Trip to Iraq - Not offensive enough I guess

[foildad]

People like you.

Nice comeback. Did you learn that one from Rush or Sean?

[xcrunner]

But what gets your panties in a wad? When someone has the audacity to show American corpses coming home in flag covered coffins. Oh yeah, your embeded reporters couldn't publish those photos, could they? Or showing Americans who have lost their limbs and more? That offends you?

Ask yourself why. Are you offended by the carnage or are you just afraid that someone will use it to advance an agenda that is different than yours?

i think, and probably Slim too, that we shouldn't exploit our dead heros coffins to send a political message. that is what angers most of us.

and our embeded reporters do publish these photos. that's how we get them...

[mrbiggs]

thank you for being one of the few on the other side that agrees that the iraqis support us.

Well...I agree that some Iraqis support us. Certainly not all, maybe or maybe not the majority. It's definitely not the most vocal bunch, nor the most influential bunch in terms of directing the militants.

i think a point Slim was alluding to and I should have made earlier is that the media's depiction of the amount of troops dying each day in iraq, while accurate, is exaggerated. remember in the world wars, korea, and vietnam how we had sometimes hundreds and thousands of KIAs a day? we've had under 3000 in 3 and a half years.

The problem is not the pure KIAs, it's the KIAs plus the lack of progress. We conquered Iraq a long time ago (has it been two years already?) and yet our troops are just dying faster and faster. It's not that the death total is that huge, it's that it shows no sign of slowing down or stopping in the near future.

the other thing that i think i talked about in the original post is that we have a volunteer based army. our soldiers know that they may end up dying. if they signed up thinking that their job had nothing to do with death they're (it's harsh, but true) stupid! we need to support our troops and curb the negative exposure they receive.

They signed up voluntarily, but I think it would be better to not kill them than to kill them.

I don't see how death totals are negative exposure.

i think, and probably Slim too, that we shouldn't exploit our dead heros coffins to send a political message. that is what angers most of us.

I agree. However, I don't think that newspapers should be censored from publishing those photos.

I agree that the post was correctly taken down (this, again, I think everyone can agree on), I just disagreed with the statement that the media in general unfairly concentrates on the negative aspects of the war while ignoring the positives.

[TrainingDummy]

I said it before, and I'll say it again...

These colors don't run! Power of Pride! Support our Troops! Freedom isn't Free! God Bless America!

[xcrunner]

The problem is not the pure KIAs, it's the KIAs plus the lack of progress. We conquered Iraq a long time ago (has it been two years already?) and yet our troops are just dying faster and faster. It's not that the death total is that huge, it's that it shows no sign of slowing down or stopping in the near future.

They signed up voluntarily, but I think it would be better to not kill them than to kill them.

I don't see how death totals are negative exposure.

I just disagreed with the statement that the media in general unfairly concentrates on the negative aspects of the war while ignoring the positives.

one of our problems with our arguments is that we have different (local) news stations. i live in a very blue area of my state. the way we get our death totals is something similar to this "today in iraq, another 3 americans have died today adding to the rising death tolls. as these numbers increase, we can only hope that we pull out of iraq. the death of our soldiers is acting negatively on all our troops. as of now, there is no forseeable end to the rising death toll"
you may have heard of Lt. Watada as well. he refused to deploy to iraq on the grounds that it was an "unjust war." well, the media immediately sided with the coward and only reported his side of the story and never once criticized his actions.
from what you (mrbiggs) is saying, it sounds like you have a more balanced source of information. i wish the rest of us did too.

[introspective]

You seem to be assuming that the poster is a fencer. Isn't it curious that the poster joined the board right before making the post? Also that he hasn't posted anything else? I don't believe that this person is a fencer and is just spamming the board, like we see once in a while, spreading this propaganda.

Could be but we can't assume; especially since I have personally fenced men in the army I can't assume otherwise. It's a very touchy assignment for these men and women, as we have long been friends with many people from overseas. I send regards to demonstrate our freedom of speech. His post was no worse than the evening news.

[Army Fencer]

you may have heard of Lt. Watada as well. he refused to deploy to iraq on the grounds that it was an "unjust war." well, the media immediately sided with the coward and only reported his side of the story and never once criticized his actions.

The media probably gave him more attention than he probably deserved. By doing so, they gave legitimacy to his actions. Attention is not the same as content, though.

