How come the Press
How come the Press never asks US how things are here ?
(Military personnel at Camp Justice)
picture: dunno source, via our lolcat builder. lol caption: Hueydoc
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous It puts the mars soil sample in the scoop | Can’t stop now Next »
» 158 comments
-
Recent Comments
The Amazing Rando on Mr. Yang Was Just Asked The Amazing Rando on Giggity Giggity The Amazing Rando on Giggity Giggity wickets ebil twin on Giggity Giggity Bix Nood on Mr. Yang Was Just Asked suicide_blonde on Mr. Yang Was Just Asked suicide_blonde on Giggity Giggity wickets ebil twin on Giggity Giggity The Amazing Rando on Giggity Giggity The Amazing Rando on And then the nasty ol… 
Cheezburger Network Blog
Too dangerous?
Poor Camp Justice
Finding out the facts might conflict with the Narrative.
The Narrative? There are two, one from the Executive, the other from the media. The media narrative is based on the idea that bad news sells. It’s neither liberal or conservative bias at work, it’s money bias. The Executive narrative is, “Everything is hunky dory and STOP ASKING QUESTIONS.” Which one were you referring to?
If you think there is no liberal bias in the media, you are either ignorant or deluded. There is a very simply way to tell if the media is biased: check the voting record of the editors and journalists. This has been done and they are clearly liberal. A quick Google search on “liberal bias media” found this resource: http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp.
Wow, a web site dedicated to uncovering liberal bias in media has found… wait for it… liberal bias in media. Shocker.
You Sir Get a cookie.
There is liberal and Conservative Bias in the world.
That’s funny, because I’m a liberal and I find myself pissed off at the media so often that after September 11 I largely stopped paying attention to it.
It doesn’t matter how they individually vote. They’re gonna slant their stories any way their editors and publishers tell them to do it. And it’s not liberals who *own* most of the media, I promise you.
Even NPR, whatever their bias, gives conservatives a platform on their programs. Literally. I heard them interviewing Richard Perle one day, and treating him with respect. Wanted to puke.
Hmmm… I wonder how their bosses vote? You know, Westinghouse, General Electric, et al? I bet they just love them libs!
I was referring to the media’s narrative — “War is lost, BUSH EVUL!”
But it would work for both.
Care to add up column inches of positive and negative coverage? Maybe point out how many times ‘the media’ (as if it’s all one conspiracy!) has implied that Bush is evil, as opposed to how many times they’ve kissed his ass and lobbed only softball questions at him?
According to independent research, reporters are more liberal than their audience, but owners and editors are more conservative. And guess who decides what gets printed? Media has a conservative bias, not a liberal one.
But you know what aspects of today’s media have even more effect on coverage? First, laziness. No one wants to do real investigative journalism, or even basic fact checking, when they can just run with whatever some mouthpiece tells them. Second, profit. The media is a business, and they tell people whatever they think is going to sell.
And remember, we are not their customers. We are the product that they deliver to their real customers, the advertisers.
“… lobbed only softball questions at him?”
Is this slow-pitch or fast-pitch? I mean, I could hit both, but I doubt the president could. Especially in his monkey suit.
OK : another example … how many consecutive issues of the New York Times featured Guantanamo on the front page? How many (consecutive or not!) front page articles were there on the various benchmarks being met in Iraq?
What benchmarks have been met in Iraq?
Guantanamo is a serious issue, because the people there have not had a trial, no one knows if they are innocent or guilty. Many of them were set up by enemies in Iraq who saw a chance to take them out with a word to American forces. You can’t say that any of them are guilty until they’ve had an actual trial. So something that serious deserves front page coverage.
Military and civilian US courts aren’t the same. They really don’t get a trial just like how our POW’s didn’t.
See, you don’t even know that 15 of the White House’s 18 benchmarks for success in Iraq have been met.
