I just got completely bitched out in a SUPERMARKET! by some dude who's son is in Iraq.

The quick play-by-play:

My wife and I were picking up a turkey for Thanksgiving. I made some quip about it's a shame I can't be thankful this year of our government and the war hawks in the current White House.

This guy overhears it, and goes nuts on how I'm not a PATRIOT!!! because I don't support the war ... and not supporting the war is the same as wishing death on U.S. troops.

Since when did questioning government become equal to disrespecting the men in uniform?

He then said if it weren't for his son, I wouldn't have an opinion so I should never disrespect and oppose a war. So I asked what he thought about the Bosnian UN invasion in the late 90s, and he of course said that wasn't the same ... as nothing with the UN is worth supporting and Clinton based his war on lies, whereas we knew Saddam was a "bad guy."

So, my question: Is disagreeing with a war equal to not supporting those fighting in said war? I say no.

What say you?

great thread. corganist and debaser will be on the same side.

Of course not. I think beating the shit out of the Taliban was a good idea, but this whole Iraq thing is out of control. It's just a revenge war becuase daddy Bush never finished the job.

I don't think anyone that joins the army wants to fight. Especially in a country where the fuckers try to blow you up at every street corner.

In Bosnia, at least we could say we stopped the genocide I guess.

and here i was doubting whether or not those people really existed. or were at least as prevelant in the states as theyre made out to be. i thought maybe i was falling for the idea too easily, that maybe these narrow minded, hysterical jingoists were just a caricature

Originally posted by sleeper
and here i was doubting whether or not those people really existed. or were at least as prevelant in the states as theyre made out to be. i thought maybe i was falling for the idea too easily, that maybe these narrow minded, hysterical jingoists were just a caricature No, these people are everywhere.

Hell, these people far outnumber those who disagree.

Originally posted by ZackZ
Of course not. I think beating the shit out of the Taliban was a good idea, but this whole Iraq thing is out of control. It's just a revenge war becuase daddy Bush never finished the job.

I don't think anyone that joins the army wants to fight. Especially in a country where the fuckers try to blow you up at every street corner.

In Bosnia, at least we could say we stopped the genocide I guess.

listen, im as against the war as the next guy, but i think its just good policy to resist those kind of corny oversimplified catch-all answers, like the revenge/daddys war thing. that one in particular never really made much sense to me. i know bush once said something like "after all, this guy tried to kill me dad" or whatever, but i wouldnt take something like that into account. were you doing so

and i hate to bring up anything nazi in a conversation like this, but i feel like i should post that famous quote by hermann goering just for perspective:


Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Originally posted by sppunk
No, these people are everywhere.

Hell, these people far outnumber those who disagree.

depends on where you live, I think. the guy was still a jerk, though. I try to attribute weird behavior like that to the stress of having a child overseas.

Honestly, disagreeing with and not supporting this war makes my heart go out to those who are fighting even more.

But I also disagree with shitting on the war to the point that the actual good being done gets overshadowed, like American donations to medical clinics helping to immunize children.

Originally posted by sleeper
and here i was doubting whether or not those people really existed. or were at least as prevelant in the states as theyre made out to be. i thought maybe i was falling for the idea too easily, that maybe these narrow minded, hysterical jingoists were just a caricature
I'd say they're just as prevalent as people who inexplicably bring up their disapproval of the war loud enough for others to hear them in the oh-so politically charged process of supermarket shopping.

But as to the topic of the thread, of course disagreeing with the war is not the same thing as wishing death upon the troops. Only idiots would even suggest such a thing.

You deserved it sppunk. How about you keep your mouth shut about political issues in the supermarket of all places.

Originally posted by Corganist

I'd say they're just as prevalent as people who inexplicably bring up their disapproval of the war loud enough for others to hear them in the oh-so politically charged process of supermarket shopping.

But as to the topic of the thread, of course disagreeing with the war is not the same thing as wishing death upon the troops. Only idiots would even suggest such a thing. See, if I was speaking loudly against things it'd make more sense. I was just softly speaking to my wife ... he just was next to me and it was pretty quiet so he could overhear I guess.