I listened to NPR's interview of Lt. Watada. I have to say, they made him sound like an idiot and a coward. We're talking NPR, folks.

[Aside: The world is a much different place when people stop knee-jerking and decide to listen and experience the world for themselves.]

[Army Fencer]

Could be but we can't assume; especially since I have personally fenced men in the army I can't assume otherwise.

I have to say that assumption is pretty safe. The individual who posted the message gave no indictation that he or she was a fencer and has chosen not to post any fencing relevant material since that time. Furthermore, we frequently get individuals who give one or two posts that have no relevance to the sport and then fly away never to be heard from again.

We do have fencers in the military, but it is simple minded to believe that anyone who says they're in the military and posts here is a military fencer.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

What is up with you people? The only person who still thinks we're winning in Iraq is Donald Rumsfeld, and he got fired.

What kind do you wear? Thongs might help, plus no panty lines. ^_^

I suddenly got the mental image of Donald Rumsfeld in thongs.

Heck, it might be worth a try - send footage of him clad thusly (with no prior warning) on the Iraqi primetime TV shows, it might shock the viewers into non-action, and thus non-killing. What is there to lose (except DN's self-esteem?)


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[introspective]

You seem to be assuming that the poster is a fencer. Isn't it curious that the poster joined the board right before making the post? Also that he hasn't posted anything else? I don't believe that this person is a fencer and is just spamming the board, like we see once in a while, spreading this propaganda.

You're right, but I also typed a word incorrectly. Take that.

[Soldier]

...they cover and report the "truths of war" accurately.

Hah.

I'm not about to let myself get dragged back into the endless, infernal political bickering of this place, but I just had to respond to this.

And Mr. Biggs, your mention of "only Donald Rumsfeld still thinks we're winning"?


Try talking to some actual military folks sometime, people. The media idiots have no idea what they're talking about, and make money selling bad news.

[Slim]

Hah.

I'm not about to let myself get dragged back into the endless, infernal political bickering of this place, but I just had to respond to this.

And Mr. Biggs, your mention of "only Donald Rumsfeld still thinks we're winning"?


Try talking to some actual military folks sometime, people. The media idiots have no idea what they're talking about, and make money selling bad news.

My comment you quoted was scaractic. Hence the quotes.I agree with you. Most do, but some dont. Check out Michael Yon's blog sometime.

If you restrict access by the media, they scream that they have no access to the "truth" and we're hiding thing...like FoilDad tried to claim. If you go as far as embedding them to provide access, they can do what they want with the images and create their own versions of "truth" a la Michael Moore.

As far as talking to people who have recently served, dont worry. I have. Many.

Question for you since you revived this thread and qoted me....Do you think the original post I blew a gasket over should have been removed?

[mrbiggs]

And Mr. Biggs, your mention of "only Donald Rumsfeld still thinks we're winning"?


Try talking to some actual military folks sometime, people. The media idiots have no idea what they're talking about, and make money selling bad news.

I don't know any military people. All I have to go on is the people on the news, as well as every other politician and a slew of retired generals. Who all say we're losing.

If there are so many military people who think we're winning (other than those who have a political stake in saying we're winning regardless of reality), then they should go on TV and say it. I'm not being sarcastic, I really think that it would suit their cause.

[pigeonmeister]

Your unlikely to get serving officers to criticise the war, but many recently retired soldiers have been stinging in most aspects of the campaign. Soldier has a go at people saying only Rumsfeld thinks your winning. Yet who was it who was most pleased to see him go.....the Military.

Has Soldier been to Iraq? Why does he think he is 'in the loop' whilst sitting in an army barracks? Even if he has been I doubt he could tell me about anything outside the area he was stationed or his daily routine. I'd like a bit more clarrification as to why Soldier believes only the military are in a position to judge perceptions of 'success' in Iraq. Especially as this is a war with political as well as military aims. I'd like him to defend his assertion, without resorting to some macho (and cliched) contempt of civilian opinion. I'm mean we are talking about someone who put M16 as his primary weapon on a fencing forum- have you got your 1000 yard stare yet?

[Slim]

Your unlikely to get serving officers to criticise the war, but many recently retired soldiers have been stinging in most aspects of the campaign. Soldier has a go at people saying only Rumsfeld thinks your winning. Yet who was it who was most pleased to see him go.....the Military.

Has Soldier been to Iraq? Why does he think he is 'in the loop' whilst sitting in an army barracks? Even if he has been I doubt he could tell me about anything outside the area he was stationed or his daily routine. I'd like a bit more clarrification as to why Soldier believes only the military are in a position to judge perceptions of 'success' in Iraq. Especially as this is a war with political as well as military aims. I'd like him to defend his assertion, without resorting to some macho (and cliched) contempt of civilian opinion. I'm mean we are talking about someone who put M16 as his primary weapon on a fencing forum- have you got your 1000 yard stare yet?

Soldier is a lot more qualified to speak about the military perspective than most people here, especially you.

[Slim]

I don't know any military people. All I have to go on is the people on the news, as well as every other politician and a slew of retired generals. Who all say we're losing.

If there are so many military people who think we're winning (other than those who have a political stake in saying we're winning regardless of reality), then they should go on TV and say it. I'm not being sarcastic, I really think that it would suit their cause.

Do you really think that any network you probably watch would give time to soldiers who were not either trying to justify going AWOL or complaining that that their current situation "isn't what my recruiter told me" ?

TV isnt the only source of information. Try starting here if you're interested in non "mainstream" perspectives on the Iraq situation from a soldiers perspective.....

http://michaelyon-online.com/

PM, I suggest you dont go here. It might be too macho for you.

[jBirch]

Has Soldier been to Iraq? Why does he think he is 'in the loop' whilst sitting in an army barracks? Even if he has been I doubt he could tell me about anything outside the area he was stationed or his daily routine. I'd like a bit more clarrification as to why Soldier believes only the military are in a position to judge perceptions of 'success' in Iraq. Especially as this is a war with political as well as military aims. I'd like him to defend his assertion, without resorting to some macho (and cliched) contempt of civilian opinion. I'm mean we are talking about someone who put M16 as his primary weapon on a fencing forum- have you got your 1000 yard stare yet?

PM,

Shut the **** up.

When you have served, you can comment on a soldier's life, either way. Until then, shut up.

James.

[erooMynohtnA]

Soldier is a lot more qualified to speak about the military perspective than most people here, especially you.

Pigeonmeister is a lot more qualified to speak about who's qualified to speak about the military than most people here, especially you. At least, when my views coincide with his.

Anyway, it's not a an issue of who's "qualified." The issue is that Pigeonmeister is correct while Solider is demonstrating typical, happily voluntary ignorance displayed by many people in the military.

Pigeomeister hits upon an often overlooked point, the average serviceman is usually not in a position to tell anyone how countrywide strategies are being implemented. Would you ask the guy flipping the burgers at McDonalds how the McDonalds India campaign is going?

[jBirch]

Pigeonmeister is a lot more qualified to speak about who's qualified to speak about the military than most people here, especially you. At least, when my views coincide with his.

Anyway, it's not a an issue of who's "qualified." The issue is that Pigeonmeister is correct while Solider is demonstrating typical, happily voluntary ignorance displayed by many people in the military.

Pigeomeister hits upon an often overlooked point, the average serviceman is usually not in a position to tell anyone how countrywide strategies are being implemented. Would you ask the guy flipping the burgers at McDonalds how the McDonalds India campaign is going?

erooMynohtnA,

No, but they are in a position to know if the work they are being asked to do is good or not. And they certainly don't deserve to be mocked.

I have no problems with PM rejecting the validity of anyone's claims based on the ideas and thoughts they put forward. But the manner in which he attempted to make his last point was just disgusting. Truly vile. If you replace "soldier" with "black man" and the military specific slurs with racial ones, I'm sure you'd agree.

And I'm sure that the employee of any corporation is likely to know how that corporation perceives itself better then any external entity.

And the point that Soldier was being mocked about isn't about whether the campaign is successful or not, but rather about whether there are military people who think that the military campaign is being successful or not. I have a lot of friends in Iraq and they truly believe that their mission is possible, that they are doing the right things, and that the situation is getting better. They feel like the media, the politicians, the civvies and the Iraqis are the ones dropping the ball, not them.

And when you look at the situation, you'll see that they are right. Or do you doubt that the US military has won nearly every military engagement they've been set at?

James.

[Slim]

Anyway, it's not a an issue of who's "qualified." The issue is that Pigeonmeister is correct while Solider is demonstrating typical, happily voluntary ignorance displayed by many people in the military.

Right. Everyone in the military is a mindless dolt who doesnt know which way is up.

My advice to you is the same as James' to PM. Shut the **** up.