|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
The Associated Press has accused the White House of "staging" a teleconference with Troops in Iraq. Sgt. Ron Long was one of the soldiers in the “staged” conference, and he’s speaking out about the AP's negative spin: Speaking with President Bush. ( Yesterday, I was chosen to be among a small group of soldiers assigned to the 42ID’s Task Force Liberty that would speak to President Bush, our Commander-in-Chief. The interview went well, but I would like to respond to what most of the mass-media has dubbed as, “A Staged Event.”
First of all, we were told that we would be speaking with the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, so I believe that it would have been totally irresponsible for us NOT to prepare some ideas, facts or comments that we wanted to share with the President.
We were given an idea as to what topics he may discuss with us, but it’s the President of the United States; He will choose which way his conversation with us may go.
We practiced passing the microphone around to one another, so we wouldn’t choke someone on live TV. We had an idea as to who we thought should answer what types of questions, unless President Bush called on one of us specifically.
President Bush told us, during his closing, that the American people were behind us. I know that we are fighting here, not only to preserve our own freedoms, but to establish those same freedoms for the people of Iraq. It makes my stomach ache to think that we are helping to preserve free speech in the US, while the media uses that freedom to try to RIP DOWN the President and our morale, as US Soldiers. They seem to be enjoying the fact that they are tearing the country apart. Worthless!
The question I was most asked while I was home on leave in June was, “So...What’s REALLY going on over there?” Does that not tell you something?! Who has confidence in the media to tell the WHOLE STORY? It’s like they WANT this to turn into another Vietnam. I hate to break it to them, but it’s not.
Tomorrow morning, the Iraqi people will vote on their constitution. The success of our mission or the mission of the Iraqi security forces is not defined by the outcome of that vote. If the people of Iraq vote this constitution down, that only means that the FREE, DEMOCRATIC PROCESS is at work in Iraq. They are learning to voice their opinions in the polling stations, not through violence. If it is voted down, they will have the chance to draft an even better version; One that may better serve the people of Iraq. This is up to them. It is history in the making and I will not let the media or anyone else (who has not spent more than two weeks here) tell me otherwise. I have been here for almost a year. I have seen the progress made in so many ways from January’s elections to this referendum. Don’t tell me what the Iraqi people can or can’t do. They will tell you with their VOTES!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
The video was all over the news. It was completely fucking staged.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
(Yesterday, I was chosen to be among a small group of soldiers assigned to the 42ID’s Task Force Liberty that would speak to President Bush, our Commander-in-Chief. The interview went well, but I would like to respond to what most of the mass-media has dubbed as, “A Staged Event.”
by definition if its prearranged, then its staged.
Quote:
First of all, we were told that we would be speaking with the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, President Bush,
that's a really redundant thing to say.
Quote:
We were given an idea as to what topics he may discuss with us, but it’s the President of the United States; He will choose which way his conversation with us may go.
totally whipped 
quote] We practiced passing the microphone around to one another, so we wouldn’t choke someone on live TV.
was that really a risk? what the hell kind of microphones are these guys using?
Quote:
President Bush told us, during his closing, that the American people were behind us.
he then added "a very small percentage sure."
Quote:
I know that we are fighting here, not only to preserve our own freedoms, but to establish those same freedoms for the people of Iraq. It makes my stomach ache to think that we are helping to preserve free speech in the US, while the media uses that freedom to try to RIP DOWN the President and our morale, as US Soldiers. They seem to be enjoying the fact that they are tearing the country apart. Worthless!
typical neocon argument "free speech should not be used to criticize the U.S."
of course they seem to forget that the founding fathers ripped into each other with all sorts of insults and accusations. i don't get why neocons think the country is so frail and fragile that it can't stand criticism for its mistakes and the mistakes of the leaders.
Quote:
The question I was most asked while I was home on leave in June was, “So...What’s REALLY going on over there?” Does that not tell you something?! Who has confidence in the media to tell the WHOLE STORY? It’s like they WANT this to turn into another Vietnam. I hate to break it to them, but it’s not.
vietnam was an upopular war with questionable motives that ruined a president.
hmm....sounds familiar.