Originally posted by Corganist

I'd say they're just as prevalent as people who inexplicably bring up their disapproval of the war loud enough for others to hear them in the oh-so politically charged process of supermarket shopping.

But as to the topic of the thread, of course disagreeing with the war is not the same thing as wishing death upon the troops. Only idiots would even suggest such a thing.

well, yes, he evidently voiced his disapproval loud enough for others in the immediate area to hear, but i dont think that was the idea. like i dont think he, or a lot of people in general, do these things with an effort to attract attention. from the way he described it, he was just minding his own business, but happened upon one of those annoyingly assertive patriotic windbags. whom, from what im told, are everywhere in your country

Originally posted by Sepiae
Honestly, disagreeing with and not supporting this war makes my heart go out to those who are fighting even more.

But I also disagree with shitting on the war to the point that the actual good being done gets overshadowed, like American donations to medical clinics helping to immunize children.
wow, you're pretty dumb

Originally posted by killer_tomato

wow, you're pretty dumb

That's the second time you've insinuated as such in regards to the war, and I really would like to know why.

So... all those soldiers that are in Iraq and think the war is bullshit are wishing death on themselves?

Originally posted by Corganist

I'd say they're just as prevalent as people who inexplicably bring up their disapproval of the war loud enough for others to hear them in the oh-so politically charged process of supermarket shopping.

But as to the topic of the thread, of course disagreeing with the war is not the same thing as wishing death upon the troops. Only idiots would even suggest such a thing.
I agree with this.

As for the Bosnia thing, the main problem most people have with it is that it seemed a knee jerk cowtow to the UN. US troops under the ocmmand of the UN is not looked on kindly.

Both wars were obviously unnecesary. If we really wanted regime change in Iraq that should have been a targeted strike or black ops mission.

Our resources spent 100% in Afghanistan would have resulted in a lot better outcome.

But we're there in Iraq now, so we really should just crank up the troops, kick out the media, jack up the ammo, and get it over with.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son


But we're there in Iraq now, so we really should just crank up the troops, kick out the media, jack up the ammo, and get it over with.

youre joking right? like youre knowingly playing on that stereotypically violent, pig headed jingoist that were all talking about, right? just checking

i agree about increasing the troops though, although not necessarily with americans

Making that connection is just wishful thinking.

Originally posted by Corganist

I'd say they're just as prevalent as people who inexplicably bring up their disapproval of the war loud enough for others to hear them in the oh-so politically charged process of supermarket shopping.



Unless he had a bullhorn and was standing out in front of the place, theres really nothing wrong with him saying it.

Originally posted by Corganist

I'd say they're just as prevalent as people who inexplicably bring up their disapproval of the war loud enough for others to hear them in the oh-so politically charged process of supermarket shopping.
that was well-played

anyway, isn't supporting a war kind of wishing death on troops?

Originally posted by Sepiae

But I also disagree with shitting on the war to the point that the actual good being done gets overshadowed,

I dont think any level of criticism can overshadow it because its 2 entirely different things. Good can come from anything,

Originally posted by Lucky Day Spa

anyway, isn't supporting a war kind of wishing death on troops?

Genius

Originally posted by Future Boy


I dont think any level of criticism can overshadow it because its 2 entirely different things. Good can come from anything,

My dad has done a lot of work, is all, and heard some really good stories about what's going on and every time he shows me his videos or pictures he says, "And this is the stuff you never hear about." Which is kind of a typical "stupid liberal media" thing to say, but he does have a point.

Originally posted by Future Boy

Unless he had a bullhorn and was standing out in front of the place, theres really nothing wrong with him saying it.
I didn't say there was. It just struck me that his comment was every bit as odd as the other person's reaction to it. If someone was buying a turkey and said out of nowhere "I'm thankful for our President, George W. Bush." and got accosted for it I'd think the same thing. Its nothing to yelled at by nosy eavesdroppers over, but it still seems a strange thing to say given the context.

Originally posted by Sepiae


My dad has done a lot of work, is all, and heard some really good stories about what's going on and every time he shows me his videos or pictures he says, "And this is the stuff you never hear about." Which is kind of a typical "stupid liberal media" thing to say, but he does have a point.

well, dont you think theres a certain measure of dishonesty involved in digging through mountains of shit and picking out a nugget of gold and acting like its at all representative of the state of affairs? because the state of affairs is not good by any stretch of the imagination and the coverage should reflect that. is there something good going on somewhere in that mess? yes, id assume so, but the reason why its not being reported isnt because of the "liberal media" but because its just not an accurate way to portray things

For the record, my dad is anti-liberal media, not me. I do agree with your point, though.

Originally posted by sleeper


well, dont you think theres a certain measure of dishonesty involved in digging through mountains of shit and picking out a nugget of gold and acting like its at all representative of the state of affairs? because the state of affairs is not good by any stretch of the imagination and the coverage should reflect that. is there something good going on somewhere in that mess? yes, id assume so, but the reason why its not being reported isnt because of the "liberal media" but because its just not an accurate way to portray things

I know this is anecdotal evidence I'm about to give, but it's about all we can get at this point. I just met with/listened to three soldiers (two were in iraq, one afghanistan) who had served tours of duty in the past year to two years, and all three of them agreed that the media only reported on and sensationalized the bad things, and ignored most of the good. they understood it's the nature of the beast (one of the soldiers admitted "if i heard every day about a new school being opened by the americans in Iraq I probably wouldn't care either"), but they all voiced discontent over the issue. So i wouldn't say talking about the good stuff isn't an accurate portrayal. the way the war is being reported now, according to the soldiers, is what is not accurate.

Originally posted by Sepiae
For the record, my dad is anti-liberal media, not me. I do agree with your point, though.

whats this "liberal-media" you speak of? im unaware of such a thing

Originally posted by sleeper


youre joking right? like youre knowingly playing on that stereotypically violent, pig headed jingoist that were all talking about, right? just checking

i agree about increasing the troops though, although not necessarily with americans So you're saying you agree then

Also for once try getting through a thread without using the word "jingostic." It's fucking lazy, man.

Originally posted by sleeper


whats this "liberal-media" you speak of? im unaware of such a thing That's because you're a Liberal. You never notice the slant if you agree with it

Originally posted by Junebug


I know this is anecdotal evidence I'm about to give, but it's about all we can get at this point. I just met with/listened to three soldiers (two were in iraq, one afghanistan) who had served tours of duty in the past year to two years, and all three of them agreed that the media only reported on and sensationalized the bad things, and ignored most of the good. they understood it's the nature of the beast (one of the soldiers admitted "if i heard every day about a new school being opened by the americans in Iraq I probably wouldn't care either"), but they all voiced discontent over the issue. So i wouldn't say talking about the good stuff isn't an accurate portrayal. the way the war is being reported now, according to the soldiers, is what is not accurate.

well, there are two different levels here, and its easy to mix them up. we cant mix up these localized, person-to-person, american to iraqi success stories with the success of the iraq project as a whole. one isnt indicative of the other. when the entire country is on the verge of civil war, corruption and theft, amongst both american contractors and iraqis, is endemic, unemployment is like 50%, and the entire state apparatus cant even keep saddams lawyers alive long enough to conduct a few weeks of trial, focusing on human interest stories gives, at best, a misleading impression. i mean to say that some story of some iraqi boy getting his first flu shot, or whatever, doesnt really say anything about the state of affairs, and that is what question is trying to be answered in the news everyday. but, seriously, if there were to be some kind of balance in reporting on news of this variety, the good human interest news would still be hopelessly smothered out by the stories of poor shoeless joe shiite becoming permanently paralyzed after being hit with some explosion while waiting in line at a recruiting office for some piss poor job

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
So you're saying you agree then

Also for once try getting through a thread without using the word "jingostic." It's fucking lazy, man.

i dont think ive ever even uttered that word in a thread that you havent been all over, just to be clear. my hand is forced, buddy

i agree with the troop thing, but the "kick out the media" (wtf?) and pump up the ammo shit is beyond stupid. so you werent joking. mike, listen: please reevalutate your reasoning for that stuff. its so outlandishly bad i cant ever take you seriously again if you at all believe in it. youve really lost it

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
That's because you're a Liberal. You never notice the slant if you agree with it

you people are trying to create an artificial balance. i think the difference between the liberal and conservative media is that the majority of the liberal media has absolutely no appreciable agenda (pbs) and is just doing what it does, while theres hardly a single conservative outlet that isnt zealously propped up by some conservative tycoon or organization or church or whatever. when people say theyre trying to "correct" the slant i cant help but laugh. anything that isnt expressly conservative is automatically liberal. this doesnt exist

Originally posted by sleeper

well, dont you think theres a certain measure of dishonesty involved in digging through mountains of shit and picking out a nugget of gold and acting like its at all representative of the state of affairs? because the state of affairs is not good by any stretch of the imagination and the coverage should reflect that. is there something good going on somewhere in that mess? yes, id assume so, but the reason why its not being reported isnt because of the "liberal media" but because its just not an accurate way to portray things
So how exactly are you getting the idea that the state of affairs is not good? As far as I know, you haven't been to Iraq...so it would seem that your impressions are coming from the media coverage. So basically it seems like your argument is "The media coverage is not overly negative, because it is consistent with the negative media coverage." Don't you think that's a bit of a circular argument?

no because the only type of "good news" ive ever been hearing about, that allegedly is being deliberately or irresponsibly ignored, is specifically the type that is on that very small, local scale. there literally is hardly any other "good news." this isnt from an american perspective either, but a global one. i read enough news from enough sources that i think that side of it, did it exist in a significant way, would be sufficiently, or at least perceptibly, represented. the news, simply, is mostly all bad. iraq is a mess. you can debate this, but only as far as your willing to charge the entire body of international media and reporting coming out of iraq, as whole, as being false or deliberately misleading.

and youre arguing from a pretty tenuous position, i think. theres some kind of fallacy here that i cant remember the name of. appealing to this kind of "yeah, but you dont know for sure" thing, which, come to think of it, you use a lot. ill look it up and get back to you

besides, facts are facts. if you hear about all these large scale disasters, with a handful of these occuring every week, there would have to be a pretty concerted effort on the part of the media to cover up any kind of good news that could at all rival this and challenge the assesment that "things are going bad."

Originally posted by sleeper
besides, facts are facts. if you hear about all these large scale disasters, with a handful of these occuring every week, there would have to be a pretty concerted effort on the part of the media to cover up any kind of good news that could at all rival this and challenge the assesment that "things are going bad."

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "if it bleeds, it leads". I understand why the media puts more attention on bombings and the like, but that doesn't mean that it's a fair representation of what's going on. One of the soldiers said that he was in one of the cities in the Sunni Triangle (i believe he said Tikrit, but I could be wrong) and he was watching the news. they were talking about how the city he was in was an insurgent stronghold, very dangerous, yadda yadda yadda. He got upset because there he was, sitting comfortably, after just walking back from a bank to pick up a bunch of american dollars, and here was the news saying that the place was swarming with insurgents.

you're saying picking a "nugget" to show how well the state of affairs is going isn't representative of how things really are. i would agree. But it's a good idea to acknowledge that 1) there are good things going on there--local, person-to-person (which makes a huge difference if done on a wide scale), and 2) not showing these so-called "nuggets" is also not representative of state affairs. I'm not saying everything in Iraq is peachy keen. but it's not what the media says it is, either. For better or worse, the media is not showing us the entire picture.

Originally posted by sleeper


i dont think ive ever even uttered that word in a thread that you havent been all over, just to be clear. my hand is forced, buddy

i agree with the troop thing, but the "kick out the media" (wtf?) and pump up the ammo shit is beyond stupid. so you werent joking. mike, listen: please reevalutate your reasoning for that stuff. its so outlandishly bad i cant ever take you seriously again if you at all believe in it. youve really lost it
Get the media off the front lines. They don't have a "right" to be there. Their pictures rarely tell a full story. They take them after the combat and the story - good or bad - is always perceived as bad.

Picture of dead soldier: bad. Picture of dead Iraqi: bad. The media is partially responsible for the backass way the war is being fought. It's the same as Vietnam.

And yes, pump up the ammo. More tanks. More assault vehicles. It seems you just advocate more men.

Look, if you want to win a war - by God, try and win the fucking war.

Also your attempts to bait me by posting incorrect things and insulting me isn't going to work. You're just not good anough at it.

Originally posted by Sepiae


My dad has done a lot of work, is all, and heard some really good stories about what's going on and every time he shows me his videos or pictures he says, "And this is the stuff you never hear about." Which is kind of a typical "stupid liberal media" thing to say, but he does have a point.

I do feel for those helping and doing it in an honorable way, because they will be lost in the situation. Either its a mess and thats all we hear, or its fine and we dont hear anything.


Originally posted by Junebug


I'm sure you've heard the phrase "if it bleeds, it leads". I understand why the media puts more attention on bombings and the like, but that doesn't mean that it's a fair representation of what's going on. One of the soldiers said that he was in one of the cities in the Sunni Triangle (i believe he said Tikrit, but I could be wrong) and he was watching the news. they were talking about how the city he was in was an insurgent stronghold, very dangerous, yadda yadda yadda. He got upset because there he was, sitting comfortably, after just walking back from a bank to pick up a bunch of american dollars, and here was the news saying that the place was swarming with insurgents.

you're saying picking a "nugget" to show how well the state of affairs is going isn't representative of how things really are. i would agree. But it's a good idea to acknowledge that 1) there are good things going on there--local, person-to-person (which makes a huge difference if done on a wide scale), and 2) not showing these so-called "nuggets" is also not representative of state affairs. I'm not saying everything in Iraq is peachy keen. but it's not what the media says it is, either. For better or worse, the media is not showing us the entire picture.


But isnt that simply trying to provide a balanced perspective to an unbalanced situation? I would say it would be even more misleading to try and sort of "even things out".

I dont think anyone believes its complete disorder over there, but the state of affairs are leaning a certain way.

Originally posted by Corganist

So how exactly are you getting the idea that the state of affairs is not good? As far as I know, you haven't been to Iraq...so it would seem that your impressions are coming from the media coverage. So basically it seems like your argument is "The media coverage is not overly negative, because it is consistent with the negative media coverage." Don't you think that's a bit of a circular argument?

There was recent testimony by some generals where they basically said we have more Iraqi battalions overall, but the number able to work on their own has actually decreased. There are other things to go on than simply media coverage in Iraq. The updates from those in charge dont give the impression of things progressing. Granted, perceptions arent the best to go on, but it doesnt seem to be getting better, and some feel-good moments in the news wouldnt do much in reflecting the overall situation.

Originally posted by sleeper
no because the only type of "good news" ive ever been hearing about, that allegedly is being deliberately or irresponsibly ignored, is specifically the type that is on that very small, local scale. there literally is hardly any other "good news." this isnt from an american perspective either, but a global one. i read enough news from enough sources that i think that side of it, did it exist in a significant way, would be sufficiently, or at least perceptibly, represented. the news, simply, is mostly all bad. iraq is a mess. you can debate this, but only as far as your willing to charge the entire body of international media and reporting coming out of iraq, as whole, as being false or deliberately misleading.
Again, using the news itself as some kind of evidence to support the idea that the news is accurate is a wholly circular argument that gets us nowhere.In the end you're still in no position, as I understand it, to say anything about how things truly are in Iraq. Certainly you're within your right to believe the news, but in the end that's all you're doing. Meanwhile, there have been more than a few people who have actually been on the ground in Iraq who have come back and claimed the news is at least somewhat skewed. Are they being false or deliberately misleading?

I find it telling that you seek to explain away the lack of good news reported as being somehow attributed to its being small-scale and local...as though the only bad news reported is large-scale and wide-ranging. If the disparity really is only a matter of scale, then why did all the hoopla a week or two ago over the 2000th US death in Iraq completely overshadow the successful referendum on the Iraqi constitution? Maybe you're right, and there just is more bad news to report...but when even major news that is at least somewhat positive gets only modestly reported, does it not make you wonder just a little bit? Don't you wonder what the news would look like if school openings and the like were just as headline-worthy as explosions and death? I'm not saying there'd be a sure difference, but you have to at least entertain the idea.

and youre arguing from a pretty tenuous position, i think. theres some kind of fallacy here that i cant remember the name of. appealing to this kind of "yeah, but you dont know for sure" thing, which, come to think of it, you use a lot. ill look it up and get back to you
I'd rather come at something with genuine uncertainty than false certainty. Maybe that's fence-straddling, but so be it. I'm just not so willing to go out on a limb on something happening halfway around the world when there are conflicting reports.

Originally posted by Future Boy


I do feel for those helping and doing it in an honorable way, because they will be lost in the situation. Either its a mess and thats all we hear, or its fine and we dont hear anything.





But isnt that simply trying to provide a balanced perspective to an unbalanced situation? I would say it would be even more misleading to try and sort of "even things out".

I dont think anyone believes its complete disorder over there, but the state of affairs are leaning a certain way.

they're absolutely leaning a certain way. Of course Iraq is turning out way worse than it could/should be turning out. I'm definitely not saying that for every bad story you should have a good one. But how many positive headlines do you read, (besides neutral/semipositive election ones about a constitution being drafted etc)? If one went just by the headlines and news stories, they would probably think that nothing good EVER happened over there. which isn't true. I think there are a lot more positive things going on in Iraq than the media is telling us about, because good news isn't as intersting as bad news. If you looked at the daily local news in any city, it would probably look like the whole place was going to hell in a handbasket. it's the nature of the media. that's it.

Originally posted by Junebug


they're absolutely leaning a certain way. Of course Iraq is turning out way worse than it could/should be turning out. I'm definitely not saying that for every bad story you should have a good one. But how many positive headlines do you read, (besides neutral/semipositive election ones about a constitution being drafted etc)? If one went just by the headlines and news stories, they would probably think that nothing good EVER happened over there. which isn't true. I think there are a lot more positive things going on in Iraq than the media is telling us about, because good news isn't as intersting as bad news. If you looked at the daily local news in any city, it would probably look like the whole place was going to hell in a handbasket. it's the nature of the media. that's it.


Well like I said, I dont think anyone believes there is no good going on. This isnt exactly the same as the daily reporting of a major city or something.

What is there to be gained from it? So people feel good about whats happening?

Originally posted by Junebug


I'm sure you've heard the phrase "if it bleeds, it leads". I understand why the media puts more attention on bombings and the like, but that doesn't mean that it's a fair representation of what's going on. One of the soldiers said that he was in one of the cities in the Sunni Triangle (i believe he said Tikrit, but I could be wrong) and he was watching the news. they were talking about how the city he was in was an insurgent stronghold, very dangerous, yadda yadda yadda. He got upset because there he was, sitting comfortably, after just walking back from a bank to pick up a bunch of american dollars, and here was the news saying that the place was swarming with insurgents.

you're saying picking a "nugget" to show how well the state of affairs is going isn't representative of how things really are. i would agree. But it's a good idea to acknowledge that 1) there are good things going on there--local, person-to-person (which makes a huge difference if done on a wide scale), and 2) not showing these so-called "nuggets" is also not representative of state affairs. I'm not saying everything in Iraq is peachy keen. but it's not what the media says it is, either. For better or worse, the media is not showing us the entire picture.

just to clarify, it isnt like none of this "good news" stuff is being published. for instance, just a few weeks ago in the new york times i remember there being a big story on how hard a time the americans were having in this one town, where they coudlnt even stand still out in the open for more than a few seconds because "everyone is a sniper." and then later in the paper there was an even bigger story on an american vs. iraqi sports tournament that the americans were doing to help increase camaraderie, with all kinds of cozy little soundbites from both sides saying how good friends they were and how optimistic they were for the future and whatever. and then the next day the shiites try and change the wording of the provisional constitution so as to guarantee the passage of the the new, extremely pro-shiite constitution. those kind of stories not only do not win out in the battle for the publics attention, but are hardly even newsworthy to begin with. at this point a lot of the media, and public, is tired with iraq and the only the biggest things get any real amount of attention. yes, blood sells, but the opening of a new school or whatever also isnt really news at all, and is especially not major enough to crack most of the medias high threshold now. theres also the sense that the rebuilding of roads and the establishment of law and order is what should have been happening to begin with. the fact that that stuff is remarkable is an even further testament to the poor state of affairs
another thing is scale. when it comes to the rebuilding, the media has the option of covering the grand opening of some new, modern health clinic or covering bigger, broader, issue-based news, like the fact that billions has been misspent, misallocated, and illegally syphoned off by contractors. one is good news and one is bad, yes. but one is also a big story and the other isnt

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

Get the media off the front lines. They don't have a "right" to be there. Their pictures rarely tell a full story. They take them after the combat and the story - good or bad - is always perceived as bad.

Picture of dead soldier: bad. Picture of dead Iraqi: bad. The media is partially responsible for the backass way the war is being fought. It's the same as Vietnam.

And yes, pump up the ammo. More tanks. More assault vehicles. It seems you just advocate more men.

Look, if you want to win a war - by God, try and win the fucking war.

Also your attempts to bait me by posting incorrect things and insulting me isn't going to work. You're just not good anough at it.

im not even going to touch that media thing for now

i thought you meant pump up the ammo as in like start using it more, rather than just start providing better equipment and resources, which they (especially the iraqis) are certainly in dire need of

and, again, this might be a "war" yes but this is not the kind of war you fight the way you seem to be implying it should be fought anymore. lack of war-like operations isnt the problem here, and its in fact dangerously narrow minded to just try and drop more bombs in proportion to increasing unrest, so to speak. its very convenient to believe that "if only we didnt have our hands tied" by the media or whiny, petulant public opinion, we would have the freedom of action to conduct the war like a war and everything would be solved, but that just flat out isnt true. there are deep-rooted social issues that need to be solved here, delicately, and escalating the violence in the situation is only going to make iraq more of a homing beacon and training ground for jihadists than it already is

and im just insulting you for the sport of it, im not trying to bait you. if i was i would talk about the cliched fat american or whatever, as that seems to always get you riled up. also, i honestly dont know what youre talking about when you say that im posting "incorrect" things. i dont know what it is youre referring to

Originally posted by Corganist

Again, using the news itself as some kind of evidence to support the idea that the news is accurate is a wholly circular argument that gets us nowhere.In the end you're still in no position, as I understand it, to say anything about how things truly are in Iraq. Certainly you're within your right to believe the news, but in the end that's all you're doing. Meanwhile, there have been more than a few people who have actually been on the ground in Iraq who have come back and claimed the news is at least somewhat skewed. Are they being false or deliberately misleading?

I find it telling that you seek to explain away the lack of good news reported as being somehow attributed to its being small-scale and local...as though the only bad news reported is large-scale and wide-ranging. If the disparity really is only a matter of scale, then why did all the hoopla a week or two ago over the 2000th US death in Iraq completely overshadow the successful referendum on the Iraqi constitution? Maybe you're right, and there just is more bad news to report...but when even major news that is at least somewhat positive gets only modestly reported, does it not make you wonder just a little bit? Don't you wonder what the news would look like if school openings and the like were just as headline-worthy as explosions and death? I'm not saying there'd be a sure difference, but you have to at least entertain the idea.

[b]
I'd rather come at something with genuine uncertainty than false certainty. Maybe that's fence-straddling, but so be it. I'm just not so willing to go out on a limb on something happening halfway around the world when there are conflicting reports.

i know how that can appear to be circular, but it isnt. firstly, like i said, facts are facts. this goes beyond the question of simple coverage. some big event happens, it gets reported. i know youre kind of saying that the issue is that the media is picking on certain facts, not that they are making them up, but, like i said, there would have to be a proportionately monumental amount of "good news" events coming occurring in iraq to even begin to combat the scale of the "bad news" events, and if you are implying that such a thing does indeed already exist, youre really accusing the entire domestic and international media of a conspiracy much too big for me to begin to accept
the second reason why it isnt circular is because the question in this thread largely focuses on the american medias coverage, saying that they have some sort of domestically-motivated, political bias in their coverage or whatever. this idea is ruled out by the identical quality and focus of international coverage and, like future boy said, things like senate hearings and other non-media indications, which, especially lately, wholly corroborate the assessment made by the media. your idea that this is a circular argument could only exist, i think, if we lived in some kind of vacuum, where the only information in was what the american media told us

i, personally, find it hard to take the accounts of soldiers too much to heart, if thats what youre largely referring to. for one, lets not lie to ourselves and say how universally good their reportage of the state of affairs is or has been, because a lot of it is as stark as anything else. two, i think a soldier who served 4 tours or duty or whatever has something of a vested interest in talking about the progress their company made happen or whatever. and three, their perspective is very limited i would say to, as weve been talking about, localized, human issues, which can be great in some parts for all its worth, but arent necessarily indicative of the overall state of affairs and direction of the country

im not going to defend the empty and tasteless sermonizing after the 2000th death. i thought that was as ridiculous as you probably did. theres something perverted about the whole thing, i think. but, to be fair, a lot of papers were just using it as a means through which to discuss broader issues, like the american soldiers over there in general, the life of a family or town that has some of their people over there, or the progress made in terms of logistics and emergency medical care and how this contrasts to previous wars. for some it was just an opportunity to cheaply lament the war or the president, but for many it was just an occasion through which other issues could be explored
and, i hate to tell you this, but the constitution thing wasnt even good news. it was good news insofar as it wouldve been even worse if it hadnt been accepted, but it passed narrowly and is a deeply flawed piece of shit that will solve nothing. that isnt conjecture either, it really solved nothing. in fact, the only reason it even passed was because it left pretty much all of the biggest issues to be solved in later referendums. its has symbolic value, maybe, but in practical terms its largely irrelevant if not actively bad

i couldnt find the name of the fallacy i thought it was but im going to use that same type of argument against you later on when i see the opportunity to maybe make my point. i agree that we shouldnt just jump on whatever presents itself as being true, but there has to be a point where you, for the sake or practicality if not anything else, accpet the veracity of something, despite the fact that absolute certainty can not hypothetically be met. isnt this the same type of argument being made now by the administration? we could only go on the body of evidence we all had on the WMD question, we couldnt read minds, etc.

I have come to the conculsions that supporting war in almost all cases is terribly unpatriotic. It is terrible for business, destructive to prosperity and devalues human life. It wastes everythign that goes itno it and rarely achieves it's desired results (admirable as they sometimes may be).

Originally posted by jczeroman
I have come to the conculsions that supporting war in almost all cases is terribly unpatriotic. It is terrible for business, destructive to prosperity and devalues human life. It wastes everythign that goes itno it and rarely achieves it's desired results (admirable as they sometimes may be).
Were you against Afghanistan?

Originally posted by sleeper


theres also the sense that the rebuilding of roads and the establishment of law and order is what should have been happening to begin with. the fact that that stuff is remarkable is an even further testament to the poor state of affairs

what i'm saying is, it's NOT remarkable. you think it's remarkable because you hardly ever hear about it. i have to go so i'm sorry i can't address the other issues. maybe when i get back. if you want i can post a quote from an email one of the soldiers sent me, but I would want to get his permission first.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

Were you against Afghanistan?

No. I wasn't against Iraq when it started either. If I had the choice of going back, I would definitely take a more critical look at Afghanistan to determine whether I am for or against it. Whether the aims were just or not, right now it looks more like nation-building than anything else.

heres a nice article on the exact topic that was just being discussed. it sums things up well, i think

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s02-usmi.html

Originally posted by sleeper
heres a nice article on the exact topic that was just being discussed. it sums things up well, i think

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s02-usmi.html Yeah, when I worked for the Navy/Marines, sailors and soldiers would often complain that what's on TV back home isn't at all what's really going on over there