Informed about the Iraq War?

[Mateo]

He means OTHER than running the war(s) into the ground they've been sheepish.

Thank you Mr Gude

 

[Larry Gude]

That was...

Thank you Mr Gude

...meant as sarcasm towards Mr. Psy; he is quite sure that the main problem the last 5 years in conducting out little invasions and occupations has been the awesome firepower of the media in prohibiting our fearless leader from killing and breaking that which needs to be killed and/or broke to accomplish the missions. Such as they are.

I'm with you; it's just the media. If you can't deal with the predictable, the unpredictable is going to be a real challenge. So, in that sense, Psy is correct; it is the media which is to say that either W has not been up to the task or, my view, he is doing just as his crusade calls for. Which means, again, it ain't the media; this is how the man wants it.

 

[Mateo]

One thing I learned as a soldier and that the first sarges' always advised us on....never speak to the media for they will twist every word you say to them to serve their own purient interests. I made that mistake once...probably in an unuarded moment say it again, but if heaven helps me, Ill put a needle in my cheek lest I openly do it again.
The presidents have always played the media like a stradaverius and vice versa. Each has had a symbionotic relationship with one another. Ny point was that it is up to each of us to seek out and filter the germ of truth, Hence my example with the Japanese correspondent post Midway, You can substitute the Bay of Pigs, Mylai and the Ellsburg papers as other examples.

 

[PsyOps]

That was meant as sarcasm towards Mr. Psy; he is quite sure that the main problem the last 5 years in conducting out little invasions and occupations has been the awesome firepower of the media in prohibiting our fearless leader from killing and breaking that which needs to be killed and/or broke to accomplish the missions. Such as they are.

I'm with you; it's just the media. If you can't deal with the predictable, the unpredictable is going to be a real challenge. So, in that sense, Psy is correct; it is the media which is to say that either W has not been up to the task or, my view, he is doing just as his crusade calls for. Which means, again, it ain't the media; this is how the man wants it.

No sense in If you can't see the one element that made the difference between our success during WWII and our failure in this war is the media, then so be it. It's funny you'd agree the media has a left-wing agenda but fail to see how that agenda played into the direction of this war. If everyone was as informed as you are Larry, the media would be marginalized. That's simply not the case. People want to be spoon-fed. They want to be told and accept it regardless of how false it might be. Then the people will take this into their hearts, then to their representatives and tell them if they want to keep their seat in Congress they better change what's going on. The left learned a lot from Vietnam and how the role the media played in that war. Don't you find it kind of coincidental that, with all the anti-war protests and movements in this country that it just so happened to coincide with a loss in that war? Well, who was in the middle of that. Who was feeding all these people the information they were getting about the war? It's no different with Iraq and the left knows all to well how to mold peoples' minds.

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

No sense in If you can't see the one element that made the difference between our success during WWII and our failure in this war is the media, then so be it. It's funny you'd agree the media has a left-wing agenda but fail to see how that agenda played into the direction of this war. If everyone was as informed as you are Larry, the media would be marginalized. That's simply not the case. People want to be spoon-fed. They want to be told and accept it regardless of how false it might be. Then the people will take this into their hearts, then to their representatives and tell them if they want to keep their seat in Congress they better change what's going on. The left learned a lot from Vietnam and how the role the media played in that war. Don't you find it kind of coincidental that, with all the anti-war protests and movements in this country that it just so happened to coincide with a loss in that war? Well, who was in the middle of that. Who was feeding all these people the information they were getting about the war? It's no different with Iraq and the left knows all to well how to mold peoples' minds.

...we beat the dead horse again; As potus, Bush knew he had, at best, 7 years to get on with all of this and, I'm sure, they could never imagine things going as they did, but, BUT, that is where leadership plays it's role; He had the full support of the world at first and anyone in their right mind would know that that had a shelf life far less than seven years.

So, as each successive step, totally botching Afghanistan and OBL, the problems with Turkey and the 4th ID, the idiocy concerning actively turning the Ba'aths into enemies, disbanding the military and idling 400,000 young men with no job to do and no money, turning the whole thing into a contractor boondoggle, letting Sadr go, not keeping Iran on the porch, leadership either takes on the characteristic of reassessing or simple stubborness.

