle eastern target
2) We've wanted to unseat him forever

Opportunity + Motivation = Here we go.

Bill_Wick's_Friend: The media SHOULD show the kids flying their kites in downtown Baghdad. That way we'll know it's just as nice a place now as when Michael Moore visited and recorded films of kids flying kites in Baghdad.

When a US news service (I forget which) sent a reporter to Berlin in WWII to show Nazi oppression, all they could find were middle class people enjoying street carnivals and cafes.

Tyrany isn't something you see walking down the street.

I'm a reporter for the dreaded "MSM" (although I have never been to Iraq) and I wholeheartedly agree that most of the reporting from Iraq is utterly lacking in context.

No one wants sanitized news, and the violence *is* significant, but it needs to be put into context, not spewed out in a police-blotter mentality.

Far too many reporters are content to file stories from their hotel rooms because they say it's too dangerous or they're simply lazy. That's bullshiat. It's a dangerous job, yes, but the reporters knew that when they accepted their assignments. Regular Iraqis and military members don't have the luxury of locking themselves inside high-rise hotels, and reporters cannot get an accurate picture of life in Iraq if they insulate themselves from it.

That said, equal blame goes to news editors for not demanding context and failing to shape complete coverage. Perhaps there's no overt bias, but there is certainly bias of omission and responsibility at play here.

MWeather: When a US news service (I forget which) sent a reporter to Berlin in WWII to show Nazi oppression, all they could find were middle class people enjoying street carnivals and cafes.

Yeah... which was true. The German people loved the Nazis. They loved Hitler.

Where's the waaaaambulance for these chodes? They signed up to be soldiers and are crying about reporters reporting about dead people - WTF?

"I can't say at what level, but I know that where we were, we made it better than it was when we got there."

I cannot say that about what I did today, can anyone else here?

>>>>> phoxxy
The soldier in peace time who sat on a guard tower and had presence. All the soldiers who volunteer their time and effort to serve this country -- good or bad -- so you don't have to.

I tell you what. How about everyone in the Army, Marines, Navy just put down their weapons and go home. No one will bother manning the posts. And tell the National Guard to stay or go home. No one needs them to help out here at home in a crisis either.<<<<


You make the assumption that if we had no military, and we needed to defend ourselves from am imminent attack, that I and other people like me wouldn't do so willingly. If our country is attacked, we have 200 million+ potential soldiers willing to fight, many of whom are not in the current military for that very purpose.

Perhaps you have a point about other people volunteering to be cannon fodder for a corrupt war are taking my place, but still that does not mean they are protecting our freedom by doing so. The biggest threat to our freedom is our own government, and if I wanted to use your sob-story tactics I could argue that I am doing more to protect freedom by speaking out against the corrupt government than any soldier who carries out their corrupt orders.

And by being a productive tax paying revenue generating citizen, I am providing the funding for those peacetime guards to sit on the posts, so if they are protecting freedom then I am protecting freedom as well.

I could also argue that I am doing more to protect freedom, by being an able-bodied young man here at home, who could potentially do more to protect our country from a homeland attack than any soldier half a world away. If worse came to worse, I could pick up my rifle and shoot an invading soldier right now if the situation called for.

"So Mayer and Schuller took out some of the candy they carried, thinking that if children were around, perhaps the terrorists wouldn't attack."

/jerks

I remember way back before the war started and the inspectors were over there that Saddam kept saying he didn't have any weapons.

Then when the threat of war was coming, he managed to bring out some missiles that needed disarming.

Does anyone else remember something like that?

there are five vets in my immediate family and a handful of kids i went to high school with are in iraq. the only thing uniform about the military is the clothes they wear. claiming their viewpoint wholesale for one side or the other is a pointless argument.

ovipositor, who are the jerks? The terrorists that don't care if they kill children?

organs in mains

yes. they had ranges beyond what he was limited to by the sanctions. if i remember correctly it was a matter of double digit miles.

>>>>> phoxxy
Just because you don't agree with the war in Iraq doesn't mean the soldiers aren't doing their job. YOU disagree with the political machine in place that puts out soldiers in this situation. Regardless of how you feel about the war and our government, soldiers are still doing their job. They are still serving. <<<<<<


I never said they werent doing their job. I am debunking the propoganda that by being in Iraq they are protecting my freedom.