Quote:
It is history in the making and I will not let the media or anyone else (who has not spent more than two weeks here) tell me otherwise. I have been here for almost a year. I have seen the progress made in so many ways from January’s elections to this referendum. Don’t tell me what the Iraqi people can or can’t do. They will tell you with their VOTES!
lets see what he has to say once he's out of the army. most soldiers won't say anything negative about their bosses until they finish their tour when suddenly they say all the bad shit they went through.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
typical neocon argument "free speech should not be used to criticize the U.S."
of course they seem to forget that the founding fathers ripped into each other with all sorts of insults and accusations. i don't get why neocons think the country is so frail and fragile (didn't you earlier critisise the troops for making a redundant statement?) that it can't stand criticism for its mistakes and the mistakes of the leaders.
Typical leftist argument "free speech should not be used to critisize what we say whenn we enjoy free speech" Of course they seem to forget that free speech goes both ways. Not only are you free to say stupid things, but we are free to point out the inherant stupididty of what you say. I don't get whhy leftists think thier opinions are so frail and fragile that it can't stand up to the exposure of it's inconsistancies and inherant illogic.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
typical neocon argument "free speech should not be used to criticize the U.S."
of course they seem to forget that the founding fathers ripped into each other with all sorts of insults and accusations. i don't get why neocons think the country is so frail and fragile (didn't you earlier critisise the troops for making a redundant statement?) that it can't stand criticism for its mistakes and the mistakes of the leaders.
Typical leftist argument "free speech should not be used to critisize what we say whenn we enjoy free speech" Of course they seem to forget that free speech goes both ways. Not only are you free to say stupid things, but we are free to point out the inherant stupididty of what you say. I don't get whhy leftists think thier opinions are so frail and fragile that it can't stand up to the exposure of it's inconsistancies and inherant illogic.
ah, but i didn't say he was violating free speech in saying it. i was disagreeing with him because i find his views offensive and contradictory to the intentions of the founding fathers.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Ray, your argument only works if you assume:
The soldier is a liar
The soldier is a such a dedicated liar that he set up a blog in which to lie.
And you wonder why "your" side gets tarred with that "you don't support the troops" charge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 |
Has anyone considered that perhaps soldiers are not the best public speakers in the world and needed to practice something so that they would sound halfway intelligent? Most people who go to question and answer seminars prepare answers to say. Improvisation is not the best way to get a good answer out of someone.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Sgt Ron Long, soldier in Iraq, from quoted article:
President Bush told us, during his closing, that the American people were behind us. I know that we are fighting here, not only to preserve our own freedoms, but to establish those same freedoms for the people of Iraq.
It makes my stomach ache to think that we are helping to preserve free speech in the US, while the media uses that freedom to try to RIP DOWN the President and our morale, as US Soldiers. They seem to be enjoying the fact that they are tearing the country apart.
Yes. Exactly.
Quote:
Sgt Ron Long, soldier in Iraq, from quoted article:
The question I was most asked while I was home on leave in June was, "So...What's REALLY going on over there?"
Does that not tell you something?!
Who has confidence in the media to tell the WHOLE STORY?
It's like they WANT this to turn into another Vietnam.
I hate to break it to them, but it's not.
Yes. Exactly.
Quote:
Sgt Ron Long, soldier in Iraq, from quoted article:
Tomorrow morning, the Iraqi people will vote on their constitution. The success of our mission or the mission of the Iraqi security forces is not defined by the outcome of that vote. If the people of Iraq vote this constitution down, that only means that the FREE, DEMOCRATIC PROCESS is at work in Iraq.
They are learning to voice their opinions in the polling stations, not through violence.
If it is voted down, they will have the chance to draft an even better version; One that may better serve the people of Iraq.
This is up to them. It is history in the making and I will not let the media or anyone else (who has not spent more than two weeks here) tell me otherwise.
I have been here for almost a year. I have seen the progress made in so many ways from January's elections to this referendum.
Don't tell me what the Iraqi people can or can't do. They will tell you with their VOTES!
Yes. Exactly.
I'll say it again:
If during World War II this country were subject to the same liberal sympathy for the enemy that exists now, the same outright liberal disinformation, the same divisive partisan attacks on our leaders at every turn, the same calls to bring our troops home with every minor setback and bombing, then we would have lost World War II.
I'll leave the spoiled, naive and deeply bitter liberals here to go back to their petulant whining, exaggerations and conspiracy theories now.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
I'll leave the spoiled, naive and deeply bitter liberals here to go back to their petulant whining, exaggerations and conspiracy theories now.
Now there's a catch phrase to live by if ever I saw one!
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
*sigh*
DTWB--
The fact that America wasn't "subject to the same liberal sympathy for the enemy" speaks more to the motives and methods of the President and his administration then to the mood of the country. WWII is the model for a "just war", one where the morals and ethics allegedly practiced by America are enforced. Although I don't believe the President to in Iraq for the same reasons as Vietnam, the lack of a clear objective is telling.
If Iraq decides they don't want democracy--which wouldn't be surprising given that no Muslim-majority nation embraces democracy--then this will have been a failure of sorts. A failure in the sense that the troops that died are enforcing a political agenda--not a bad thing since all wars enforce political agendas. But the President should've received more realistic advice on the chances of converting Iraq into a neo-democracy. And that's why this whole thing, for me, gets so much of my attention.
If freeing the Iraqi people becomes the impetus for the war, then several points must be made: the entrance/exit strategy of the military has been poorly planned. The administration greatly underestimated the Iraqi people's desire to be free. The Koran is a political text, with explicit, and frankly anti-democratic sentiments that make the implementation of Western-style "freedoms" very difficult. So the primary objectives of the occupation have been blunted by the teachings of their holy book and their holy men.
Your vitrolic call for unity is silly. America was built on terrorism and free speech, and to try to control the latter smacks of facsism. Voltaire's assertion that "I may disagree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it" is essential to the Constitution: for all your thinly veiled hatemongering regarding homosexuals, I do not agree with one word you say, but would never insist or suggest that you be silenced. Free speech with the fewest number of restrictions is the only way to insure the health of our democratic enterprise.
Additionally, one could take the sentiments of "never speak out against the President" to preserve a host of evils that have plagued our country: slavery, women's rights, immigrants rights, the inherent wrong of Vietnam, and so on. If people can't use their freedoms to speak out against what they believe to be injustices of the day, then you are calling for a fascist state where control is more important than freedom. But that wouldn't be America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
The fact that America wasn't "subject to the same liberal sympathy for the enemy" speaks more to the motives and methods of the President and his administration then to the mood of the country.
I would respectfully disagree.
Even before the war began you had:
1. People on the far left saying the terrorists were justified, that we were no better than they, etc.
2. The media going out of its way to downplay the cause and effect between extreme Islam and the reason for 9/11.
3. The antiwar crowd and the European leadership (which influenced some members of the U.S. community), both of which, at the time, believed that Saddam had the WMDs but thought that sanctions and inspections would work (while either breaking the sanctions and/or alternatively claiming the sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people).
You also had, and have, people obsessing over the rights of the terrorists, calling Bush a "dictator" and a "nazi," all of which was going on even before the war.
So I would, therefore, conclude it has less to do with Bush's alleged mishandling of the war itself and more with a general sense of political correctness, for lack of better term, that has pervaded much of the left in this country for at least twenty year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Press Outraged Over Staged Flagraising
March 3rd, 1945
IWO JIMA (Routers) Controversy has erupted among the press corps in the last few days as news has spread that the now-famous picture of the "victorious" flag raising over Iwo Jima a couple weeks ago was staged. Many believe that, as the huge number of casualties mounted in the ill-fated and pointless invasion of this tiny island, the Roosevelt administration, desperate for a bit of pro-war propaganda, arranged to have the photo taken for dissemination to the world's news services.
It has been revealed that the picture was actually of a "recreation" of an earlier flag raising of a much smaller flag, though even that event has now been cast into doubt by the apparent attempt to mislead the press.
There is abundant evidence that the picture was not only unspontaneous, but orchestrated on orders from higher ups.
"None of the men in the picture actually carried the flag to the top," one reporter noted. "It was brought up by a lieutenant in charge, probably at White House orders." In addition, none of the men in the picture had even been injured in the fighting to that point.
The latest propaganda ploy from the administration comes in the midst of doubts about the war strategy, with many thinking this latest bloody adventure particularly misguided. Several thousand Marines have died already in the invasion, and many more have been injured, many losing limbs. Moreover, despite the "victory" implied by the "flag raising," the brave Japanese continue to resist in caves dug deep into the volcanic rock of the doughty little island, with continuing "Allied" casualties. One Republican staffer on the Hill declared that it was Roosevelt's attempt to prematurely declare "major combat operations over," when it was clear that the Japanese were going to continue to fight on to the last man.
Beyond the distaste at what now seems an obvious public-relations ploy, some military strategists argue that the Iwo Jima invasion wasn't worth the cost in resources and blood, or even necessary at all, since the only reason the island is desired is as an auxiliary air base for emergency landings of "Allied" bombers attacking the Japanese homeland.
Some of the anti-war groups are particularly outraged. "We've killed tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers, and several thousand of our own, just so we can save the lives of a few American air crews while they kill hundreds of thousands of helpless Japanese civilians," read a press release from one of the more prominent groups. It continued, "Now we find the Roosevelt administration attempting to cover up its criminal actions by staging events meant to hide the fact that we're losing this cruel war, with massive casualties on all sides."
The White House, of course, attempts to defend its actions. A spokesman points out that no claims have been made that fighting was over, and that the photo was a depiction of a real event that had occurred shortly before, but not been captured by the cameras. He also noted that Mount Suribachi was in fact taken that day, and had not been relinquished since.
This does not satisfy critics in the press or the anti-war movement, however.
"It's important to demonstrate the perfidy and mendacity of this administration now," said one leading spokesman, "before it becomes fixed in the mind of the public as an American 'victory,' or something to be admired and emulated in the future. If we don't set the record straight now, who knows how history will record it? For all we know, they'll decide to put up a bronze statue in Arlington to commemorate it, or something."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 |
G-man is a G-enius. That is exactly what is going on today and it never would have gone on then.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Eeeew, sorry Bush is no Roosevelt. The Iraq war is not WW2. My grandmother who was busy welding battleships together during WW2 knows the difference.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
A few points:
1. There are people on the right who believe hurricanes are punishing homosexuals and carrying out the will of God. Both sides have their fringe groups, and neither side is either interesting or remotely reputable.
2. This is an excellent observation, G-Man. Of course, when the media does say something, people ignore unless it fits into their political agenda. When posters here who strongly identify with political parties post here, they tend to ignore that which isn't factual or at the least highly dubious in their own sources while simultaneously vilifying the other side.
3. Another excellent observation. One would have to be blind to not see that Saddam would remain in power for as long as the UN negotiated with him. There is also a school of thought that suggests Saddam hadn't possessed significant amounts of WMD's (if at all) for quite some time. Like many 20th century dictators, he knew that he could indiscriminately kill non-whites without serious blowback from the Western community.
Your point about protecting the rights of terrorists is an important one, I think. If we are to claim that we are a democracy, as the world's hegemon we are expected to follow our own rules. It stands to reason that regardless of the magnitude of the act--i.e. 9/11--that the method of prosecution must somehow resemble the style of freedom we often pay other countries to observe. If we conduct ourselves in a manner inconsistent with our declarations to the UN and so forth, why shouldn't people call attention to that? I don't mean that to say that the insurgents at Camp X-Ray should get cable TV or lamb at dinner. But when we as Americans spend so much time rejecting the barbarism of the Middle East, it makes sense to implement a system of justice consistent with our values to them that democracy works.
I would conclude that Bush's primary reasons for Iraq War II shouldn't have been disguised, and that a bit of the political heat he's taking for it has to do with unclear and/or unrealistic mission goals. People on the right disagree with the war: it isn't an drawn strictly to party lines. The political correctness you speak of isn't attached to people's feelings, but their lives. War is about achieving goals, and playing the politcal chess with the military is often a dangerous balancing game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 |
Even in chess, you need to have a clear goal in mind before you move a piece. Iraq was a blunder that Bobby Fisher could have never afforded to make.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
The soldier is a liar
did I say he was lying? maybe i'm confusing this thread with the other thousand pieces of drivel on this board. its hard to keep it all straight.
my main problems was that he questioned other's uses of freedom of speech and i also pointed out that a man in the army would be less likely to speak out against his superiors (and a lot of ex-soldiers do).
Quote:
The soldier is a such a dedicated liar that he set up a blog in which to lie.
blogs are easy to create, you don't have to ask god for one atop the highest mountain.
Quote:
And you wonder why "your" side gets tarred with that "you don't support the troops" charge.
i never wonder why that is. its obvious. because the rightwing use that as a shield making it harder to question the war by implying that any criticism is support for terrorism.
that sounds like the nazis more than the constitution. but i guess you'd be right at home in nazi germany. i've seen how you handle threads started by people of jewish descent.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
did I say he was lying?
Sgt. Long set forth a narrative of what he said happened at the teleconference.
You disputed his account of the teleconference and concluded your remarks with "lets see what he has to say once he's out of the army. most soldiers won't say anything negative about their bosses until they finish their tour."
Clearly, therefore, you are calling Sgt. Long a liar.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
typical neocon argument "free speech should not be used to criticize the U.S."
of course they seem to forget that the founding fathers ripped into each other with all sorts of insults and accusations. i don't get why neocons think the country is so frail and fragile (didn't you earlier critisise the troops for making a redundant statement?) that it can't stand criticism for its mistakes and the mistakes of the leaders.
Typical leftist argument "free speech should not be used to critisize what we say whenn we enjoy free speech" Of course they seem to forget that free speech goes both ways. Not only are you free to say stupid things, but we are free to point out the inherant stupididty of what you say. I don't get whhy leftists think thier opinions are so frail and fragile that it can't stand up to the exposure of it's inconsistancies and inherant illogic.
ah, but i didn't say he was violating free speech in saying it. i was disagreeing with him because i find his views offensive and contradictory to the intentions of the founding fathers.
ah, but I wasn't saying you were saying he was violating free speach. Although if we wasn't calling for the infringement of others free speach then how exactly was he contradicting the founding fathers?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
lets see what [this soldier] has to say once he's out of the army. most soldiers won't say anything negative about their bosses until they finish their tour when suddenly they say all the bad shit they went through.
Rather than engage in partisan speculation, Mark Sappenfield, a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor, had an ingenious idea: Why not interview actual servicemen who fought in Iraq?
Cpl. Stan Mayer has seen the worst of war. In the leaves of his photo album, there are casual memorials to the cost of the Iraq conflict--candid portraits of friends who never came home and graphic pictures of how insurgent bombs have shredded steel and bone.
Yet the Iraq of Corporal Mayer's memory is not solely a place of death and loss. It is also a place of hope. It is the hope of the town of Hit, which he saw transform from an insurgent stronghold to a place where kids played on Marine trucks. It is the hope of villagers who whispered where roadside bombs were hidden. But most of all, it is the hope he saw in a young Iraqi girl who loved pens and Oreo cookies.
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...as perceptions about Iraq have neared a tipping point in Congress, some soldiers and marines worry that their own stories are being lost in the cacophony of terror and fear. They acknowledge that their experience is just that - one person's experience in one corner of a war-torn country. Yet amid the terrible scenes of reckless hate and lives lost, many members of one of the hardest-hit units insist that they saw at least the spark of progress.
"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."
It is the simplest measure of success, but for the marine, soldier, or sailor, it may be the only measure of success. In a business where life and death rest on instinctive adherence to thoroughly ingrained lessons, accomplishment is ticked off in a list of orders followed and tasks completed. And by virtually any measure, America's servicemen and women are accomplishing the day-to-day tasks set before them.
...soldiers clearly feel that important elements are being left out of the media's overall verdict. On this day, a group of Navy medics gather around a table in the Cleveland-area headquarters of the 3/25 - a Marine reserve unit that has converted a low-slung school of pale brick and linoleum tile into its spectacularly red-and-gold offices.
Their conversation could be a road map of the kind of stories that military folks say the mainstream media are missing. One colleague made prosthetics for an Iraqi whose hand and foot had been cut off by insurgents. When other members of the unit were sweeping areas for bombs, the medics made a practice of holding impromptu infant clinics on the side of the road.
They remember one Iraqi man who could not hide his joy at the marvel of an electric razor. And at the end of the 3/25's tour, a member of the Iraqi Army said: "Marines are not friends; marines are brothers," says Lt. Richard Malmstrom, the battalion's chaplain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
I bet they'd all howl and moan when we declare victory - wait, we already have - and order the withdrawl of all troops.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
A very interesting article, G-Man. One thing that would be at odds would be using a nonpartisan part of the government to somehow comment on the political aims of government?
As mentioned previously in another thread, these things don't happen in a vaccuum. Nationbuilding can have honorable ends with disasterous consequences. As such, I doubt that the soldiers' stories would have much impact. People carry their political biases with them, and to ask them to set aside that bias to listen to those from the frontline may be a bit unrealistic.
...you tell stories, we tell lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
lets see what [this soldier] has to say once he's out of the army. most soldiers won't say anything negative about their bosses until they finish their tour when suddenly they say all the bad shit they went through.
Rather than engage in partisan speculation, Mark Sappenfield, a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor, had an ingenious idea: Why not interview actual servicemen who fought in Iraq?
Cpl. Stan Mayer has seen the worst of war. In the leaves of his photo album, there are casual memorials to the cost of the Iraq conflict--candid portraits of friends who never came home and graphic pictures of how insurgent bombs have shredded steel and bone.
Yet the Iraq of Corporal Mayer's memory is not solely a place of death and loss. It is also a place of hope. It is the hope of the town of Hit, which he saw transform from an insurgent stronghold to a place where kids played on Marine trucks. It is the hope of villagers who whispered where roadside bombs were hidden. But most of all, it is the hope he saw in a young Iraqi girl who loved pens and Oreo cookies.
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...as perceptions about Iraq have neared a tipping point in Congress, some soldiers and marines worry that their own stories are being lost in the cacophony of terror and fear. They acknowledge that their experience is just that - one person's experience in one corner of a war-torn country. Yet amid the terrible scenes of reckless hate and lives lost, many members of one of the hardest-hit units insist that they saw at least the spark of progress.
"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."
It is the simplest measure of success, but for the marine, soldier, or sailor, it may be the only measure of success. In a business where life and death rest on instinctive adherence to thoroughly ingrained lessons, accomplishment is ticked off in a list of orders followed and tasks completed. And by virtually any measure, America's servicemen and women are accomplishing the day-to-day tasks set before them.
...soldiers clearly feel that important elements are being left out of the media's overall verdict. On this day, a group of Navy medics gather around a table in the Cleveland-area headquarters of the 3/25 - a Marine reserve unit that has converted a low-slung school of pale brick and linoleum tile into its spectacularly red-and-gold offices.
Their conversation could be a road map of the kind of stories that military folks say the mainstream media are missing. One colleague made prosthetics for an Iraqi whose hand and foot had been cut off by insurgents. When other members of the unit were sweeping areas for bombs, the medics made a practice of holding impromptu infant clinics on the side of the road.
They remember one Iraqi man who could not hide his joy at the marvel of an electric razor. And at the end of the 3/25's tour, a member of the Iraqi Army said: "Marines are not friends; marines are brothers," says Lt. Richard Malmstrom, the battalion's chaplain.
The Christian Science Monitor?
Give me a better source than that and I'll read and consider it.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Translation: you were caught again spewing unsubstantiated b.s. and now you're avoding admitting that by unjustly attacking the evidence.
In any event, about The Christian Science Monitor
During its 95-year history, The Monitor journalism has earned seven Pulitzer Prizes and hundreds of other awards. With 18 bureaus worldwide, The Mo nitor covers major news events as well as overlooked stories from every corner of the globe.
The Monitor's website, csmonitor.com, was named "Best Overall U.S. Newspaper Online Service" in its circulation bracket by Editor and Publisher magazine in 2000 and again in 2001.
And this from Wikipedia
The Monitor is widely read by CIA and other intelligence agency analysts because of the newspaper's attention to accuracy and global perspective. Project Censored noted that the Monitor often publishes factual articles discussing topics under-represented or absent from the mainstream mass media.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
G-Man's right, r3x. Christian Science Monitor's been uber-reliable for many moons now.