That’s because you rely on the biased liberal media for your ‘news’.
wow… did you even read the article, Mouthpiece? 15 were determined “satisfactory”, you know, like a B- for effort? I’m not going to quote directly from the article, since the AP is chock full of suck, but you can read it for yourself: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25481841/
Needless to say, not so stellar a review.
To be fair, I think one of those benchmarks must have been just showing up. *sings* “Lowered Expectations”
I like you… (Invader Zim reference, for those who know it)
Doom, doom, da-doom doom, doom, doom, doom
…six months later…
Doom, doom, da-doom doom, doom, doom, doom
YAY We’re Doomed!
Um…. when has the “executive” stopped anyone from asking questions? For that matter, when has the press’ role in Iraq ever been the honest asking of questions? For the most part their role has been to report only the negatives…. and be very quiet about the positives.
You really think we have a free press in Iraq? Look at the coverage of the Vietnam war. Look at how managed and staged the whole embedded media circus is. If the executive weren’t managing this whole show carefully, the medias tendency towards, “if it bleeds, it leads,” would guarantee even more negative coverage than we’re getting.
Of course we don’t have a free press in Iraq.
We have a left-wing propaganda machine in Iraq, calling itself ‘the media’.
Do you run around and call everyone a Communist who you don’t agree with as well, Mr. McCarthy?
Do you run around calling everyone a McCarthyist who you … oh, never mind.
Becuase we are ordered not to talk to media.
….. proof?
Every command is SUPPOSED to have a public affairs officer, specifically assigned to handle press and media in regards to operations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_affairs_(military)
….. which contradicts your original claim, that troops can’t talk to the media.
No it doesn’t. The point is just anybody canNOT talk to media. Only specifically designated people can.
That’s not so true actually. We’re allowed to talk to the media, just have to censor what we tell them.
Are you daring to say that soldiers are sometimes not allowed to give information that could jeopardize operational security? CENSORSHIP!
most commands inform their personnel to speak with the PAO before making comments about operations.
Yeah, this is pretty much true. There are also different rules for officers then enlisted, and the higher up of an officer you are the more severe the punishment if you go against regulation. The military is not a democracy the way we civilians understand it, in order for it to work and for people to go against human survival instinct and risk their lives you have to give up certain rights and freedoms for the time that you are serving.
Pre-cisely. But as I said somewhere else in this thread, the same goes for anybody with a job. Unless you negotiate before taking the job, you have very few rights except to do what your told. But you get money for doing it, so people normally are cool with it.
Wrong. We’re allowed to talk with media, but limited to what we can say, keeping OPSEC in mind. Any OPSEC-related questions should be directed to an Official.
My guess is that it’s all pretty close to the situation we have here. What I mean is, they probably have just as many people for or against it. And that may sound contradictory, but people less than vehemently opposed to the war may still be fighting it. Besides, once they’ve enlisted, they’ve basically signed their lives away for X years. Also, there is still good being done there, but that has nothing to do with whether or not we should be over there for the reasons we are. There are plenty of people suffering around the world due to strong-arming politicians and political parties (Zimbabwe and Sudan ring a bell).
Don’t ask, don’t tell?
They dont?
Whats “War Tapes” and several other documentaries then?
Hmmm….. apparently, such things don’t exist if they are inconvenient to one’s received world view.
Are soldiers allowed to talk to the press?
Sure, why not?
Wow, you know nothing about the being in the armed forces, do you? I mean, it is OBVIOUS you’ve never served and no one you know closely has ever served. I’ve got friends and relatives in the service and you are flat out wrong. Listen to what people who know better are saying and stop making up stories in your head about the way you’d LIKE the world to be.
we are having this convo 2 posts above
Wow! You have “friends and relatives” in the military? That makes you a friggin expert ? Why don’t you actually do some time in the military yourself, you little mouthpiece- if you’re not a coward that is….
Not without express permission…. and then they tell you what you are allowed to say. No kidding. I was the first female in my school to join, and at 17. So the local paper wanted to write it up. I had to get permission before I could meet with the reporter, then we had my commanding officer in on the interview. That was just for some simple questions… no way any of those guys would be able to talk to reporters, at least not openly.
