The War in Iraq is Real

[B_Nick4444]

it's part of the larger disconnect going on within the country (I can no longer use the word 'society')

there were actually college students who threw keg parties at being let out of school at the occurrence of 9/11

My dad and I were discussing the election and the wars on Sunday, and it seems that unlike in WWII, or even Vietnam, this sort of imagery no longer resonates with the larger U.S. society. There's a disconnect, levels, or compartmentalization... something, that separates what happens to everyone serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, what happens to our Vets, and then what happens with everyone else.

I do not feel there's a parts of a whole community mentality in the U.S. any longer - rather it is every person for themself and their unit. It is like there is an inability to relate or empathize or sacrifice, on a national level, for the betterment of the country.

Not sure if this is a growing cynicism within myself about the election, and how people will vote - but, I think few care and even fewer are personally impacted by the wars beyond fuel prices. I fear that the wrong candidate, one that doesn't see a problem with the current path, will win, and that scares me because I feel the one we are on is so very wrong.

Anettenorge -
I know several people serving who are against the war - they serve because it is their job. Indeed, I will be one of those people. Being against the war, and finding fault with those who are hawkish, does not make one against the soldier - that is a totally fallacy and needs to stop, so we can have open discussions about the quagmire we are in.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

it's part of the larger disconnect going on within the country (I can no longer use the word 'society')

there were actually college students who threw keg parties at being let out of school at the occurrence of 9/11

I like to think a society, albeit waning (and slightly dystopian), still exists.

What I am most amazed about as I check this thread this morning is that I haven't (yet) been made to endure a tirade of name calling and wild accusations and that even some of you possibly even (understand!) agree with some or all of what I've been saying.

<snip>

I know however, that no matter how many studies I post or how many liberal institutions acknowledge it's existence, liberal media bias to many will still be the creation of that same 'vast, right-wing conspiracy' that brought down the world trade center and invaded Iraq for oil, made a deal with the aliens to sell out our genes and resources and a deal with the devil to sell our souls...for more oil!

Whether there is a liberal media bias or not (btw, there is bias to everything), you, and everyone else, have the ability to think independently. I assume. So what is the issue?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Wow... people are actually rating the efficiency of a war solely on the amount of people dead. It's as if the initial goal (or lack thereof) doesn't even matter anymore. I'm kinda puzzled.

 

[DC_DEEP]

No, I was directly the addressing the use of goodbye photos of volunteer adults doing their job, by strangers to post on the internet to bolster their anti-war arguments.

I was describing a world of eagerness for war that is not covered by the media and a resentment against the people who use them for the opposite cause..

Having a brother in the military, and actually being there, are not the same thing. Just want to make sure you understand that. Now, does a veteran qualify for an opinion in your little world, or is it only active duty personnel and their sisters?

Nota bene: in the US Marine Corps, all MOS are combat MOS, it just depends on whether you are talking about in garrison or in the field. It doesn't matter whether you are in Tank Battalion, Ordnance, Supply, Musician, Company Clerk, or Special Services, all are deployable, all are trained as riflemen and machine gunners and perimeter guards.

He's also said -Don't become a firefighter and then protest when you're sent into a burning house.

Pretty good common sense don't you think.

Using your same analogy, how should a firefighter feel about arsonists?

Sure, he won't hesitate to enter a burning house to save someone's life, but that doesn't mean he has to love people who intentionally start fires. Servicemembers have volunteered to serve our country, but that doesn't mean that they all look forward to war.

OK here is the letter:
<...>
The cameras rolled and the idiot started repeating his story, then one of my guys asked him in Arabic where he had left the rag he usually wore around his face that made him look like a girl.
<...>
I told the airy-fairy who the raghead was and if he knew Arabic (which he obviously didn't) he'd know he was a Palestinian.

That tells a lot right there, doesn't it? Fair and balanced journalism, I'm sure

You're probably the only person on this thread right now other than cowboy who understands the military.

Funny. Cowboy disagreed with you.

And I have been in the military. And I disagree with you. I know you don't intend it this way, but your tone is insulting. I won't claim it's insulting to any other veteran, since I cannot speak for anyone but myself. But yes, your tone is insulting.