Any way you add it up, we neither had the luxury of time nor the room to be wrong about anything. So, onward we go and I guess we'll just see what comes of it. The true test of leadership when you have the power to do anything is what you choose to do and why.

 

[PsyOps]

...we beat the dead horse again; As potus, Bush knew he had, at best, 7 years to get on with all of this and, I'm sure, they could never imagine things going as they did, but, BUT, that is where leadership plays it's role; He had the full support of the world at first and anyone in their right mind would know that that had a shelf life far less than seven years.

Okay, so where does this 7 years come from? Did you make this up? Did this come from some sort of military strategic planning source? Is this the left-wing timeline? There was no such time line on the cold war. I know I keep bringing this up but, for crying out loud, I just don’t understand this sudden urgency to end this when it’s obviously not ready to end. So, I would like to know where this thinking came from.

So, as each successive step, totally botching Afghanistan and OBL, the problems with Turkey and the 4th ID, the idiocy concerning actively turning the Ba'aths into enemies, disbanding the military and idling 400,000 young men with no job to do and no money, turning the whole thing into a contractor boondoggle, letting Sadr go, not keeping Iran on the porch, leadership either takes on the characteristic of reassessing or simple stubborness.

Yet another dead horse. I have agreed with you over and over Larry there have been many missteps. I have agreed with you about Bush’s failures. But so much of what pans into this is how the public viewed this war that put impossible pressure on Bush to change his strategy. Yes, this shows poor leadership, but in the world politics everything boils down to just that. The media knows this all too well that all they had to do was put horrible images in front of Americans everyday, day-after-day-after-day, funnel a little negative hype and exploitation of rare circumstance (like torture and soldier misconduct) and you have a recipe that creates public outrage rather than support. From that point it becomes an impossible war to fight for Bush because he either has to continue on a butcherous rampage to defeat the enemy or appease the public because of the political implications. He, unfortunately, chose the latter. Wars create boondoggles. It’s chaos that the media knows the public can’t stomach. So the more they exploit it the more the people will hate the war.

Any way you add it up, we neither had the luxury of time nor the room to be wrong about anything. So, onward we go and I guess we'll just see what comes of it. The true test of leadership when you have the power to do anything is what you choose to do and why.

The only reason we had no room to be wrong is because the left and the media wouldn’t allow it. Knowing darned well there were much more successes than failures. You know the media refused to report it. You know they have an agenda. Knowing they have an agenda yet denying this agenda has anything to do with the success of the war. If the media didn’t believe their anti-war propaganda wouldn’t have an affect on the outcome of the war they wouldn’t have reported on it in the way they did.

 

[Larry Gude]

Bush...

Okay, so where does this 7 years come from? .

...had, from 9/11/01, about seven full years, at best, to be CIC. Unless my math is wrong. Let's see; 2008 election...2008 minus 2001 is...uh...carry the one...looks like 7 to me.

 

[Larry Gude]

It's not so much...

I know I keep bringing this up but, for crying out loud, I just don’t understand this sudden urgency to end this when it’s obviously not ready to end. So, I would like to know where this thinking came from.

...a sudden urgency as it is an amendment, the 22nd to be specific.

 

[Larry Gude]

What we don't...

Yet another dead horse. I have agreed with you over and over Larry there have been many missteps. I have agreed with you about Bush’s failures. But so much of what pans into this is how the public viewed this war that put impossible pressure on Bush to change his strategy.

...agree on is how many times the leader can be wrong in conjunction with other things he's doing before the point is reached that instead of following the leader down the path we're following the leader over a cliff.

The public was 100% behind the leader until he started losing support one bad decision at a time. When you involve your country in a war and, 5 years later, not even leading contenders for your office know quite who the good guys and bad guys are, you've lead us into a quagmire. When you make that two wars...well...

 

[PsyOps]

Bush had, from 9/11/01, about seven full years, at best, to be CIC. Unless my math is wrong. Let's see; 2008 election...2008 minus 2001 is...uh...carry the one...looks like 7 to me.

Okay, allow me to clarify... how do you come up with 7 years as being the mark of "it's been 7 years, time is up; Bush failed"?

 

[PsyOps]

It's not much a sudden urgency as it is an amendment, the 22nd to be specific.

So you're worried Bush is going to invoke his right to remain in office beyond his term because we are at war; thus making himself king (or something)?

 

[Larry Gude]

No...

