Trip to Iraq - Not offensive enough I guess

[mrbiggs]

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.

Any network I probably watch? I have no idea what you're talking about there, but if you're pulling conservative media conspiracy BS I'll just give you a heads up that I'm not buying it.

TV isn't the only source of information. However, it's my primary source of information, and many American's. Call me crazy, but CNN seems to be doing OK in terms of news.

If there really is information out there (any at all) that indicates that we're not losing the war, whoever has that information should speak up.

Michaelyon online isn't what I'd call unbiased. Their logo is a sole soldier standing in front of a sunrise. Just because there is a website out there that supports your point of view does not mean that it's correct.

P.S. Way to end out with an ad hominem. You're right, however, those who do not share your beleifs tend to be less "macho".

P.P.S. The website sucks in that it takes forever to load. I could have watched nearly all the essential parts of the liberally biased daily news by the time it took the site to fail at uploading the page.

[erooMynohtnA]

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.

I think you're misinterpreting PM's questioning of Solider's military record as impugning the entire military. What slurs were used? Solider's public profile implies he's a cadet at the Air Force Academy. Cadets are not known for their combat experience.

Iraq is not an opaque political entity, throughout which the same level of US control is achieved. The areas your friends are in could very well be getting better. Or they could have the same ignorantly optimistic outlook that many soldiers have. I don't know them. I don't know where they are. I can't say which. Even if things are getting better where they were, there's no reason to believe that Iraq is a macrocosm of their area.

Also, how is the media dropping the ball? Their job is completely independent of US success in Iraq. I can see how civilians or Iraqis could be accused of dropping the ball, but not the media. "Sabotage" I can see as an accusation someone would make, but I disagree with that.

You can win all the battles and still lose the war.

[erooMynohtnA]

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.

I don't know about that. I think I know which way up is.

[Slim]

Any network I probably watch? I have no idea what you're talking about there, but if you're pulling conservative media conspiracy BS I'll just give you a heads up that I'm not buying it.

TV isn't the only source of information. However, it's my primary source of information, and many American's. Call me crazy, but CNN seems to be doing OK in terms of news.

If there really is information out there (any at all) that indicates that we're not losing the war, whoever has that information should speak up.

Michaelyon online isn't what I'd call unbiased. Their logo is a sole soldier standing in front of a sunrise. Just because there is a website out there that supports your point of view does not mean that it's correct.

P.S. Way to end out with an ad hominem. You're right, however, those who do not share your beleifs tend to be less "macho".

P.P.S. The website sucks in that it takes forever to load. I could have watched nearly all the essential parts of the liberally biased daily news by the time it took the site to fail at uploading the page.

If you're content with CNN as your primary source of information, that's your issue. You asked why you're not seeing certain things, so I gave you a source of a non mainstream perspective on things going on over there. I said nothing about bias one way or another.

Liberal, bias, conservative, media conspiricy...blah, blah, blah. Get past it and read a little. You'll find no single source of unbiased coverage of anything. Expend some effort and make up your own mind rather than letting somone else do it for you.

[jBirch]

I don't know about that. I think I know which way up is.

You've served?

James.

[erooMynohtnA]

You are correct, sir. I guess my avatar is a little hard to make out.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...TFTEHPUPPY.jpg

I do love some puppies.

[jBirch]

I think you're misinterpreting PM's questioning of Solider's military record as impugning the entire military. What slurs were used? Solider's public profile implies he's a cadet at the Air Force Academy. Cadets are not known for their combat experience.

The ones about the "1000 yard stare", the "army barracks", and the ones about "macho anti-civvie" comments. It's quite uncalled for.

Iraq is not an opaque political entity, throughout which the same level of US control is achieved. The areas your friends are in could very well be getting better. Or they could have the same ignorantly optimistic outlook that many soldiers have. I don't know them. I don't know where they are. I can't say which. Even if things are getting better where they were, there's no reason to believe that Iraq is a macrocosm of their area.

Absolutely. But it directly refutes the comment that nobody but Rumsfeld in the military believes that the war is being waged successfully. And you can't argue with the assertion that the stories about Iraq that appear on the TV news in the US are not fair and impartial. They seem to be marketed specifically at some segment of the viewership.

Too, when I was in the military, very few civie reporters understood anything about which they were reporting upon. I even had one who asserted in a paper column that modern infantry soldiers never have to go outside and so don't need high tech gear to withstand the elements. She called Gore-Tex "a needlessly expensive luxury item".

Also, how is the media dropping the ball? Their job is completely independent of US success in Iraq. I can see how civilians or Iraqis could be accused of dropping the ball, but not the media. "Sabotage" I can see as an accusation someone would make, but I disagree with that.