I think the invasion of Iraq, and the occupation of Iraq, and our continued presence in Iraq, and the treatment of our veterans when they return from Iraq, are shameful. Our president should be the most ashamed. He is a disgrace, and a slap in the face to every man or woman who has ever served.

What I am most amazed about as I check this thread this morning is that I haven't (yet) been made to endure a tirade of name calling and wild accusations and that even some of you possibly even (understand!) agree with some or all of what I've been saying.

Usually it can be pretty much summed up as 'you piece of shit how dare you come on here and say anything that the rest of us either do not agree with or understand'.

I'm curious why you say that. Is it something that you've observed, or is it something that someone has told you?

This is part of the reasoning behind Fox news being the 'liars' and the others being truthful, much like ABC for example running 64 stories in one month about the Bush administration firing 8 federal prosecutors and not running one story when the Clinto administration fired ALL 93 FEDERAL PROSECUTORS. Those Goddamned lying Fox people!

OK, this does make sense. How much do you really know about that situation, and how much has been soundbyted to you? Let me help you out here: the "news" was not that bush fired those prosecutors. He (as has every other president) replaced federal prosecutors when he took office. They are, by definition, presidential appointees.

The newsworthy portion was this: those additional few that he fired, were fired mid-term, an unprecedented move. And the general consensus was that those he fired mid-term were replaced because they were making judicial decisions based on (gasp) law, rather than political advantage. That's the part Fox News left out, dear.

 

[tripod]

What I am most amazed about as I check this thread this morning is that I haven't (yet) been made to endure a tirade of name calling and wild accusations and that even some of you possibly even (understand!) agree with some or all of what I've been saying. Usually it can be pretty much summed up as 'you piece of shit how dare you come on here and say anything that the rest of us either do not agree with or understand'.

Just because I think that you are insane doesn't mean that you don't have any value as a human... we still think that you're cool... you're crazy, but you're welcome among the liberals here any day. :wave2:

Pre-War Opponents. Contrary to prevailing liberal mythology, all three networks (especially ABC) tilted their pre-war news in favor of Bush administration opponents. Covering the congressional debate over using force, for example, the networks gave a majority of soundbites (59%) to the losing anti-war side. Reporters also sanitized the &quot;peace&quot; movement, masking the radical affiliations of left-wing organizers while showcasing more sympathetic &quot;middle class&quot; demonstrators.

That is so silly, I don't even know where to start! lol!!! :tongue:

A 2005 survey of top journalists conducted by the Pew Research Center found the media were far more anti-war than the general public. The networks' performance over last five years makes that painfully obvious.

Annette, I think that you are confusing how these journalists personally feel with how they do their job, there are monitors on all of the news agencies that attempt to maintain a healthy bi-partisan balance. Just because a journalist is liberal, most of them know that it is not professional to color what they write. Any NPR or PBS personality besides Bill Moyers is decidedly non-partisan even though they personally are probably liberal. You only get the anti-Bush stuff on the Huffington Post, The New Yorker, The Nation and Mother Jones etc. ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC (Olbermann is a liberal attack dog, he is decidedly biased) are by and large pretty decent news agencies who put out a fairly unbiased news product.

I am a liberal, but I really dig conservatives, they are, for the most part, cool people and I personally would not want a country without conservative folk.

I blame the right wing media for filling your precious little heads with so much bullshit that you don't have the room for the truth anymore! LSHIFOMC!!! :chairfall:

 

[anettenorge]

Odd word choice, Annette. What's so entertaining about hate?

The entertaining part was the conflicting conspiracy theories and the conflict between whether he is a complete moron or if he is a criminal mastermind. Some contend he is simultaneously both. That was the humour, not the hate.

Despite the general assumptions, though I am overwhelmingly right-wing when it comes to foreign policy, I am not hate-filled, in fact I'm quite liberal on issues of gay marriage and a womans right to choose, which puts me at odds with people who otherwise agree with me.



BTW on this issue of George Bush making money that was cited to enhance his 'dr evil' status, it has just come to light recently that he is one of the few presidents that has actually LOST money during his terms. Unlike Clinton and vp Gore, who made millions.

 

[Flashy]

well, unfortunately, this topic, like so many others, does not really lend itself to a moderate approach.