I think it may have been just cause you were a female. You know how the ladies like to chatter.
Way to be dismissive, condescending and insulting to someone who put themselves in harms way for you. The whole conservative, “support the troops,” is really just so much empty rhetoric, isn’t it? It’s just words. When push comes to shove, you don’t give a damn about the troops. Let them wander around some dank hellhole of a hospital with a head wound, who cares? If they say something you don’t want to hear, insult them to their face. “Support the troops,” really means nothing more than “Shut the hell up about the war.”
Actually Seth, its just a joke. Like when, on other pics, people call Jane an ignorant slut (ala SNL). Just a joke. This is, first and foremost, a humor site. I will not tell you to stop being serious, as I understand that there are times that is necessary. I would only recommend that, when you read something here, you first ask if the message you are reading is a joke. Having said that, on with the fun.
Are you calling me an ignorant slut?!!!! Why you little…….. awwwwww, never mind.
Seth buddy, please remember that this is a humor site above all else. I am not going to tell you to never be serious here as I understand one feels it necessary sometimes. I just ask that, before you go off on someone, you ask yourself if the message might be an attempt (sometimes lame) at humor.
Every post is offensive to Seth the Wrathinator/Crotchwaffle!
Everything is offensive to Seth the Wrathinator!! RWOR!
The typical conservative reply, “But I was just kidding! Can’t you liberals take a joke?” If it worked both ways, that would be fine. But you guys get in a huff whenever anyone “jokes” with you that way.
I suppose I should have said, “Aw, Steve, you’re just bitter ’cause the ladies won’t sleep with you.” Then it would have been a joke and you’d be fine with that, right?
That’s it… I’m tired of debating with you rationally. You are just a blatant idiot. I mean, I could continue debating you rationally, but I know that it’s just no use. You still think that everybody has established double-standards against you and your affiliated party. You still think that you know everybody’s intentions because you read some words under their name on the internets[sic]. You are just a paranoid troll with a fuse the length of a mouse’s wang. You may continue to troll, but know that I retain the justified right to turn off my hearing in your direction any moment, and I believe that others have that right as well.
HA HA! Mouse’s wang! Ha!
Awww, hey buddy, I was just joking around, what’s the matter, can’t you guys take a joke? Jeez, no need to get all personally insulting, it’s a lolz site here, you shouldn’t take things people say so personally. Come on, all in fun, right? Don’t be so serious.
I am not sure what he was responding to, but let the record show that I did not respond to you in that way. I think Mouse’s wang is funny though. I think I am going to use that sometime. Everything you said is right, in my opinion. I only speak for myself.
You are such a tool… You troll and troll and troll and when somebody calls you out you mimic them and act like you took nothing personally and it was all in fun. I just don’t buy it. Every thread I’ve seen you in you go off on somebody for little to no reason.
Look, I’m really not taking this personally. You can believe that I am, but I’m not. I’m just saying that you are terrible at contributing intelligently to the general conversation.
You are, on the other hand, an excellent troll–whether intentionally or unintentionally. You never stop being a dick. (Remember, I’m really not taking this personally or seriously, but that won’t stop you from believing that I am, will it?)
Oh, hey, no, I totally believe you. Just like I believed you when you said you were done responding to me because I’m such a troll. You’re not taking any of this personally, you’re cool, calm and collected. A regular ice cube, that’s you, Danny. And totally unbiased. A king among men.
Thanks again for proving my point that repugs can dish it out but turn into mean spirited, whiny girls when anyone returns fire. Hypocrites.
Look, genius, I said that I reserve the right to ignore you. Which meants that I can choose when to and when not to listen to your argument, which goes without saying. But my key point was that it’s justified for anybody here to ignore you because you rarely contribute anything positive to the argument.
There you go again not listening to a word I said and pretending you know me because you wanted to misinterpret some words I said on the internet to make you feel justified.