...you tell stories, we tell lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
I think Ray's ignoreing it because it has the word "Christian" in the title. I wonder if he realises that the CSM leans heavily to the left and was opposed to the military actions in Iraq. Acctually I don't wonder..... I allready know. He's a one trick pony.
Ray, feel free to use the term "One trick pony" in your profile. Perhaps in your sig or user title.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Everybody be cool. Ray, take it down a notch or three and at least allow for the possibility that the soldiers might believe in what they're doing. Magicjay... see above. Maybe take it down an additional notch. WBAM, stick to the topic - Ray will be Ray and you're not gonna help matters by taking potshots. G-Man... nice article. Theo - youse a bad mutha fucka. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
WBAM, stick to the topic
I think pointing out that the sourse for this honest look at the opinions of the troops acctually comes from an anti-war rag is ON topic.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
G-Man's right, r3x. Christian Science Monitor's been uber-reliable for many moons now.
but they don't celebrate birthdays.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
theory9 said:
G-Man's right, r3x. Christian Science Monitor's been uber-reliable for many moons now.
but they don't celebrate birthdays.
I think you're thinking about the Jahovas Whitneses.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
I remember watching the video of that teleconference. Very. bad. acting. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
theory9 said:
G-Man's right, r3x. Christian Science Monitor's been uber-reliable for many moons now.
but they don't celebrate birthdays.
I think you're thinking about the Jahovas Whitneses.
Jehova starts with an "i."
I'm willing to believe the Christian Science Monitor, however there are two things that the story doesn't highlight:
1. Soldiers are people, and therefore have their own political beliefs. I have no doubt that there are soldiers who love and support the war and those who don't. Fact is their opinion doesn't really affect things that much. They're given a job and they do it, they have nothing to do with the politics.
2. It'd be idiotic for an active soldier to insult the President or the Army. Career Suicide.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
You're changing the "rules of the debate" again to suit your own purpose and hoping no one notices.
You originally called the soldiers who were still in Iraq liars because they were still over there. You indicated that, when they got home, they would probably say something critical of the war.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
lets see what [this soldier] has to say once he's out of the army. most soldiers won't say anything negative about their bosses until they finish their tour when suddenly they say all the bad shit they went through.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I'm more open to hearing from soldiers after they're back and...Once they're back they can see things more objectively. Then if they say they believe in what they did, and the war itself, I hold it with more credence.
In response, I posted the CSM article. This article interviewed soldiers who had, in fact, "finish[ed] their tour" and were back home. These soldiers, rather than "say all the bad shit they went through," complained that the coverage of the war was too negative and that the "bad shit" was outweighed by the positive aspects of the mission.
Faced with evidence that contradicted your argument, you did not "hold it with more credence."
Instead, you first accused the Christian Science Monitor of being an unreliable source. (Basically, you accused the newspaper of lying) However, others (myself, WBAM and Theo), then demonstrated that it was a reliable, and Pulitizer prize winning, newspaper.
Faced with that, you first made a few lame, bigoted, jokes about the Christian Science religion.
In addition, you restated your original premise to avoid admitting your original theory was wrong. Instead of claiming that soldiers home from Iraq would attack the war and President Bush, you now claim that you meant that soldiers who were home AND completely discharged from the military would do so.
Furthermore, your premise ignores one simple fact: even if the soldiers did not want to insult the President or the Army, there is nothing "forcing" them to speak so positively about the war effort. If anything, all they would have to do is refuse these interviews. Therefore, the fact they agreed to the interviews tends to show they are genuine in their views and support of the war effort.
As such, by claiming the soldiers are actively misstating their views of the war to the press, once again you have called the soldiers liars.
So, let's recap: the administration is lying, the Christian Science Monitor is lying, even the soldiers are lying.
Why not just trot out the "vast right wing conspiracy" theory and be done with it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
2. It'd be idiotic for an active soldier to insult the President or the Army. Career Suicide.
Yea, he could get fired. 
I'm willing to bet that any soldier who chooses to be a career soldier at this point is more likely for the actions being taken.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
A soldier can be worse than fired.
In the military, a soldier, sailor, or whatever is under contract for a fixed number of years. That means he or she can't quit until his or her end of enlistment or commission. And THAT MEANS that until that time, the military can do whatever the heck they feel like with you, including demote you, take away half your pay for the rest of your time in, make you scrub the decks and peel the onions...forever, or send you to Alaska (winter coat not provided).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Again, however, that ignores an important point, namely, that not a single one of these soldiers were required to speak to the CSM. Any one of them could have, if they were against the war or Bush, refused to be interviewed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
I haven't followed this thread very closely because I don't care if the conference was staged and I'm a bad moderator. I've only scanned and I won't get a chance to read what's been said until this evening. Till then, forgive me if I'm missing something.
If you're trying to say that these soldiers were probably PRO-Bush and PRO-Iraqi War, then you're probably right. I don't see what that proves, really, but you're probably right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
If you're trying to say that these soldiers were probably PRO-Bush and PRO-Iraqi War, then you're probably right. I don't see what that proves, really, but you're probably right.
Quote:
the G-man said:
[Ray] originally called the soldiers who were still in Iraq liars because they were still over there. [Ray] indicated that, when they got home, they would probably say something critical of the war.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
lets see what [this soldier] has to say once he's out of the army. most soldiers won't say anything negative about their bosses until they finish their tour when suddenly they say all the bad shit they went through.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I'm more open to hearing from soldiers after they're back and...Once they're back they can see things more objectively. Then if they say they believe in what they did, and the war itself, I hold it with more credence.
In response, I posted the CSM article. This article interviewed soldiers who had, in fact, "finish[ed] their tour" and were back home. These soldiers, rather than "say all the bad shit they went through," complained that the coverage of the war was too negative and that the "bad shit" was outweighed by the positive aspects of the mission.
Faced with evidence that contradicted [his] argument, [Ray] did not "hold it with more credence."
Instead, [Ray] first accused the Christian Science Monitor of being an unreliable source. (Basically, [Ray] accused the newspaper of lying) However, others (myself, WBAM and Theo), then demonstrated that it was a reliable, and Pulitizer prize winning, newspaper.
Faced with that, [Ray] first made a few lame, bigoted, jokes about the Christian Science religion.
In addition, [Ray] changed [his] original premise to avoid admitting [his] original theory was wrong. Instead of claiming that soldiers home from Iraq would attack the war and President Bush, [Ray] now claim[ed] that [Ray] meant that soldiers who were home AND completely discharged from the military would do so.
Furthermore, [his] premise ignores one simple fact: even if the soldiers did not want to insult the President or the Army, there is nothing "forcing" them to speak so positively about the war effort. If anything, all they would have to do is refuse these interviews. Therefore, the fact they agreed to the interviews tends to show they are genuine in their views and support of the war effort.
As such, by claiming the soldiers are actively misstating their views of the war to the press, once again [Ray has] called the soldiers liars.
So, let's recap: the administration is lying, the Christian Science Monitor is lying, even the soldiers are lying.
Why not just trot out the "vast right wing conspiracy" theory and be done with it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
In the military, a soldier, sailor, or whatever is under contract for a fixed number of years. That means he or she can't quit until his or her end of enlistment or commission.
Good up to this point. Now for a turn to the wacky.
Quote:
And THAT MEANS that until that time, the military can do whatever the heck they feel like with you, including demote you, take away half your pay for the rest of your time in, make you scrub the decks and peel the onions...forever, or send you to Alaska (winter coat not provided).
Hh?
Not the military I served in up until 4 years ago.
Sure, they can demote you, but that takes an appreciable effort on the part of the command, and you really have to do something stupid to warrant the demotion. Especially if you've achieved a high enough rank, where it takes an act of Cngress (or just short of same) to authorize a pay/rank cut. The same applies to taking away the pay. Even for privates, it takes a blatant enough act on the part of the grunt to get slammed for the funds. Sending you to Alaska? Hey... it counts as OCONUS service. Not friggin' likely.
And scrubbing decks and peeling onions... are you talking about the US military or a fuckin' pirate crew? Welcome to the 21st century.  
|
|
|
|
|