You have the ardent Conservatives and the ardent Liberals, who regardless of their intelligence, really don't care at all for the others' point of view. Every time a good example is made, it is then promptly destroyed by that same person with a bit of partisan ridiculousness.

For example.

I admire AnnetNorge's take on the military situation, and her insistence that indeed, not everything is as it seems in Iraq. Presented a bit more calmly, it would probably be agreed with by most people here, that while in fact there is a hell of alot going wrong in Iraq, there is more that is right, that we are not being shown in our soundbyte age...

the problem, is when Annete talks about the "liberal media". That right away will set people off. I find media coverage to be pretty biased and off the mark in a lot of situations, more out of expedience then actual philosophy. It is easier to say "two troops were wounded today" in 3 seconds then to do a 10 minute special on troops who are getting along well with neighborhood kids, who are back in school, and hospitals being constructed. The press loves negativity, and blood sells more then positive heartwarming stuff.

Then, we have Phil Ayesho, who discusses a very real topic about how young men and women are indeed supposed to be indoctrinated to do what they will need to in the military, to spout jinogistic slogans that they are told and make a very legitimate discussion about the rise of the anti-war movement and the lack of attention it gets...but then veers off into jingoism himself by retreating into the jingo of the far left by stating that
"the movement to get us out is born of the real assessment of the real cost of this idiotic and fruitless adventure in making Dick Cheney rich."

This is in and of itself, another totally offbase assertion by someone to wrapped up in only their side of the issue.

I don't like Cheney, but he was rich before the war anyway, and to suggest that this war was started to enrich Dick Cheney, is absurd.


-----

This is why i do not belong to any political party, and why I believe nothing is ever resolved.

BEcause everytime someone makes a good point, that could lead to some discussion, be they on the right or left, that someone can't help but repeat the same oft-repeated nonsense slogans or jingoism of the philosophy the ascribe to.

Instead of veering off into the absurdity of the "Dick Cheney as evil profiteer" or the "liberal media" angles, we should be focusing on how to make sure the newss media is covering the positive things that are happening in Iraq *AND* to also highlight how this administration, and this government as a whole, are failing our troops coming home with serious medical and emotional needs.

This is not an issue that partisanship has any relevance to. Both the far left, and the far right, have legitimate things to discuss...but on the whole when putting forward their entire philosophy on how to deal with the situation, are wrong as usual.


P.S.

btw, I already have a feeling I am going to regret getting involved in this discussion. LOL

 

[marleyisalegend]

did i hear somebody call CNN unbiased?? hold on, lemme check my pulse.

 

[anettenorge]

You deride me for calling the media liberally biased despite the overwhelming evidence that journalists, editors and newscasters vote democrat like a landslide, yet the 'signature' on your posts remarks about the 'right wing media' filling peoples heads full of shit.

You also seem to ignore that these studies don't simply show how the media votes but they break down in detail how stories that back up the liberal talking points are given the limelight and any story that could possibly make a republican, the GOP or the Bush administration look good are not covered in the same vigor. And there is no way to ignore these findings.

If ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS and MSNBC running thousands of combined stories on the Bush Administrations firing of 8 fed prosecutors and their virtual silence about the Clinton administrations firing of all 93 isn't a dead giveaway then you will also reject the thousands of other examples over the years. It is not my job to save you.

Stories like this one below probably won't affect your belief that the media isn't biased, but may actually be in fact right wing biased.

And I'm the one that's 'insane' for posting examples of liberal bias...mmm, ok...



Joe Scarborough has pulled back the curtain on the liberal bias at MSNBC, describing an incident in which people in its newsroom continuously booed President Bush during a State of the Union address.

The revelation came on &quot;Morning Joe&quot; today at 6:02 A.M. EDT. Joe was discussing a recent episode at the Seattle Times in which reporters and editors cheered the news that Karl Rove had resigned.

Scarborough applauded Seattle Times Executive Editor Dave Boardman for issuing a memorandum reproving his colleagues. Read more at Michelle Malkin here. Joe went on to describe a similar incident at MSNBC.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: There was a story out of Seattle, and the reason I love it is that it's transparency in the news. You have an editor who was actually outing his own people. The Seattle Times newsroom broke into applause when Karl Rove resigned. And of course that's bad. What I like about it is that the editor actually wrote about it and went in and told the people in the newsroom that was unacceptable.