Where have you ever made a free-spirited joke here in the Kitchen? It seems to me that you sit around waiting to respond to somebody else’s joke as if they meant it with absolute sincerity instead of with tongue-in-cheek. And look, you have to break some time and actually believe a word somebody says, otherwise you can’t prove any point to anybody but yourself. And to prove something only to yourself is to prove it to nobody.
(Now watch as Seth proceeds to claim that I called him a nobody…)
Seth, I never called you a liberal or anything else. Joke away. As for the joke, I would probably had laughed my butt off and replied with something like “My wife appreciates their reticence.” or something like that. But I would, admittedly, question your need to make a personal attack. I would not write it here, but I would wonder. I wondered anyways, given your rather nasty reply. You would think I made fun of your Mom. (Well, I guess I did in a way. The military would not let her talk either, what with spawning Seth the Weapon of Mass Defecation). See that? A joke. I do not know you, hate you, or love you. We are co-existing in the LOLZ world. So please Seth, relax, you are among others who love humor. Make a joke. Everything, including me, is fair game.
Shortest. Fuse. Evar.
It makes sense. It’s just like working for a company. Since the company owns you (more so when you’ve signed your life away in a contract, such as in the army), it is their right to make sure of what is said about their company and it’s people and purpose. Sure there is such a thing as freedom of speech, but there is also such a thing as at-will employment, which says that an employer can fire you at any time for any reason (or even no reason). I signed something myself saying that I am at-will employed. It’s worth the risk for such a high-paying job. Anyways, this is why companies have PR people, to deal with public relations.
This from official Army policy:
5–12. Official discussions with the media
To broaden public awareness of the Army, Army personnel are encouraged to speak with the media factually, candidly,
and fully about unclassified matters on which they have personal knowledge and expertise. Senior commanders and
staff officers are expected to discuss military matters within their purview with news media representatives.
5–13. Unofficial discussions
Anyone subject to this regulation may agree to a media request for an interview in an unofficial capacity. Army
personnel may express personal opinions unless limited by law or regulation. They should discuss candidly matters
about which they have personal knowledge if the information is not classified or otherwise non-releasable. When
questioned on a classified matter, they will state frankly that the information cannot be discussed.
You can read all of the policy at http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r360_1.pdf
You can read the official policy at http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r360_1.pdf.
I would point out that there is nothing in there about express permission.
I just went to the official Army policy (Army Regulation 360-1) and there is nothing in there about express permission. You can google it. The pertinent info is in Chap. 5.
BTW, I understand that practice often diverges from policy, I just mean to state that there is no official policy limiting soldiers from talking to the press.
You are correct, there is nothing in official policy limiting us from talking to the media. However, falure to follow a direct order is a court-martialable offence, with punishment from (minimum) extra duty and half pay to death- depending on whether or not you are in a war or combat zone. Non-judicial punishment is limited to 12 months. So, forgive me for not wanting 1/2 pay and extra duty for 12 MONTHS! LOL. I know you were kidding, Steve. However, it is condescending. BTW, I thought the caption was funny…. Why is it no one asks the soldiers anything anymore? All the red cross want to talk to the detainees. Soldiers have mental breakdowns from having the stress of constantly guarding detainees. CONVICTED TERRORISTS SHOULD BE PUBLICLY SHOT IN THE HEAD. Saves money sending them to jail, no chance of escape. I also think we should be dropping PLAYBOY in arabic by the plane load… give them something else to do!!!
Okay, new question. How come, if this is going on, in direct violation of policy, we are not talking about that? I was not joking in providing the policy, that was actually serious. I do not think it a bit condescending. You may have military experience and know the policy, but that does not mean everyone here does.
BTW, love the Playboy idea. I imagine just showing some ankle would get the job done. And maybe some camel and sheep behinds. That ought to get them going.
“CONVICTED TERRORISTS SHOULD BE PUBLICLY SHOT IN THE HEAD.”
