quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
"After the broadcasting of recorded images of captured and dead US soldiers on Arab television, American and British leaders vowed revenge while verbally assaulting the networks for displaying such vivid images. Yet within hours of the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons, the US government released horrific photographs of the two dead brothers for the entire world to view. Again, a "do as we say and not as we do" scenario."
-I'd never actually thought about this.
well, for starters, there's a pretty bold difference between an american soldier killed in battle and a member of the esteemed hussein familiy. but even aside from all that, the only reason the images of the wonder-twins was publically displayed was because thats something the people in the middle east demand.

it was explained at the time that the people there will only believe things if there is absolute proof. press is one thing, but photos are another. i think batwoman gave a pretty good explanation like that someone in this forum, as well.


quote:
What about the truth? Hypothetically speaking, lets say we knew as a fact everything in Iraq was qoing good. Would it be honest to jam in "bad" stuff too? Why not just print the facts that make things "look like" they really are. Watch most analysts on TV, they stick to a point and provide evidence to back it up.
their point.

some analysts say the war effort is going horribly. some say wonderfully. the reporters, and the channels in general, have agendas. they're telling news stories.

granted, what i'm asking for (unbiased info) is an impossibility. we're never going to get a clear cut answer as to how things are going, without some sorta spin being put on it. so, i can't say that im expecting the truth... just hoping for it.

personally, i think the truth is that things are going very well, but there are very large downfalls and set backs that need to be addressed and adjusted. so, in my mind, articles that point out the good and the bad are being more realistic and more honest about the scenario (but then again, thats simply my perspective).


quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
[QB]
quote:
i mean, i dont like my boss or the things my company does too much... but i'm not about to publish that information in a newspaper! all that would accomplish is to:

1) annoy my co-workers who disagree with me.
2) surely infuriate my superiors.
3) make my life hell. or at least an unemployed variation.
That doesn't work. You're not working for the biggest military in the world, your boss doesn't make what are probably the most important decisions in the world, and your company doesn't have a direct and inderect effect on the well-being of hundreds of millions of people. Your not being told to risk your life, and your co-workers; But I understand what you were trying to say.
but this guy still chose his position. his negativity (justified or otherwise) still upsets his colleagues.

even worse, if his statements have backlashes with his higher ups, he's facing more serious consequences than simply being fired. i mean, the guy is more or less stuck in one of the least pleasant locales on the planet. and, the military isn't known for being too keen on dissenting opinoins.