And I've got to say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President's State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president from the beginning to the end.

And I actually talked to [NBC/MSNBC executive] Phil Griffin about it, and he said &quot;how was it last night?&quot; Because he was the one that called me out of the Ace Hardware store, got my vest on.

He said &quot;how was it last night?&quot; I said &quot;well, it's OK, I understand it's a little bit different up here than it is down in northwest Florida, but you had people in the newsroom actively booing the President of the United States. Phil turned red very quickly. That didn't happen again.

 

[anettenorge]

my last post was at tripod not you marley

 

[DC_DEEP]

anette, will you address any of the issues I posted?

 

[marleyisalegend]

my last post was at tripod not you marley

i know, earlier somebody was listing unbiased news stations (laughs at the mere thought) and named cnn. that's like saying somebody holding a knife with blood all over their overalls isn't a murderer. sure, maybe not, maybe they were cutting a cake and a red pen leaked all over their clothes, but cnn's biases are almost overt, they barely even try to cover it up anymore.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

You deride me for calling the media liberally biased despite the overwhelming evidence that journalists, editors and newscasters vote democrat like a landslide, yet the 'signature' on your posts remarks about the 'right wing media' filling peoples heads full of shit.
<snip>

Again, in the presence of independent thinking, what difference does it make? There is bias in everything. Everything.

Somewhere in the bay area Faceking has read this and spontaneously ejaculated... and I do <3 faceking.

anette, will you address any of the issues I posted?

No.

 

[anettenorge]

If you didn't pick and choose my comments... how many times do I have to say I KNOW THAT NOT EVERYONE IN THE MILITARY IS GUNG HO ABOUT THE WAR, BUT THAT I WAS GIVING THE OFTEN UNTOLD STORY ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE GUNG HO AND WHO ARE AND HAVE BEEN OVER THERE, THIS TIES DIRECTLY INTO MY CURRENT COMMENTARY ON LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS. sorry, don't take that as yelling but I'm outnumbered here and have several people ignoring me being reasonable and are trying to paint me as crazy- I would say that is a typical liberal tactic, but then that would probably cue the name calling.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I figured as much.

Thanks for playing.

 

[dong20]

It seems to me that this thread has developed (the usual) schism about who is qualified to speak on behalf of whom. I'm always amazed that such arguments can hinge on such things as feigned surprise to media bias, or the validity of third party experience as if such a things are recent or unprecedented phenomena.

The risk being that the real issue is sidestepped; namely that years of political mendacity and subterfuge predicated on almost entirely dubious and often hypocritical grounds has resulted in the involuntary death of thousands, most of whom were civilians simply trying to get through their day. It has resulted in the removal of an undoubtedly evil regime, and that's a good thing - even if were it the true cause for intervention. But, and this is merely a observation, it was one that even in our wildest flights of fancy posed little or no threat to us.

Of course the war is real, only the truly moronic need sentimental imagery to reinforce such an obvious truth. I entirely agree with annette that the cynical use of such devices is a sad indictment of how easily too many seek to dehumanise such events as mere statistical exercises. That said, if that's what it takes then I have no right to bemoan the practice, merely its necessity.

The military are pawns in such situations, and (with rare exceptions) are as stated assuming a risk they willingly signed up for. It's surely not the nature of the risk itself that's in contention, but its ersatz nature. It's entirely unfair to cast them as the villains, and yet far too many do. The military cannot end this conflict because that is not longer their remit, and even if it were I doubt it would be possible.

The media are also pawns, but they're capable of being much more. In western societies such organs (the military and media) don't (and shouldn't) set Government policy, I will agree the media can (and do) influence it, so their integrity is vital. When we cease to trust them, it endangers us all.

Additionally and somewhat ironically, on a domestic front, we have taken several large steps toward [re?]creating an environment in which the very things such actions were ostensibly touted as seeking to negate, can thrive. Many of us may have been unwitting accomplices at day one, but ignorance and uncertainty are no longer plausible excuses for support.