>>>> Now, remove your head that is so firmly planted between both your cheeks and get a clue. <<<<<

Pot, meet kettle.

21-7-b: sorry, untrustworthy, i believe that i've seen you lie too many times in the past.

You are full of shiat. I challenge you to cite one instance where I've lied in the past. I may have been wrong, in which I've readily admitted to. But your libelous claims that you've witnessed me lying in the past are completely unfounded (remember, my handle is a joke).

as for dancin's post. it quite clearly and provocatively implies that there is some reason why some grunt's view is not given import. in fact, as we all know, and are aware, such views are given import - just not much, as is correct. more import is given to the statements of their leaders - but unfortunately, when these are examined, they are often found to be lies

The grunt's perspective is very important to understanding not only how well the efforts are going, but to help direct the efforts in the future. I believe we are already too far removed from what is actually going on over there to ignore anyone who has on the ground experience with the people and situations we are trying to help with. Doing so only hamstrings our efforts in the future.

the notion that the media should, in-effect, give every military person with a positive view, a platform, is as good as ceding complete control of the reporting to people completely lacking in objectivity - many of whom probably couldn't even spell the word

Every person with experience and perspective should be considered to be a source of information. Nobody is making any claims that the media should be forced to take their information only from soldiers or the military. The debate is whether the media is ignoring the sentiment of the soldiers who are on the front lines of the effort.

And you can't discredit a source because you think they can't spell a word. I think I would much rather hear from somebody who has first hand experience than somebody else who is biased by heresay and politicized rhetoric.

that's a pretty shiat way to inform a democracy about the key foreign policy issues that define it

A shiat way to inform a democracy is to ignore the men and women who have the experience and first hand understanding of what is going on in a day to day environment and instead place one's own agenda and opinions above the facts in order to manipulate the masses. And when reporters fail to account for the reports of the soldiers, whether they be positive or negative, then this is exactly what they are doing.

downtownkid

"I can't say at what level, but I know that where we were, we made it better than it was when we got there."

I cannot say that about what I did today, can anyone else here?

Yep, I picked up a few things and loaded the dishwasher.

To respond to the point, that's always true when you're the big dog in a guerrilla war - wherever you are, you control that place and can do what you want with it. It's what happens when you leave that shows whether you're succeeding.

"He did not prepare them for the brutality, bloodshed"

...We're going to war, not Disney Land. And as I stated before, 2,500 deaths over nearly 3 years is not a brutal war, it's an overwhelming victory.

"I thought his purpose was to get WMDs"

Yep, and then faulty intelligence proved there was no WMDs. He also stated that we were creating democracy in the Middle East, and we are doing that.


Here's an idea -- why don't we ignore the opinions of Political Scientists who's findings support EVERY occurrence within Iraq and choose, instead, to base our arguments on the opinions of CNN Staff Writers. Better yet, instead of discussing what can be made of Iraq, let's spend our time complaining about why we're there in the first place. Do I agree with our invasion of Iraq? No. Do I believe that we are accomplishing nothing and creating worse conditions than before? Once again, no.

Were there WMDs? Maybe, maybe not. There were in the early 1990s, why shouldn't we expect them to still be there, ESPECIALLY when Hussein REFUSES to grant access to UN inspectors. In case we forgot, Hussein had a LAUNDRY list of UN violations -- we've invaded for much less.

organs in mains: I remember way back before the war started and the inspectors were over there that Saddam kept saying he didn't have any weapons.

Then when the threat of war was coming, he managed to bring out some missiles that needed disarming.

Does anyone else remember something like that?


NOpe....don't remember that. Next.

What I do remember is a bunch of HobbyLand USA R/C airplanes the Bush Admin said were going to fly to the US and spray us with tickle gas....or something to that effect.

R/C airplanes.
From Iraq.
Held together with duct tape.

Yeah....I'm scared now.

When it comes down to it, none of us are being given the whole story of what is and is not going on in Iraq. I listen to the soldier to hear about what his/her personal experience has been is not only colored by where and when they were in Iraq, but also by their own opinions that have been established while they were growing up along with what they have already experienced.