The argument is made that the media is actively undermining efforts to stem the insurgency by providing substantially more news of abuse then news of good behaviour. I'd argue that they're right in the assertion simply because good behaviour isn't newsworthy.

You can win all the battles and still lose the war.

Actually, you can't. If you win all the battles, you win the war. The issue is that not all battles are fought with blood and bullets.

James.

[jBirch]

You are correct, sir. I guess my avatar is a little hard to make out.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...TFTEHPUPPY.jpg

Yeah. Sorry, looked like just a brown sweater. You don't find PM's remarks offensive in the grossest manner? I certainly did.

I do love some puppies.

Me too. Especially with Cheerios.

James.

[erooMynohtnA]

Yeah. Sorry, looked like just a brown sweater. You don't find PM's remarks offensive in the grossest manner? I certainly did.

Maybe I have an unusually thick skin, but they really don't strike me as even midly offensive to the military. To Solider, yes, they may be offensive, but not to me or anyone I know. I figure when you start to throw your weight around as being someone in the military, you open yourself to that kind of criticism. I don't see it as an attack on the military using slurs, I see it as an attack on Solider using military jargon.

Had PM said something like jarhead, bulletcatcher, I may have been just a little offended. Had PM declared all soldiers are closet homosexuals and murderers, I probably would have taken issue with that. Maybe the last comment about the 1000 yard stare was a tad insensitive to those who have PTSD.

[mrbiggs]

If you're content with CNN as your primary source of information, that's your issue. You asked why you're not seeing certain things, so I gave you a source of a non mainstream perspective on things going on over there. I said nothing about bias one way or another.

Liberal, bias, conservative, media conspiricy...blah, blah, blah. Get past it and read a little. You'll find no single source of unbiased coverage of anything. Expend some effort and make up your own mind rather than letting somone else do it for you.

I am making up my own mind. I see the information presented (people are dying every day in Iraq, the citizens are splitting into factions, and our army is unable to control them), and come to the conclusion that we aren't doing so well.

I suppose I didn't come to your conclusion, but we're following the same methods here...

Also, since it hasn't been mentioned, I too agree that PM was a tad out of line.

[Slim]

I am making up my own mind. I see the information presented (people are dying every day in Iraq, the citizens are splitting into factions, and our army is unable to control them), and come to the conclusion that we aren't doing so well.

I suppose I didn't come to your conclusion, but we're following the same methods here...

Also, since it hasn't been mentioned, I too agree that PM was a tad out of line.

I've not expressed a conclusion. Personally, I think things are a mess over there and once again, politics f'ed up the mission. But I dont (yet) subscrible the to gloom and doom, stick-a-fork-in-it perception that it's a lost cause.

The military has been sabatoged by the politicans. Once again.

[Slim]

Snip...

Had PM declared all soldiers are closet homosexuals and murderers, I probably would have taken issue with that.

Go back and re-read some of his posts about what he thinks about US soldiers. He pretty much has declared both at one point or another.

[erooMynohtnA]

I don't care enough to, but don't worry. You can be offended for me.

[pigeonmeister]

Get off your high horse James, it doesn't suit you. Slim- I ceased to care about your existence quite some time ago. The point remains, being in the military doesn't give you any more authority to speak about perceptions of success and failure in Iraq. The fact that Soldier didn't actually have any arguments to add to his assertion, backs up my point.

My cousin has done two tours of Iraq and Aghanistan, I have respect for the military. Had Soldier said something like, "I've lost dear friends in Iraq, bare that in mind when your making judgements 1000's of miles away" Then you would not have seen me post anything like what I did...

But he didn't... he basically expressed a position that civilians are incapable of making a judgement on the war in Iraq, reserving that right for anybody who has put on a uniform (probably at any point in their life). That annoyed me, my response obviously stirred something deep in side James. Sorry, but I am only apologising for the offence- not for my position.

[pigeonmeister]

BTW, erooMynohtnA- thanks for the support, you sound like a very reasonable person.

[Inquartata]

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.

Really? All?

I just saw a brief TV piece the other day on how American military forces are going to be posted in some Baghdad area neighborhoods along with Iraqi military forces, rather than patrolling from secure American bases. The CO seemed pretty upbeat to me.

Even in the conventional media, there are occasional stories which break from the constant politically-correct drone of "oh, it was a mistake, we're losing, here's the latest bodycount" which passes for "balanced journalism" these days. If you aren't seeing those stories, perhaps it's because they constitute cognitive dissonance for you.

If you can find me one single issue in human affairs on which "all" of any group says the same thing, I will eat my fencing glove...

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.