I believe (short of a popular revolution) forcing political and, if necessary, legal accountability for the actions of our 'leaders' is the only path open to 'us'. We however are for the most part mere spectators to a gruesome battlefield the creation of which we allowed. We did so as a result of too many of us trusting those who clearly have demonstrated they cannot be trusted. The balance of power has swung toward and been placed far too securely in the grasp of those unfit to wield it.

I'm well aware that for many this realisation has been in hindsight but with knowledge comes responsibility. To that end (for Americans at least) a vehicle for beginning to redress this imbalance is at hand. It seems to me that less focus on the minacity of Hillary Clinton or the vapidity of Barack Obama and more on actually ending the tenure of those most directly responsible, might be more productive.

In a sentence; now, perhaps more than ever in our generation, is not the time to lose sight of the bigger picture.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

If you didn't pick and choose my comments... how many times do I have to say I KNOW THAT NOT EVERYONE IN THE MILITARY IS GUNG HO ABOUT THE WAR, BUT THAT I WAS GIVING THE OFTEN UNTOLD STORY ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE GUNG HO AND WHO ARE AND HAVE BEEN OVER THERE, THIS TIES DIRECTLY INTO MY CURRENT COMMENTARY ON LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS. sorry, don't take that as yelling but I'm outnumbered here and have several people ignoring me being reasonable and are trying to paint me as crazy- I would say that is a typical liberal tactic, but then that would probably cue the name calling.

You have overblown expectations. I don't think you've written anything interesting, profound, and controversial enough, or at least not trite, to elicit a personal attack.

And with that, I remove myself from the thread. :smile:

 

[anettenorge]

chocokittie, I was waiting for someone to answer for me or something else adolescent, when you going to call me names?

Flashy, you're right I should refrain from using the word liberal, even though I don't mind Fox news or talk radio being called conservative, because they are.

Liberals are in the majority (majority implies not all of them but most of them ok?) just a few lines away from name calling and personal attacks, it's a gang mentality, safety in numbers, and I strike out on my own and call out their beloved media establishment, I know I asked for it, I know what's coming no matter how reasonable I try to be.

The thought police are out in force on this website.

 

[tripod]

You also seem to ignore that these studies don't simply show how the media votes but they break down in detail how stories that back up the liberal talking points are given the limelight and any story that could possibly make a republican, the GOP or the Bush administration look good are not covered in the same vigor. And there is no way to ignore these findings.

Those stories are rare than hen's teeth... they just simply do not really exist.

If ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS and MSNBC running thousands of combined stories on the Bush Administrations firing of 8 fed prosecutors and their virtual silence about the Clinton administrations firing of all 93 isn't a dead giveaway then you will also reject the thousands of other examples over the years.

DC Deep already outlined why there is a quantifiable difference between Clinton's dismissals and Bush's firings. It is reposted below.

the "news" was not that bush fired those prosecutors. He (as has every other president) replaced federal prosecutors when he took office. They are, by definition, presidential appointees.

The newsworthy portion was this: those additional few that he fired, were fired mid-term, an unprecedented move. And the general consensus was that those he fired mid-term were replaced because they were making judicial decisions based on (gasp) law, rather than political advantage. That's the part Fox News left out, dear.

And I'm the one that's 'insane'...

Actually in your world you make perfect sense, so it's subjective, one man's crazy person is another man's prophet. I was just being cheeky, you are most likely very sane.

The Seattle Times newsroom broke into applause when Karl Rove resigned.

And your point is?

*****************

As a side note... doesn't that DC Deep know his shit or what? Damn... :smile:

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

chocokittie, I was waiting for someone to answer for me or something else adolescent, when you going to call me names?

Flashy, you're right I should refrain from using the word liberal, even though I don't mind Fox news or talk radio being called conservative, because they are.

Liberals are in the majority (majority implies not all of them but most of them ok?) just a few lines away from name calling and personal attacks, it's a gang mentality, safety in numbers, and I strike out on my own and call out their beloved media establishment, I know I asked for it, I know what's coming no matter how reasonable I try to be.

The thought police are out in force on this website.

I do not call names.
I respect your right to believe whatever it is you choose to - however, when making assertions, it is nice to be able to respond to questions without feeling attacked. Especially, when no one posted a vitrolic attack, rather they challenged. In light of that, you frequently mentioned surprise when none materialized. Whatever. Seems like unnecessary shit stirring to me. :smile: