Administration has new tactic to gain war support
- Thread starter jlabsher
- Start date
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Once again... the best intentions of someone in the military get skewed by the Left. Sad, sad, sad.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I have to disagree with you joedancer. I was out flying off of Beirut back in the early 1980s, and I thought the situation was very f'ed up and said so in the letters that I sent home. I was never court martialed or disciplined.
Now, an organized letter writing campaign is a different thing altogether. But what bothers me is that nobody seems to care "why" the soldiers involved felt the need to take this action. If the situation you alledged were happening, i.e., the soldiers were trying to disseminate bad news about a war that is supposedly going well, the media would be asking questions like mad to "get to the bottom of this situation!" There would be accusations of the government trying to squelch the free speech of the soldiers, of the government trying to hide the fact that the war was going badly, of the government being just generally sinister, etc. But now that the situation is one where the troops are trying to get word out that the war is going well despite what the media says, the soldiers are getting attacked by the media.
I hope a lot of middle-of-the-road folks are taking notice of this.
Now, an organized letter writing campaign is a different thing altogether. But what bothers me is that nobody seems to care "why" the soldiers involved felt the need to take this action. If the situation you alledged were happening, i.e., the soldiers were trying to disseminate bad news about a war that is supposedly going well, the media would be asking questions like mad to "get to the bottom of this situation!" There would be accusations of the government trying to squelch the free speech of the soldiers, of the government trying to hide the fact that the war was going badly, of the government being just generally sinister, etc. But now that the situation is one where the troops are trying to get word out that the war is going well despite what the media says, the soldiers are getting attacked by the media.
I hope a lot of middle-of-the-road folks are taking notice of this.
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
The commander wrote the letter and "asked" his company to sign & send to their local papers. Of course, if you're a buck private and an officer tells you to sign a letter, you do it. The C.O. should get severe discipline for this one, but it won't happen.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-10-14-letters-usat_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-10-14-letters-usat_x.htm
Why should the Battalion Commander be disciplined? What law, rule, or regulation was broken? And apparently not all the soldiers signed the letter, so there seems to have been no "force" or "coercion" used to make them do it.
Not to mention that your implication in the leading post that Rumsfeld was behind it was wrong. Should you be brought up on charges for that, as it seems what you have written is libelous?
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
Wow, you've never seen an officer coerce anybody, good for you. I have, I guess having an A-hole commander was an oddity that only I have experienced. Peer pressure exists in the military too, if everybody else signs it, and you don't will the rest of the guys call you a commie? Man, that don't happen on SOMD does it?
As far as the Rumsfeld comment goes...
Hey Ken, it was a
J O K E !
Clue bus is leaving, space on it for you!
As far as the Rumsfeld comment goes...
Hey Ken, it was a
J O K E !
Clue bus is leaving, space on it for you!
crabcake
But wait, there's more...
Having a leader compose a letter, pass it around and ask those who agree with it to sign it is no different than some of those other organizations (save the whales, peta, military orgs, etc.) who draft a letter, as it's supporters to sign it and send it to their senators/congressmen, etc. I don't see the big deal. :shrug: If I agreed with it, I'd sign it. If I didn't, I wouldn't. 
You're the one that needs to get a clue. I asked if you should be charged for what you stated. Not that you should be charged, now go hop on that bus that seems to always leave without you.
Have I seen coercion, yes, but in each of those instances it was a crime. Just as if the Battalion Commander had coerced these soldiers it would be a crime. But like always you offer nothing but your view, no facts, no other evidence, just your typical BS.
Innuendo and speculation do not make a crime, damn looks like you keep missing that bus.
joedancer
bookman
Who signed anything?
I heard an interview with the mother of a soldier whose name was on one of the letters who knew nothing about it. In fact he had been complaining about the problems over there for quite some time and was shocked to find out his name was attached to one of these letters. Just what is going on?
Joe
I heard an interview with the mother of a soldier whose name was on one of the letters who knew nothing about it. In fact he had been complaining about the problems over there for quite some time and was shocked to find out his name was attached to one of these letters. Just what is going on?
Joe
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
The only thing like that that I saw was a mother who commented that the note did not sound like her son, and it simply wasn't like him to report good news.
That being said - I *do* believe that the stream of negative reporting about Iraq is eroding support for us there. It's been six lousy months. Do you realize that every year we lose about 150 guys due to *training accidents*? Geez. Saddam and bin Laden were right - send a few home in body bags, and they'll cry and go home. No wonder the Iraqis aren't fully on the bandwagon yet - a lot of them still think we'll pull up stakes and let Saddam and the Fedayeen come back and slaughter them all. And they're right.
You know, read OUR papers from overseas and you'd think the streets ran red with blood every day. It doesn't. 200,000 guys in Iraq and what, 100 or so casualties since May? Is there anyone out there still not clued into the fact that we're at war with these guys?
Picture this - American sentiment against the war grows, just while the Iraqis are getting a hold of their own. bin Laden and the forces supporting Saddam really crank up the attacks over the next few weeks because of this, and we go home. Iraq goes back to the way it was, because quite frankly, no one but the US and Britain (and a couple of others) has any guts to stand up to these thugs. Things go back to the way they were except worse for the newly liberated Iraqis, who'll be slaughtered WORSE than after the first Gulf War.
What do you think? Do you think overly negative reporting helps us, or them?
That being said - I *do* believe that the stream of negative reporting about Iraq is eroding support for us there. It's been six lousy months. Do you realize that every year we lose about 150 guys due to *training accidents*? Geez. Saddam and bin Laden were right - send a few home in body bags, and they'll cry and go home. No wonder the Iraqis aren't fully on the bandwagon yet - a lot of them still think we'll pull up stakes and let Saddam and the Fedayeen come back and slaughter them all. And they're right.
You know, read OUR papers from overseas and you'd think the streets ran red with blood every day. It doesn't. 200,000 guys in Iraq and what, 100 or so casualties since May? Is there anyone out there still not clued into the fact that we're at war with these guys?
Picture this - American sentiment against the war grows, just while the Iraqis are getting a hold of their own. bin Laden and the forces supporting Saddam really crank up the attacks over the next few weeks because of this, and we go home. Iraq goes back to the way it was, because quite frankly, no one but the US and Britain (and a couple of others) has any guts to stand up to these thugs. Things go back to the way they were except worse for the newly liberated Iraqis, who'll be slaughtered WORSE than after the first Gulf War.
What do you think? Do you think overly negative reporting helps us, or them?
joedancer
bookman
100 or so casualties?????
No, she talked to her son. He did not write it. Not that it did "sounded like her son."
"100 or so casualties" was about 3 months ago. We are well over the 300 or so amount. I guess that it just does not matter that so many are being killed. I mean, what did we expect? Just to be able to leave?
I have spent part of every year, for the last 15 years overseas. The one thing I do note is that it is the american press that does not accurately reflect what the rest of the world is feeling.
Excuse me, but what is the endgame here? It is clear that Rumsfeld had not thought far enough into the future to plan for what happens after the war. Can you show me what is supposed to happen now? The plan, as I heard it from dubya was that the revenues from the oil was going to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. Wrongo, it is us, to the tune of 90 million dollars!! I moved her from Texas. I lived there when Dubya was elected. I know that he did not have a clue then and doesn't now. Did you know, that in the state of Texas, the Lieutenant Gov. runs the state? Dubya was like Queen Eliz. He cut ribbons. He was a FIGUREHEAd. And not very good at that, I might add.
The "stream of negative reporting" is the reality of the situation. What would you like to believe? Where are you getting your information from?
>>>Is there anyone out there still not clued into the fact that we're at war with these guys?
No, as a matter of fact, Dubya said we have ended the war months ago, where have you been?
Please give me one good reason why we should be in Iraq right now.
As far as "overly negative reporting" goes, whose idea was it to have imbedded reporters? Rumsfeld. Reporters report. If you do not want to know what is really going on, then LOSE the Reporters!
>>Iraq goes back to the way it was, because quite frankly, no one but the US and Britain (and a couple of others) has any guts to stand up to these thugs.