See above. However, given the limited ways in which you say that you receive information, recognize that it takes more than a soldier being willing to "say it". It requires a television network to cooperate and carry it. And stories on the aftermath of car-bombings are so much more attractive candidates for display on their limited hours of news coverage.

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.

A) What, more than the Democratic Party?

B) No one loves the boss.

Has Soldier been to Iraq? Why does he think he is 'in the loop' whilst sitting in an army barracks?

Even at that, he's a lot closer to the loop than you are "sitting in your flat" half a world away, dontcha think?

Pigeonmeister is correct while Solider is demonstrating typical, happily voluntary ignorance displayed by many people in the military.

Objection, counsel is assuming facts not in evidence.

Why should we be inclined to accept that judgement of the relative merits of the opinions of two other people?

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.

Indeed. He's rather better placed to know what's what locally, however. And if you get an accretion of such judgements from all over the theater, then...

The bottom line is that all of the information you and I have---from the media, the internet and so on---the soldiery on the ground in Iraq is probably also seeing in this day and age. In addition he has his own experiences. So how could he NOT be in a better position to render judgements?

The point remains, being in the military doesn't give you any more authority to speak about perceptions of success and failure in Iraq.

How not?

Do you know any nonfencers who are as authoritative on the intricacies of fencing as actual fencers?

[jBirch]

Get off your high horse James, it doesn't suit you.

You should try slinging ****e from ground level: it doesn't fly as far.

That annoyed me, my response obviously stirred something deep in side James. Sorry, but I am only apologising for the offence- not for my position.

Apology accepted. I would never ask you to change your opinion, just the manner in which you stated it.

Having been on the other side of the military camera, I do know that while the view is limited, it is way clearer then through the lens and without the context in which the actions take place fully understood. Some actions (like the treatment of prisoners we saw) are so offensive, that the context doesn't matter. But the daily interactions between soldiers, the enemy and the innocent (or not!) by-standers is often missed in the 30-second sound bite.

You see a single soldier, shooting an unarmed civilian in the back. I see a man who dropped his gun after the ambush went squirrelly running for the RPG and not making it. It's the "media bias" the military complains about, but it's really the "viewer bias" in seeing the action and not having enough empathy for the "villain" to understand the moral ambiguity inherent in ANY action with guns. The "civvie" perspective is to view ALL killing as murder, ALL door actions as break & enter, ALL questioning as torture and to project upon people that volunteer for military service an enjoyment of death and destruction.

It's frustrating to get people to understand the fact that all freedom and peace is derived from a gun.

Who would you kill for peace? How many would you kill for your mother's freedom?

James.

[mrbiggs]

Really? All?

I just saw a brief TV piece the other day on how American military forces are going to be posted in some Baghdad area neighborhoods along with Iraqi military forces, rather than patrolling from secure American bases. The CO seemed pretty upbeat to me.

Even in the conventional media, there are occasional stories which break from the constant politically-correct drone of "oh, it was a mistake, we're losing, here's the latest bodycount" which passes for "balanced journalism" these days. If you aren't seeing those stories, perhaps it's because they constitute cognitive dissonance for you.

If you can find me one single issue in human affairs on which "all" of any group says the same thing, I will eat my fencing glove...

You know I did not mean that every politician from every level of the United States government agrees; as you said they don't agree on anything. I meant that nearly all of the people who know what's going on in Iraq who don't have a stake in saying that we're winning the war.

Even Bush recently described the situation in Iraq as "unacceptable," despite having a vested interest in having a successful war, and the fact that it signified a 180 for his Iraq policy.

Unfortunately, "balanced journalism" usually means reporting what's actually going on, or true. Right now, there are soldiers dying occaisionally and no visible progress against the insurgents, while the Iraqis are breaking into smaller and more violent fragments. Are they supposed to say that this is a success?

See above. However, given the limited ways in which you say that you receive information, recognize that it takes more than a soldier being willing to "say it". It requires a television network to cooperate and carry it. And stories on the aftermath of car-bombings are so much more attractive candidates for display on their limited hours of news coverage.

Again we get to the news agencies who are trying to dodge the news. I just don't believe that this is true.

You can say that literally anything is true, then claim that news agencies aren't willing to cover it and you have to go to underground websites and such to get the real information.

I could cite hundreds of websites saying that the U.S. government is storing UFOs and hiding frozen alien bodies. And I could claim that the mainstream media thinks that no one wants to hear about it. That doesn't make it true.

[Interrupter]

military actions. I have to disagree a bit with some of this. Civilians of course can't have the same exact experience as a person enlisted in the military. It's impossible. However,many many civilians are targeted by people who are mad at the world. Those are the guys who went woods-crazy a couple of decades ago and we were never able to help them.

In many instances civilians run many of the same risks as military personnel, but not to the same intensity. There are literally thousands of people living in all parts of the world that come from different countries, in other words, before all of this happened, in the middle east, there were probably ten thousand civilians from various other countries living in the middle east - in Israel, there were thousands of people living there from other countries; in the US, we have thousands of people living here from all over the world. Yet, basically, here in the our nation a person can sit next to me on public transportation and feel pretty safe that I won't attack or kidnap him and keep his family up all night. It's a pretty safe bet. It hasn't even crossed my mind to like, go up to a few guys from the middle east and like, grab them and toss them in my car. In fact I really like those people....speak nicely with them, like - hi, how are you, hope you are well, don't worry that kind of thing. When we first entered into the nine-eleven thing- you could have heard a pin drop when a middle eastern guy got onto a bus - everyone was so pissed off, I thought some of the women were even going to get up and go into a throddle mode. I had to spend alot of energy getting people to chill out.

The question remains, after the next election - how will all of us live together again????

Do we think it will be Hilary? Or Obama?

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE=jBirch;520870]

Apology accepted. I would never ask you to change your opinion, just the manner in which you stated it.

Thank you, I can kind of see how my post could have come across badly, there was some unneccessary phrasing. It was post written in haste. Believe it or not, underneath my cloak of hostility to many aspects of US (and UK) foreign policy, lies a polite Brit who would not want to genuinly offend Americans, Canadians or anyone else (maybe sabreurs or Chelsea fans)

But to return to the debate in a more measured manner. Inq used the fencing analogy- would you ask a non fencer to help adjust your lunge? Clearly not, I would never, in the same vein, profess a greater understanding of what it is like to man a check point in Baghdad or perform a dawn raid on an insurgent stronghold. I would not presume to know the complexities of identifying friend or foe, I would not pre-judge morale amongst the troops.

But, to return to the fencing anology; the fact remains that key decisions about the overall state of British or American Fencing is based upon perceptions of success and failure that result in more or less funding by state funded bodies such as Sport England (or the US equivalent). These bodies are not fencers yet they are the ones judging perceptions of success.

The military are ultimately judged by civilians. Their missions are designated by civilans.

This war (and accompanying vision of a democratising domino effect) was conceived laregly by neo-conservatives, it was thus conceived by academics. A rejection of the academic observations and thought processes that underlied the aims of this group carries an implicit judgement as to the viability of the mission BEFORE as well as during the actual conflict. I have made the judgement that the mission was not viable because I find the observations underpinning its aims as unfounded and contrary to my understanding of the region.

I don't believe that the US military can impose democracy with predictable effects. I didn't believe that the military and political aims of the mission could be reconciled. I didn't believe in the initial judgements of the political landcape of the region. I didn't believe that the disparate aims of Shia, Sunni and Kurd could be moulded into a unified secular Iraq, or that the Shia would not want to monopolise power. I didn't believe that enough of the variables could be predicted with a certainty that justified the risks attached. I thought that planning was negligent in contemplation of the challengers, I don't believe the challengers were made clear to the public. I didn't believe domestic support could be sustained because of this. I didn't believe that Iran or Syria's response could be controlled. I thought that the war would erode the support America recieved after 9/11. I didn't think it would help Arab-Israeli peace or nuclear proliferation. I thought that Afghanistan had to be stabilised first.

Ultmately I don't see, though am willing to discuss, why Soldier is in a better position to make these judgements. And it is these judgements that underpin my rejection of the missions viability. I still believe a soldiers account lacks perspective and I am not convinced that they have the time on tour (as Inq says) to understand how the War began (not how it is fought) any better than me. I am still unaware that Soldier has even been to Iraq.

Having been on the other side of the military camera, I do know that while the view is limited, it is way clearer then through the lens and without the context in which the actions take place fully understood

I am not primarily interested in moral distinctions in individual actions- I accept they are cloudy and I accept the media are largely incapable of contextualising some of the situations you have described. I don't believe these acts have a huge impact on the viability of a mission.

But the main thrust of your argument (and source of offense) seems to relate to your statement: "It's frustrating to get people to understand the fact that all freedom and peace is derived from a gun."

Whilst it is tempting to cite Gandhi, MLK or Mandela, in general I accept this statement- all three stood as barriers to violence, but the threat of violence was an implicit source of their strength.

But this seems an observation wildly unrelated to a judgement as to whether Iraq was a good idea, or going to improve from its almost totaly accepted state of chaos.

Who would you kill for peace? How many would you kill for your mother's freedom?

That's moral proposition that it unrelated to the situation in Iraq. I would go one on one with a Grizzly to save my family, but only if I felt my family was in mortal danger. It is clear in my mind that their freedom was not at stake in this war.