To believe what my LT is saying as absolute truth? To me that is suicidal. You can only believe half of what you hear, and take the other half with a grain of salt. Your LT is telling you what he/she is allowed to tell you. And that doesn't mean that he/she knows everything....their superior is in the same boat. They are only allowed to say so much. It all comes down to having the need to know. You might have a top security clearance, but you may not have the need to know.

Journalist will try to sensationalize what is going on, after all, that is what sells newspapers. Got to catch the readers eyes so they will buy the paper....etc. But by the same token, they are more apt to have more information on hand as far as what is going on elsewhere than what the local troops have access to. Probably a good portion of it is after the fact, but the information is there. Again, you can only believe half of what you read, and take the other half with a grain of salt. And of course, this is also influenced by political affiliations of either the journalist, their editor or their newspaper.

No matter which angle you look at the war in Iraq, it sure isn't a pretty, but then again, neither is dubya.

leathermidget: I would argue that the soldiers in the Afghanistan campaign were protecting our freedom. But of course, we couldn't finish that job, had to go off and make more terrorists in Iraq.


How were they protecting our freedom? Afghanistan is a war I agreed with in principle, but I never felt my freedom was in danger from the Taliban or even Al Quaeda.

I'm glad that you guys are starting to come out and start spitting on soldiers again. Enough of this phoney baloney "I support the troops" BS. You guys blame terrorism on the troops.

Now if these guys were out telling stories about the horrors, the torture, and the sadism - you would be CHEERING them.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/56CC 420E23027E0D862570B0007200BC?OpenDocument

organs in mains: I remember way back before the war started and the inspectors were over there that Saddam kept saying he didn't have any weapons.

Then when the threat of war was coming, he managed to bring out some missiles that needed disarming.

Does anyone else remember something like that?

He never claimed not to have missiles. He said none exceeded a 150km range, when a few did. All the other missiles that didn't exceed 150km range he was allowed to have and we knew about all along.

Better yet, instead of discussing what can be made of Iraq, let's spend our time complaining about why we're there in the first place.

You know, good people died in that war, and while I am hopeful that Iraq can find some footing and embrace a new direction, I am damn sure not willing to let anyone off the hook who misled people to make this thing happen.

How did this go from us being welcomed as liberators to "it's going to be long and grueling and you should have known that." Should I? I am not a military expert - I've never taken over a country. I rely on the people I elect, who have all that goddammed clearance and access to military experts, to know more than me, since its a matter of national security that I don't get to know. And they fed me a line. And I am not going to forget it, or let it slide, or any of that other crap.

/end rant
//Societal change is rarely imposed from the outside

grackle: Gosh... do you think... maybe some Iraqis are, how to put it, less than entirely honest when they say they love Americans?

newp. Well, I mean, I suppose that there could be those that say that they love Iraq in order to join the police or military over there, when in fact, they're insurgent, but otherwise, newp. The Arabs tell it like they see it. If they're pissed, they'll tell you to your face.

The hard cold truth is pretty bleak. A Westpoint instructor with a doctorate in philosophy there to assess ethincs violations killed himself after realizing the grim reality that there is no honor in Iraq.

My brother-in-law in the Marines has been to Iraq twice (once in first gulf war) and he agrees the media portrays it worse than it is and how much the people over there love us. Another friend over there in the Army says it's worse than the media even portrays it. So not sure what exactly is going on.

>>>>>> smoovement
I'm glad that you guys are starting to come out and start spitting on soldiers again. <<<<<<

And I'm glad that you are continuing to further this propganda by invoking an incident that never happened.


>>>> You guys blame terrorism on the troops. <<<<<<

Bullshiat. Show an example of somebody blaming terrorism on the troops, or else STFU.


>>>> Now if these guys were out telling stories about the horrors, the torture, and the sadism - you would be CHEERING them. <<<<<<

Speak for yourself, asswipe.

here's a clue - if I really enjoyed having our soldiers killed, wouldn't I be encouraging them to go to Iraq rather than calling for them to come home?

Shove your fascist propganda up your ass, you dipshiat.

nwarlick
Were there WMDs? Maybe, maybe not. There were in the early 1990s, why shouldn't we expect them to still be there, ESPECIALLY when Hussein REFUSES to grant access to UN inspectors. In case we forgot, Hussein had a LAUNDRY list of UN violations -- we've invaded for much less.

You were apparently asleep from late November 2002 through mid-March 2003 when UN inspectors made hundreds of inspections at hundreds of sites uncovering absolutely nothing, as they reported.
You also choose to selectively ignore UN violations by Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Armenia, Pakistan, India... When do we invade those countries?

2005-11-28 07:28:20 PM narva3

Shut the fark up.
You guys are hired thugs. When we need you to go to a country and blow the fark out of little helpless brown people we'll farking give you a call.

EXCELLENT Bill Hicks reference - you receive an A+ and a 5 gold stars.

You also choose to selectively ignore UN violations by Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Armenia, Pakistan, India... When do we invade those countries?

How about Cuba? Can we agree on Cuba? It's in our backyard and a lot easier to ship supplies to.

BlueDog

Where's the waaaaambulance for these chodes? They signed up to be soldiers and are crying about reporters reporting about dead people - WTF?

Maybe because their ass is on the line while your pansy ass sits on the couch playing halo and all the libtard media can do is report what they think sells advertising and advances their socialist agenda.

Add up the murder total in the top three US cities, take a guess more or less than the total death toll in Iraq over the same period??

Any idea how many men Lee lost at Antietam in one day??

How many were lost at Iwo Jima?


One American death is too many, but now that we are in the middle of it the media can stop being part of the farking problem and either STFU or put a positive spin on the whole thing. If the media behaved like this during WWII hippie fux like you would be speaking Japanese (or be dead because the Nazi's would'nt put up with your flavor of that BS)

/too bad we don't have a draft so asshats like you can see what the real world is like.
//PS: it's not on MTV

buttsecks: I never said they werent doing their job. I am debunking the propoganda that by being in Iraq they are protecting my freedom.

Ah, but you never said that. You clearly stated:

Yes, I thank the WWII vets for protecing my freedom from Hitler. How have any other soldiers since then protected my freedom?

You aren't debunking Iraq. You pretty much dismissed everything since WWII. If you are going to "debunk" said propoganda with the war in Iraq, then state so.

When a soldier serves, they are protecting your freedom. Whether in active use in wartime or not. They are there. That's the point you are missing. They take an oath. They serve. That is protecting your freedom.

Now, you can chalk that up to ol' propoganda. But it is the bottom line truth. You can't just flip it on and off like a light switch. Sure, the war in Iraq is crap and a political nightmare. The guys are still doing their job. Both are mutually exclusive in their association with Iraq. Just because the guys are there doesn't mean fighting for your exact freedoms. Yet, the role of serving in the armed forces is.

Perhaps the propoganda you speak of comes from those who say that Saddam was a threat and that terrorists are a threat and wrap that up into the machine which you speak so ill of. I can say that I don't necessarilly agree with their use of soldiers as poster children for their cause.

Our guys serve. They put up with a lot of crap. They are a component to why we have the freedoms we have. They aren't the sole reason. Voters at home, people who speak out against the government and exercise those freedoms keep our freedoms alive and well.

Perhaps you have a point about other people volunteering to be cannon fodder for a corrupt war are taking my place, but still that does not mean they are protecting our freedom by doing so. The biggest threat to our freedom is our own government, and if I wanted to use your sob-story tactics I could argue that I am doing more to protect freedom by speaking out against the corrupt government than any soldier who carries out their corrupt orders.

How nicely put. (sarcasm) It isn't a sob story. It is the truth. They do a job that most others don't or WON'T do. Surely, if no one did it, I'm sure your way of life would be turned upside down when the government comes knocking on your door to draft you.

nwarlick: Were there WMDs? Maybe, maybe not. There were in the early 1990s, why shouldn't we expect them to still be there, ESPECIALLY when Hussein REFUSES to grant access to UN inspectors.


1. We found and dismantled most, if not all of Saddam's WMD program durring the first round of inspections. We found these DESPITE his impedance of our efforts.

2.The second round of inspectors were given MUCH more cooperation than before and found nothing.

3. Saddam refused to let inspectors back in after WE withdrew them because we infiltrated the inspection teams with CIA agents. Despite this he did eventualy let inspectors back in.

jvoight0205

The Arabs tell it like they see it.

The former Iraq Minister of Information must have had bad eyesight.

Seriously, you're not suggesting that Arabs are more honest than other people when their asses are on the line? Is this a new stereotype, the brutally honest Arab to complement the shifty, enigmatic Oriental?

Next on Fox: These people are about to ask a random stranger how good-looking they are. What they don't know is these "random" strangers are really brutally honest Arabs™!

I should add the second time around we had much better detection equipment as well. Some pieces that couldn't even be be carried are now handheld and able to test ares we previously were unable to. Despite these improvements we found nothing.

>>>> phoxxy
Ah, but you never said that. You clearly stated: <<<<


Nice job of selective quoting and ignoring all the points in my entire previous post.

I kept that particular argument to Iraq because I was responding to a quote from your about Iraq. All the other non-Iraq stuff was already addressed.

Interesting propoganda game you have going.

From these posts it looks like a lot of big gobs of spit are being coughed up especially for the troops return reception at the airport. Yes!

Without hippie fux like us there would people like you ruling America, which is far worse than any war.

steamed

wishful thinking.

phoxxy

When a soldier serves, they are protecting your freedom. Whether in active use in wartime or not.

Thanks, phoxxy, for once again laying the groundwork for politicians to hide their lies and mistakes behind the noble sacrifices of soldiers.

Soldiers *do* die in vain, they *do* get sent off to wars that don't benefit the American people, and their bravery does not sanctify the politicians who sent them off to die. A soldier may intend with all his heart to protect my freedom, but that doesn't stop a politician from wasting his life on a political diversion or on absolutely nothing at all. That's one of the things soldiers sign up for - being sent into action by our imperfect system of government.

nwarlick:

Were there WMDs? Maybe, maybe not. There were in the early 1990s, why shouldn't we expect them to still be there, ESPECIALLY when Hussein REFUSES to grant access to UN inspectors.

Why? Because UN weapon inspectors destroyed them and there was no evidence that he was rebuilding his WMDs. It's really that simple.

Tinymidget

Without hippie fux like us there would people like you ruling America, which is far worse than any war.


Hmmm, there goes that idea. Seems we are already ruling America. That would make you superfluous, among other things.

buttsecks:

Want to try that again?

You brought up Iraq.

You posed the question asking how soldiers since WWII have defended your freedoms.

I posted and answer that was separate outside of the Iraq question.

I'm not playing a game. I gave you a straight answer which was obviously not to your liking. And, quite frankly, any way you cut it, you see the service of our men and women in uniform more as a dis-service and than anything else -- OUTSIDE of the Iraq issue -- based upon the tone of your answers.

You have a nice set of blinders on there. Maybe you are chomping at the bit a little too much as well. Just because the soldiers are serving in a war that you (and many others) disagree with, it doesn't mean that their service to their country doesn't in some way still uphold and protect the freedoms that you enjoy. Whether sitting at a guard post stateside or getting shot at over in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on.... they are all still serving. That is the point being made.

But, alas, you still want to be a troll about it. So have fun.

I respect the individual perspectives of individual Marines, but in the end, they are simply pawns in a very large and complex game.

The invasion of Iraq never had anything to do with freedom, terrorism or WMD. Like all political conquests, it is exclusively about power and money.

phoxxy wins.

Uh oh, I agree with someone sticking up for soldiers. I better put on the flame-retarded suit.

Were there WMDs? Maybe, maybe not. There were in the early 1990s, why shouldn't we expect them to still be there, ESPECIALLY when Hussein REFUSES to grant access to UN inspectors.

I'm surprised no one informed nwarlick that those chemical WMDs of the 90s have a very low shelf-life, and would be useless today.

TheRealKlaatu

Freedom is never won without a struggle. There can by now be no doubt that the insurgency does not have the best interests of Iraq in mind. They are simply trying to disrupt a process that, if it succeeds, repudiates the actions of Islamist extremists and terrorists everywhere.

Jumpin Jaysus TheRealKlaatu What's up with the intelligent balanced statement? Are you trying to give Fark a good name?

the_gospel_of_thomas: And their views from the ground by the soldiers is no less valid than the views of the journalists as they compose their stories on a laptop in the hotel lobby.

Yeah, because the soldiers couldn't possibly be any more biased than the journalists.

phoxxy: Just because the soldiers are serving in a war that you (and many others) disagree with, it doesn't mean that their service to their country doesn't in some way still uphold and protect the freedoms that you enjoy.

In what specific way does the war in Iraq uphold and protect my freedoms?

PC LOAD LETTER: You tend to get yelled severely at in the military for speaking negatively to the press about ongoing operations. It's a free country...sort of.


Not if you're a soldier. If you want to speak out in support of the war, that's okay. Show up at an antiwar rally in uniform and prepare to bivouac in Leavenworth.

What a stupid article.

>>>> phoxxy
I posted and answer that was separate outside of the Iraq question. <<<<<

And I addressed it, and you ignored it. Your rebuttal came from another post of mine which was aimed at an Iraq comment made by you, and you took it out of context. I'm sorry if you have reading comprehension problems, but don't make up lies about me and things I have said.


>>>>> And, quite frankly, any way you cut it, you see the service of our men and women in uniform more as a dis-service and than anything else -- OUTSIDE of the Iraq issue -- based upon the tone of your answers. <<<<<

Bullshiat. I never said that our military is a dis-service. You are making shiat up. And my "tone" is all in your head. I am only addressing issues that are being brought up by you and other people in this thread. It's not my responsibility to issue prequalifying statements for every point that I address.

You are filling in the blanks with your own imagination. You are free to have your opinion, but don't tell lies about me, asshole.

soldiers are not trained to think...i call shenanigans.

/you think what we tell you to think, soldier!!!
//Yes sir!

grackle: phoxxy

When a soldier serves, they are protecting your freedom. Whether in active use in wartime or not.

Thanks, phoxxy, for once again laying the groundwork for politicians to hide their lies and mistakes behind the noble sacrifices of soldiers.

Soldiers *do* die in vain, they *do* get sent off to wars that don't benefit the American people, and their bravery does not sanctify the politicians who sent them off to die. A soldier may intend with all his heart to protect my freedom, but that doesn't stop a politician from wasting his life on a political diversion or on absolutely nothing at all. That's one of the things soldiers sign up for - being sent into action by our imperfect system of government.


I didn't say politicians weren't cheap, power hungry, greedy little bastards that use our soldiers like pawns. There is a certain amount of faith that a soldier places in our government to use them the right way -- to be responsible -- yes. Soldiers also place a little bit of faith in the citizens as well. That we will vote and elect the right people into office. Afterall, politicians are supposed to be an extension of the people -- our representatives.

I'm not laying the ground work for anything. Politicians have for YEARS beeen trying to hide behind the noble service of our men and women in uniform. As true now as it was 100 years ago, even 200.

However, if ol' buttsecks wants to tout off about he's doing more at home protecting our freedoms by being a good little citizen here at home than some soldier fighting overseas, I got news for him anyone else like him. What happened on election day? Don't we have a duty as citizens to make sure we elect people into office who won't throw our soldiers into a quagmire? Where are these representatives, senators and president that would have stopped us from our fate in Iraq? If we, collectively as citizens, are doing so much more at home protecting our freedoms than some soldier sitting in a sandbox, when why aren't we electing officials to who will keep soldiers, like my husband, from having to go to war?

I know who I voted for with clear conscience. I can tell you this. It isn't for anyone who is currently sitting in White House or is sitting in Congress (save one person I did vote for).

So, get up in arms about the President, politicians and anyone else you can think of and their lies. It's all good to talk smack about something but it is entirely a different story when you have to do something about it. Most people are full of hot air. They talk and that's about it.

Bravo to the men and women in our armed services calling for full and accurate reporting!

When will the lawyers allow the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos to be released?
When will the Defense Department allow accurate civilian casualty counts to be reported?
When will the administration allow photographs of bodies coming home to Dover Airforce base be released on a consistent basis?

Why does the Commander in Chief hate our troops?

All I want is numbers.

Pretty sure we're getting less oil out of Iraq now, 2 years later, than during sanctions and the oil-for-food stuff.

Come on, I want my blood for oil!

I keep hearing different stories that can be summarized this way:

Military around green zones "The media are overplaying the bad stuff and aren't showing the progress we're doing here."

Military around the hot zones "The media aren't showing how bad it really is out here."

I applaud them all. Now lets give them an exit strategy.