Anybody in specific or just people who use excessive violence to intimidate other people?
And if it turns out that one of the executed was innocent, should we shoot the judge, too? What about soldiers who accidentally kill civilians? I am sure their relatives would like them shot, too… Hell… why not just shoot everybody and get done with it?
I like the idea of dropping photos of nude women, though… that will keep those buggers busy… busy being pissed and blowing stuff up.
Crotchwaffle.
How?
Well, you take an ordinary waffle, butter it up, stuff it down your pants, and pour in some syrup. At least that’s how I do it. Some people like to put the syrup on first, but that’s just messy. People on this board are just really nice and like to share fun things like crotchwaffling. I never knew the pleasure of crotchwaffling before I came here and someone recommended it to me.
Brother, I have a new respect for you. Rock on.
Crotchwaffling – less fun than previously indicated… what syrup are you using?
Mrs. Buttersworth, duh.
Failure to follow a LEGAL direct order may result in those punishments.
The media only gets in the way and reports what it wants to report. Usually things that make the troops look bad so who really wants them around? They’re like the paparrazi of world conflicts (watch Team America). My C.O is dead cause of some idiot woman reporter from CNN.
What happened?
The media only gets in the way and reports what it wants to report. Usually things that make the troops look bad so who really wants them around? They’re like the paparrazi of world conflicts (watch Team America). My C.O is dead cause of some idiot woman reporter from CNN
Say what? What happened?
Look up Captain James Funkhouser
Mike, I knew Funkhouser. Served under him(yeh, all you civvies, go ahead with the jokes, and stuff ‘em!). He was a decent CO, better than most. I didn’t know where he got moved to… Sorry to hear he’s gone. Too many good ones gone, all the jack as*es still here…
*Playes taps*
CBS I meant.. Same thing really
Easy, the media refuses to acknowledge the success in Iraq and Afghanistan. To do so otherwise would be to force people like “Seth” to realize they’ve been living in a fantasy world for the past 8 years.
Yes… mainly the success in ethnic cleansing in Iraq, which is the reason why violence is down. As to Afghanistan… what are you smoking?
Afghanistan…. is NATO. With all the weirdness that entails. Look up the German Rules of Engagement, for instance. It’s the place where the lawyers run the war
http://insurgencyresearchgroup.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/german-special-forces-in-afghanistan-not-licensed-to-kill/.
That was a reply to Reggie’s claim that the media refuses to acknowledge the success in Afghanistan, which for a lot of reasons – one of them the difficulties of coordinating NATO – isn’t going too well.
As to NATO, yes, international cooperation brings its difficulties, but also gives the whole thing some legitimacy. Afghanis do not take too kindly to people who give the impression to be ursurping their country. If you think the taliban are bad, ask the Russians what happens when ALL Afghanis are pissed at you.
BTW the last time the military ran a war in Germany people didn’t like it, either, if I remember correctly. Perhaps we are better off with the lawyers.
Nothing happens unless the US delivers Stingers.
How do you define success? It must be different than my definition. let me ask you, if the roles were reversed, the Iraqis had conquered us, and we were in the position they are now in, would you consider that a success?
And your statement that the media ignores ’success’ is unsupported. I’ve read lots of columns saying how great the war is going. You have any proof that the media is doing what you claim?
Actually, it doesn’t much matter what definition you give; negatives are reported prominently, positives are buried.
That’s the news business, if it bleeds it leads. Has nothing to do with political leanings at all. But I’m still curious, what positives have you seen?
Saddam is dead, how any more positive can you get?
Chemical Ali is dead as well. That is more positive.
How do you know he’s dead if it wasn’t covered in the liberal media? That was the argument, right? No coverage of positive things? Thanks for negating lolbamas ridiculous argument for me.
It is not a ridiculous argument. It is a genuine argument that is open for debate. I do believe that negative news has more staying power in the mind. And that is on all levels: media, interpersonal relationships, etc. We, as a mechanism of survival, maintain cognitive recognition of pain much more than pleasure. But notice that we do not focus on Saddam’s death when we do keep rehashing negative facts. We forget that the bad guy lost, but you remember each and every minute detail when we want the US to like villains. You make no constructive argument. You only argue that we are the evil big bad monster out to get everyone. The reason the Dems lost the last two elections is because that never provided a positive message. They were great at telling us what we should not be doing, but horrible at providing a positive direction for what we should be.
Look, Saddam was a bad guy, but there are dozens of guys at least as bad as him all operating with total US support, so that is simply not a valid benchmakrk. Did we go in specifically to off him? No. So you can’t claim that as a success. It’s a side effect. Now ask yourself, are the Iraqi people better off now than they were? If so, why have all the middle class Iraqis capable of leaving fled the country? Why didn’t they when he was in power? They could, you know. No one was keeping them there. To the average Iraqi, we’ve traded bad for worse.
And just for the record, Arty, the debate was over coverage. I seem to recall tons of press coverage of Saddam’s trial and execution, so you’ve just negated lolbama’s argument. Thanks!
I think the good news, as in a success, is that it was not the US that killed him. We found him, but it was Iraqi judges and such that tried, convicted, and killed him. I think that is a success. I do have the feeling Seth, that no matter what good news story we provide, you would rationalize it into being either bad news or not really good news.
Fine, I feel the same about you guys, no matter what good news is shown, it’s not good enough, and yet more proof that the liberal media hates America. I mean, that is what the argument was about, that the supposed liberal media refuses to acknowledge success. So, thanks again for supporting my side of the argument.
Actually, I was responding to this:
“Look, Saddam was a bad guy, but there are dozens of guys at least as bad as him all operating with total US support, so that is simply not a valid benchmakrk. Did we go in specifically to off him? No. So you can’t claim that as a success. It’s a side effect. Now ask yourself, are the Iraqi people better off now than they were? If so, why have all the middle class Iraqis capable of leaving fled the country? Why didn’t they when he was in power? They could, you know. No one was keeping them there. To the average Iraqi, we’ve traded bad for worse.”
I think no matter what we say, you would dismiss it as not being a valid benchmark. And, for the record, I have been very fair to you, so you have no reason or proof that I would never accept any evidence you provide. Such, if you please, evidence that the entire Iraqi middle class has left the country, that they could have while Saddam was in power, and that, for the average Iraqi, they have traded bad for worse. Citations, please.
You obviously haven’t been to Iraq Steve. The “Iraqi middle class” is what’s gaining Iraq. Could they have done that while Saddam was in power? No way. Anyone or any group who tried that was killed. Iraqi people are way better off. Have a few 15 month tours of duty and then get back to us with your opinion
Wait, are you talking to Steve or Seth? You replied to and used the name of the one but your arguement was against the other.
Hi Mike, I am pretty sure you were talking to Seth. I am arguing that things in Iraq are likely improving. I have not been there. I work with a large group of people who have, and I look up to them. If you have been there, I appreciate your service and thank you for accepting the mission.
No problem, the citations are so easy to find.
Iraqi middle class flees the country: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0522/dailyUpdate.html or just google ‘iraqi middle class flee.’
Torture is worse now than under Saddam: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/21/iraq
Women had rights under Saddam: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693
As for the ability of the middle class to leave, wikipedia claims it was hard, but possible. You had to put up collateral and buy an exit visa, neither of which would have been too much of a burden to keep a determined middle class Iraqi from leaving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
Iraqi middle class flees the country: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0522/dailyUpdate.html or just google ‘iraqi middle class flee.’
Torture is worse now than under Saddam: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/21/iraq
Women had rights under Saddam: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693
As for the ability of the middle class to leave, wikipedia claims it was hard, but possible. You had to put up collateral and buy an exit visa, neither of which would have been too much of a burden to keep a determined middle class Iraqi from leaving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
No problem, the citations are so easy to find. Darn website says I posted this, but it doesn’t show up.