So, I suppose this indicates how intelligent these two countries are? And, how stupid the rest of the world is? Get a clue. The Brits seem to be figuring out, and are asking for Blairs head. If they get it, what does that mean for his number one ally?
3)
No, she talked to her son. He did not write it. Not that it did "sounded like her son."
"100 or so casualties" was about 3 months ago. We are well over the 300 or so amount. I guess that it just does not matter that so many are being killed. I mean, what did we expect? Just to be able to leave?
I have spent part of every year, for the last 15 years overseas. The one thing I do note is that it is the american press that does not accurately reflect what the rest of the world is feeling.
Excuse me, but what is the endgame here? It is clear that Rumsfeld had not thought far enough into the future to plan for what happens after the war. Can you show me what is supposed to happen now? The plan, as I heard it from dubya was that the revenues from the oil was going to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. Wrongo, it is us, to the tune of 90 million dollars!! I moved her from Texas. I lived there when Dubya was elected. I know that he did not have a clue then and doesn't now. Did you know, that in the state of Texas, the Lieutenant Gov. runs the state? Dubya was like Queen Eliz. He cut ribbons. He was a FIGUREHEAd. And not very good at that, I might add.
The "stream of negative reporting" is the reality of the situation. What would you like to believe? Where are you getting your information from?
>>>Is there anyone out there still not clued into the fact that we're at war with these guys?
No, as a matter of fact, Dubya said we have ended the war months ago, where have you been?
Please give me one good reason why we should be in Iraq right now.
As far as "overly negative reporting" goes, whose idea was it to have imbedded reporters? Rumsfeld. Reporters report. If you do not want to know what is really going on, then LOSE the Reporters!
>>Iraq goes back to the way it was, because quite frankly, no one but the US and Britain (and a couple of others) has any guts to stand up to these thugs.
So, I suppose this indicates how intelligent these two countries are? And, how stupid the rest of the world is? Get a clue. The Brits seem to be figuring out, and are asking for Blairs head. If they get it, what does that mean for his number one ally?
3)
joedancer,
It’s obvious that someone doesn’t have a clue. Check the following link. I looked for a biased source so that you might actually believe it. http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/casualties.html What it says (as of yesterday) is that there have only been 95 combat casualties since May 1, 2003. More have died but not as a result of combat.
As to the “form letter”, one person wrote it in that unit and the soldiers were asked to endorse it and send it to their hometown newspapers. They did it, big freaking deal. This is not new, it is done for a lot of different reasons. This one (the reason) seems okay by me. Why shouldn’t those doing the work and knowing what is going on tell the people their truth or is it that you prefer it spoon fed from the anti-Bush broadcast networks or Al Jazeera?
Also, why would Rumsfeld give a rat’s @ss about after the war? His job is to win the war and other Executive Agencies need to worry about the aftermath, specifically the State department.
You do realize that there haven't been any embedded reporters in several months now, they are all on their own to the best of my knowledge. Not enough action for them, so I guess they need to go out and create some.
You say you have spent part of every year for the last 15 overseas, in what capacity? What is your background as it relates to the military or the affairs of this nation? Or are you speaking as a tourist?
It’s obvious that someone doesn’t have a clue. Check the following link. I looked for a biased source so that you might actually believe it. http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/casualties.html What it says (as of yesterday) is that there have only been 95 combat casualties since May 1, 2003. More have died but not as a result of combat.
As to the “form letter”, one person wrote it in that unit and the soldiers were asked to endorse it and send it to their hometown newspapers. They did it, big freaking deal. This is not new, it is done for a lot of different reasons. This one (the reason) seems okay by me. Why shouldn’t those doing the work and knowing what is going on tell the people their truth or is it that you prefer it spoon fed from the anti-Bush broadcast networks or Al Jazeera?
Also, why would Rumsfeld give a rat’s @ss about after the war? His job is to win the war and other Executive Agencies need to worry about the aftermath, specifically the State department.
You do realize that there haven't been any embedded reporters in several months now, they are all on their own to the best of my knowledge. Not enough action for them, so I guess they need to go out and create some.
You say you have spent part of every year for the last 15 overseas, in what capacity? What is your background as it relates to the military or the affairs of this nation? Or are you speaking as a tourist?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
We haven't HAD embedded reporters in Iraq for months. Once the combat part of the war ended, they all went to cover more interesting stories. Last I read, there's less than two dozen reporters in Iraq. During the war, several news agencies had more than that all by themselves. So no, not convinced that there's much balance in news coverage anymore.
Why are we there? You DO realize, of course, that the last time we pulled out, there was slaughter of Shiites and Kurds on an unbelievable scale. We LET it happen because the rest of the world decided it was time for them to go home. That's a big part of why the Iraqis have difficulty trusting us. That's part of Saddam's and bin Laden's reasoning - the Americans are too cowardly to stomach a fight for very long. Tough it out, and they will run, just like in Somalia.
No, the rest of the world ISN'T *smarter* because they won't intervene. They're cowards. Ethnic cleansing was going on in their own back yard, and they did nothing. Millions were slaughtered in Rwanda and other parts of Africa, and they did nothing. The United Nations has been utterly toothless when it comes to confronting ANY of this. Name a conflict they've resolved.
Actually, I can see why we're still in Iraq. Why, might I ask, are we still in *Bosnia*? Why are we still in *South Korea*? Why, for crying out loud, are we still in *GERMANY* and *JAPAN*? Staying in those two nations erased any worries that chaos would reign and those regimes would return. It's almost laughable that they are among our closest *friends*.
We *ARE* at war. The guys taking shots at us aren't shooting at us with pistols and shotguns. They're Fedayeen. They're disgruntled Baathists. The combat phase is over, but the bad guys are still there. Eventually, the Iraqi *people* will be equipped to deal with them, themselves. They're helpless for the moment. We should stay until the job is done. Insisting on pulling out in light of the obvious need is just listening to the wrong demagogue.
Why are we there? You DO realize, of course, that the last time we pulled out, there was slaughter of Shiites and Kurds on an unbelievable scale. We LET it happen because the rest of the world decided it was time for them to go home. That's a big part of why the Iraqis have difficulty trusting us. That's part of Saddam's and bin Laden's reasoning - the Americans are too cowardly to stomach a fight for very long. Tough it out, and they will run, just like in Somalia.
No, the rest of the world ISN'T *smarter* because they won't intervene. They're cowards. Ethnic cleansing was going on in their own back yard, and they did nothing. Millions were slaughtered in Rwanda and other parts of Africa, and they did nothing. The United Nations has been utterly toothless when it comes to confronting ANY of this. Name a conflict they've resolved.
Actually, I can see why we're still in Iraq. Why, might I ask, are we still in *Bosnia*? Why are we still in *South Korea*? Why, for crying out loud, are we still in *GERMANY* and *JAPAN*? Staying in those two nations erased any worries that chaos would reign and those regimes would return. It's almost laughable that they are among our closest *friends*.
We *ARE* at war. The guys taking shots at us aren't shooting at us with pistols and shotguns. They're Fedayeen. They're disgruntled Baathists. The combat phase is over, but the bad guys are still there. Eventually, the Iraqi *people* will be equipped to deal with them, themselves. They're helpless for the moment. We should stay until the job is done. Insisting on pulling out in light of the obvious need is just listening to the wrong demagogue.
joedancer
bookman
whose idea was the "embedded reporters"
Answer- Rumsfeld
What capacity have I been overseas? Working, not a tourist at all.
The information about the war is coming from all sources, not just what you might call "the liberal media". What difference does it make how our boys are being killed? They are being killed, and to the tune of 2 to 3 a day. And why?
Do you know why dubya's did not go to war with Iraq?
Answer- Rumsfeld
What capacity have I been overseas? Working, not a tourist at all.
The information about the war is coming from all sources, not just what you might call "the liberal media". What difference does it make how our boys are being killed? They are being killed, and to the tune of 2 to 3 a day. And why?
Do you know why dubya's did not go to war with Iraq?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
More of our guys died in one bomb blast in Lebanon. I'd be willing to bet that the annual death rate of gang members in LA alone is greater than that of our troops in an actual war zone. The simple fact is that the death rate for our soldiers is absolutely astonishingly small. These guys are on extremely dangerous duty and they still have a survival rate better than 99%. I'm safer in Iraq than I am on the Beltway.
Re: whose idea was the "embedded reporters"
It's painfully obvious that you have no clue as to the facts and would rather manufacturer dribble and claim it as factual.
Joedancer = credibility zero.
Based on your "assumption" of soldiers being killed at 2 to 3 a day the body count should be in the neighborhood of 420 (168 days X 2.5). It is less than 100. Explain this difference?
It's painfully obvious that you have no clue as to the facts and would rather manufacturer dribble and claim it as factual.
Joedancer = credibility zero.
Biscuit
Livin' Large
Dems vs Repubs!!!!!!!!!!!! I love it.
What the hell happened to reality!!!
who cares ----- an election is on its way.
Lets start the mixing mud early. Nothing like
accusation and inuendos to win a campaign - the hell with facts.
If we are lucky we will still have the same voting boths.
What the hell happened to reality!!!
who cares ----- an election is on its way.
Lets start the mixing mud early. Nothing like
accusation and inuendos to win a campaign - the hell with facts.
If we are lucky we will still have the same voting boths.
joedancer
bookman
Re: Re: whose idea was the "embedded reporters"
Assumption? Where have you been? Excuse me, is anyone paying attention to the deaths that are reported everyday?
Check this: http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
And this: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
And this: http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/
Or this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/14/national1555EDT0681.DTL
Or if you consider that deaths from other causes are not casualties of war (We are sorry Mrs. Smith but your son was killed while he was relieving himself on bush)...
What reports are you listening to?
It is painfully obvious that this conversation is over. You can rant as much as you want. You have no facts. Goodbye.
Credibility? Do you know what that means?
IRAQ_US_DEATHS?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=HOME
Assumption? Where have you been? Excuse me, is anyone paying attention to the deaths that are reported everyday?
Check this: http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
And this: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
And this: http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/
Or this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/14/national1555EDT0681.DTL
Or if you consider that deaths from other causes are not casualties of war (We are sorry Mrs. Smith but your son was killed while he was relieving himself on bush)...
What reports are you listening to?
It is painfully obvious that this conversation is over. You can rant as much as you want. You have no facts. Goodbye.
Credibility? Do you know what that means?
IRAQ_US_DEATHS?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=HOME
Frank
Chairman of the Board
From looking at the data, it would appear that the number of non-combat deaths is rather high. I'd tend to discount some of them, because even during peacetime we lose an average of one soldier every other day, with NO war going on.
What would it be like, if you had a gang shootout going on around you, and when you called the cops, they said "we can't come out there until the shooting dies down - it's too dangerous right now". The very idea of running like hell when things get a tiny bit testy when there is a war going on should be repulsive to the mind of anyone in the service. You realize that this is the US military, in a war zone? And you're suggesting oh my god, they're getting shot at, we should run away and go home. I think you are confusing the US with the French. That's not the way we do things. The very idea of running from combat makes me sick to my stomach. We should finish the job we started.
Today on the news, I'm hearing that the Iraqis themselves are rounding up some of these scoundrels. That's the idea. When they're sufficently equipped to handle the task themselves, then our job is done, and not before.
What would it be like, if you had a gang shootout going on around you, and when you called the cops, they said "we can't come out there until the shooting dies down - it's too dangerous right now". The very idea of running like hell when things get a tiny bit testy when there is a war going on should be repulsive to the mind of anyone in the service. You realize that this is the US military, in a war zone? And you're suggesting oh my god, they're getting shot at, we should run away and go home. I think you are confusing the US with the French. That's not the way we do things. The very idea of running from combat makes me sick to my stomach. We should finish the job we started.
Today on the news, I'm hearing that the Iraqis themselves are rounding up some of these scoundrels. That's the idea. When they're sufficently equipped to handle the task themselves, then our job is done, and not before.