So you're worried Bush is going to invoke his right to remain in office beyond his term because we are at war; thus making himself king (or something)?

...more along the lines of each new administration tends to have different priorities, so, if you want to accomplish something, best to accomplish something while you can.

 

[Mateo]

I don't think what Larry means is that Bush is going to be a dictator....but he , prior to his leaving office, is not going to be a lame duck, but is going to get us involved in even more shenanigans, leaving cleanup to whomever succeeds him.
I have heard the rumor that he would invoke executive privilege in a time of conflict, which is what amounts to a coup d'etat, but I don't think he is that stupid.
To answer the question..we are informed as much as we want to be....if we want extras, we have to dig ourselves and that involves going here online or getting the hardcopy from as many sources as you can. A lot of us don't either have the time, energy or access to sources to educate ourselves and thus are open to a lot of willy nilly information that can lead anyone astray. In a tolitarian society, all news is managed and the POV is restricted. We are lucky that we have an open society and supposedly our resources are unlimited, However, we have seen the rise of media stars who think they can influence everything by the presence of their personality....look how we got mired in the Balkans because the "evil" Serbs were oppressing the muslim"minority". Not that mulims elsewhere were not oppressing the minorities within their control (Turkish invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus, Indonesian takeover and forcible conversion to Islam of the Eastern Timorese, Iranian persecution of the Ba'hai, to name a few).
In my humble opinion, the press has halfheartedly followed its duty to be the watchdog of the people. Only when their interests are piqued does it follow what its tenets were supposed to be.We the people rely on communications and are hence in a sense "hostage" to what they themselves present as "relevant" information. It is up to us, the people, to gather as much as we can to decide what is true or false. We are, the ones who give either the politicians or the media, their power, We have forgotten that.

 

[Larry Gude]

We agree...

In my humble opinion, the press has halfheartedly followed its duty to be the watchdog of the people.

...

They should be ashamed, but then so should our political leaders. Which means so should we.

I am. I am flat out ashamed of my party.

 

[itsbob]

To be informed, you;d have to first realize that we are not at war with Iraq, that war was over and won years ago.

There is no 'Iraq War' anymore. We are there to support and sustain the Iraqi Government against insurgents, terrorism and Iran (and other neighboring not so friendly countries). in essence, we are serving as the Iraqui Army, and not at war with the Iraqi Army, until they can field and sustain an Army capable of defending their own country. Until they can protect themselves we need to stay put, as if we leave to early, Iran will roll in and dominate them, and take over a very substantial piece of the middle east. And anyone will tell you that knows a little bit about strategy. It's MUCh easier to keep someone out, then it is to have to remove them.

From what I can gather the Iraquis are very close to this goal. As they went into Sadr City, they did it with very little support from the US, and from what I understand NO US ground forces, and were successful.

I have no issues with the way GW has run the 'war' on two fronts. I sleep well at night. What I have an issue with, when the country needed to be United, the likes of Hillary, Pelosi and others, were trying to find fault in EVERYthing he did, and divided the country. I honestly believe if we showed a united front in the face of adversity the terrorists would have given up LONG ago, and if nothing else would have rendered the terrorist recruiting to nil. But what the hell, what's another 1000 dead Americans if it can get her, or the democratic party to power.

The Vietnamese were the first to fight a war on our soil using our press and our politicians against us. Our current enemies have learned from these lessons, and are doing a pretty good job of it themselves.

 

[PsyOps]

...agree on is how many times the leader can be wrong in conjunction with other things he's doing before the point is reached that instead of following the leader down the path we're following the leader over a cliff.

Okay then, how many times is a leader fail? What’s the magic number? Besides, I think we already do agree that Bush has failed quite prevalently throughout. How does this equate to “get out of Iraq”? So we add another failure (surrender) to our book of failures? Or do we allow someone to find a way?

The public was 100% behind the leader until he started losing support one bad decision at a time. When you involve your country in a war and, 5 years later, not even leading contenders for your office know quite who the good guys and bad guys are, you've lead us into a quagmire. When you make that two wars...well...

And why did he start losing support Larry? Where was the public getting their info to decide whether to support or not? It wasn’t even one year when the press and the left started in on its negative propaganda campaign. I believe, whole heartedly, that Bush allowed this to sway his decision-making. This doesn’t change anything about where we are and what are we going to do about it. Leaving that country unequipped is not the answer. You can jump around all day long about Bush is a failure this and Bush is a failure that, but when you’re don’t with that, we’re still here, where we are. How do we fix it?

 

[PsyOps]

I don't think what Larry means is that Bush is going to be a dictator....but he , prior to his leaving office, is not going to be a lame duck, but is going to get us involved in even more shenanigans, leaving cleanup to whomever succeeds him.
I have heard the rumor that he would invoke executive privilege in a time of conflict, which is what amounts to a coup d'etat, but I don't think he is that stupid.
To answer the question..we are informed as much as we want to be....if we want extras, we have to dig ourselves and that involves going here online or getting the hardcopy from as many sources as you can. A lot of us don't either have the time, energy or access to sources to educate ourselves and thus are open to a lot of willy nilly information that can lead anyone astray. In a tolitarian society, all news is managed and the POV is restricted. We are lucky that we have an open society and supposedly our resources are unlimited, However, we have seen the rise of media stars who think they can influence everything by the presence of their personality....look how we got mired in the Balkans because the "evil" Serbs were oppressing the muslim"minority". Not that mulims elsewhere were not oppressing the minorities within their control (Turkish invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus, Indonesian takeover and forcible conversion to Islam of the Eastern Timorese, Iranian persecution of the Ba'hai, to name a few).
In my humble opinion, the press has halfheartedly followed its duty to be the watchdog of the people. Only when their interests are piqued does it follow what its tenets were supposed to be.We the people rely on communications and are hence in a sense "hostage" to what they themselves present as "relevant" information. It is up to us, the people, to gather as much as we can to decide what is true or false. We are, the ones who give either the politicians or the media, their power, We have forgotten that.

Then what was the point of bringing up the 22nd?

 

[PsyOps]

We agree ...

They should be ashamed, but then so should our political leaders. Which means so should we.

I am. I am flat out ashamed of my party.

Then you must say you agree with me on these points because I have been saying the same things. That's why I left the party. They don't represent my views. This whole discussion, for me, has absolutely nothing to do with party. It has to do with solutions to these problems; one of which does not include cutting and running AND blaming Bush for all our woes. It simply boils down to finding someone that will solve this mess. Paul does not have that answer. He thought Lincoln was wrong. He thought our involvement in WWII was wrong. He has been unable to articulate what would, in his narrow mind, justify going to war. THAT's why he did so poorly and lost the nomination. I don't like McCain either. But, in real terms, getting someone in that whitehouse, who will best defend this country. You can either vote on principle or vote based on what's real and inevitably going to happen, then deal with it in the next election. It's a sad end to this cycle but what else are you going to do?

 

[PsyOps]

In my humble opinion, the press has halfheartedly followed its duty to be the watchdog of the people. Only when their interests are piqued does it follow what its tenets were supposed to be.We the people rely on communications and are hence in a sense "hostage" to what they themselves present as "relevant" information. It is up to us, the people, to gather as much as we can to decide what is true or false. We are, the ones who give either the politicians or the media, their power, We have forgotten that.

You left one thing out of this. The MSM has an agenda. They know they have very uneducated, passive minds to push their propaganda on. They know they can affect the political landscape simply by planting anti-whatever info to affect what people think. Obama is the best current example of this. Have you ever seen anyone gain so much politcal capital without even having to articulate who they are and what their purpose is? No one knows anything about this guy, yet the media made him their darling and propped him up for the win.

 

[PsyOps]

To be informed, you;d have to first realize that we are not at war with Iraq, that war was over and won years ago.

We also weren't at war with Italy, France, Guam, Phillipines, etc... Makes no difference what we call it, it's still a war that needs to be won.

I have no issues with the way GW has run the 'war' on two fronts. I sleep well at night. What I have an issue with, when the country needed to be United, the likes of Hillary, Pelosi and others, were trying to find fault in EVERYthing he did, and divided the country. I honestly believe if we showed a united front in the face of adversity the terrorists would have given up LONG ago, and if nothing else would have rendered the terrorist recruiting to nil. But what the hell, what's another 1000 dead Americans if it can get her, or the democratic party to power.

This is all I have been trying to say. You said it much better than I ever could have. Thanks Bob.

You can't win a war that doesn't have the support of the people. The left and media are making sure of that.