It’s not letting me reply here for some reason. I’ll try posting the whole reply below.
First Citation. Iraqi middle class flees the country: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0522/dailyUpdate.html or just google ‘iraqi middle class flee.’
Iraqi middle class flees the country: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0522/dailyUpdate.html or just google ‘iraqi middle class flee.’
Torture is worse now than under Saddam: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/21/iraq
Women had rights under Saddam: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693
As for the ability of the middle class to leave, wikipedia claims it was hard, but possible. You had to put up collateral and buy an exit visa, neither of which would have been too much of a burden to keep a determined middle class Iraqi from leaving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
No problem, the citations are so easy to find. Darn website says I posted this, but it doesn’t show up.
The media is hated where ever there is conflict. They’re just like Paparazzi and only tell the lazy American armchair war critics what they want to hear. And that’s how bad apparently things are going. They also have a habit of giving away positions which is why Special Forces Units will not deal with them at all. The media basically sides with the insurgents/terrorists/gangs cause they seem to enjoy the damage they do rather than what’s really going on. Like schools and hospitals being built. Iraqi’s now have cable television and cell phones (also used for IEDs) and even Iraqi Christians are coming out in public. Would Saddam have allowed any of this? No. But apparently they were better off then
Believe me, the Iraqi people today are ironically treated better than those relying on government handouts in the US.
Iraqi middle class flees the country: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0522/dailyUpdate.html or just google ‘iraqi middle class flee.’
Torture is worse now than under Saddam: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/21/iraq
Women had rights under Saddam: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693
As for the ability of the middle class to leave, wikipedia claims it was hard, but possible. You had to put up collateral and buy an exit visa, neither of which would have been too much of a burden to keep a determined middle class Iraqi from leaving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
No problem, the citations are so easy to find. Darn website says I posted this, but it doesn’t show up. Posting again, sorry if it gets duplicated.
This is in reply to Steve’s request for citations above, which the site was not letting me post there.
Iraqi middle class flees the country: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0522/dailyUpdate.html or just google ‘iraqi middle class flee.’
Torture is worse now than under Saddam: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/21/iraq
Women had rights under Saddam: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693
As for the ability of the middle class to leave, wikipedia claims it was hard, but possible. You had to put up collateral and buy an exit visa, neither of which would have been too much of a burden to keep a determined middle class Iraqi from leaving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
No problem, the citations are so easy to find. Darn website says I posted this, but it doesn’t show up.
WTF? PK is not letting me post this anywhere. I can post other things. Is there a limit on links or something. This is in reply to Steve’s request for citations. Iraqi middle class flees the country: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0522/dailyUpdate.html or just google ‘iraqi middle class flee.’
Torture is worse now than under Saddam: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/21/iraq
Women had rights under Saddam: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693
As for the ability of the middle class to leave, wikipedia claims it was hard, but possible. You had to put up collateral and buy an exit visa, neither of which would have been too much of a burden to keep a determined middle class Iraqi from leaving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
No problem, the citations are so easy to find. Darn website says I posted this, but it doesn’t show up.
In response to Steve’s question above. My fifth try posting these cites. No luck, so I’m paring it down a bit.
Iraqi middle class flees the country: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0522/dailyUpdate.html or just google ‘iraqi middle class flee.’
Torture is worse now than under Saddam: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/21/iraq
Women had rights under Saddam: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693
Okay, trying these one at a time. Don’t know why PK isn’t letting me post these citations.
Iraqi middle class flees the country: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0522/dailyUpdate.html or just google ‘iraqi middle class flee.’
Try one more time.
|_– (o) — |_
That was just hilarious watching that trainwreck. I mean, I know that this site is pretty terrible and gives slow feedback, but that’s a whole-lotta fail. If there was only some way to harness it all and post it on the fail-blog…
Well, screen shots are your friend. But I don’t think you can fit it all without clipping out the middle and captioning it with (Seth tries and fails five more times here.) Still, worth a shot, eh?
Posts containing hyperlinks take a long time to come up in ICHC fora, for some reason; presumably they have to be screened for advertising or something.
The problem with your sources are when they were written– mostly 2006. Try finding sources that tell you what’s happened since the surge.
Hi Seth, I appreciate your research. A couple of things however.
I would point out that everyone one of these articles is pretty old. The latest one is September 2006.
Regarding fleeing. The CSM is a pretty reliable source. However, the source suggests that 1/4 of the middle class has applied for passports. This would suggest that they want to travel, not necessarily flee the country. The second citation cites a number of people, much lower than those seeking passports, requested to have their childrens academic records be allowed oversees. I think that of the two, this is a more reliable indicator of people wanting to leave the country. Your contention was the entire middle class has fled. Your source seems to suggest otherwise.
Regarding torture. The “expert” uses the oft cited “many people” as his source for saying that things are worse now (in 2006) than under Saddam. This “expert” than loses all credibility when referring to Guantanamo Bay as a torture camp.
Regarding the rights of women. Can you imagine what the outcry would have been had the U.S. forced its constitution on Iraq? I can. Also, this article is written from a point of view that is clearly less than onjective. As evidence, notice the many times the U.S. is referred to as an “occupying force.” That is pure rhetoric used by radical Muslim sympathizers. Lastly, having worked with several groups like “MADRE”, I can tell you that it is there sole mission to identify and exaggerate the problems going on in places like Iraq. That is how they obtain funding, by screaming bloody murder. And when there is good news, they deny it and say there is still a problem that needs their help, therefore justifyiing their existence.
I will not say that none of these things were going on ever, but each of your citations is stale, one is clearly biased, and another cites a person who lacks credability. Of all three, I would say that the CSM article presents the most balanced approach and makes some points using statistics. However, I think we both agree that statisitcs alone do not present the who story.
The media is hated where ever there is conflict. They’re just like Paparazzi and only tell the lazy American armchair war critics what they want to hear. And that’s how bad apparently things are going. They also have a habit of giving away positions which is why Special Forces Units will not deal with them at all. The media basically sides with the terrorists gangs cause they seem to enjoy the damage they do rather than what’s really going on. Like schools and hospitals being built. Iraqi’s now have cable television and cell phones (also used for IED) and even Iraqi Christians are coming out in public. Would Saddam have allowed any of this? No. But apparently they were better off then
Believe me, the Iraqi people today are ironically treated better than those relying on government handouts in the US.
“…even Iraqi Christians are coming out in public. Would Saddam have allowed any of this?” Yes, even if life was not easy for Crhistians under Saddam, it is pretty much consensus that life was better for them then, than it is now.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm
Yeah, he was a great leader.
I never said he was. You are propping up a straw man… have fun knocking him down. My point is that information should never replace truthiness when it comes to killing people.
The simple truth is: bullshit in, bullshit out. If you base a war on lies and continue it justifying based on lies you will end up being history’s bitch. Yes Saddam was bad, but there are plenty of dictators that are worse and could have been removed at a lesser expense of money and life. So the argument that the war was done for altruistic reasons to make the world a better place does not fly.
It’s only a ‘consensus’ in liberal circles.
The facts, and the opinions of Iraqis, say otherwise.
Liberal circles like your dipshit president’s buddy Joseph Ratzinger (aka the pope) and his club.
As my buddy the pope would say, Du bist ein Crotchwaffle!
Is the Seth, Steve and Danny show over yet?
And Mouthpiece- can i has you shutting ups? kthxbai!
Awwww, poor baby.
Awwww, poor crotchwaffle.
Ovviamente, non capisci l’uso di Crotchwaffle. Che vuol dire che ci sei. Grazie e buona notte!!!!!
Awwww, poor communist.
Pssst… It’s your turn, Seth!
Actually, I made this LOL after talking to my sister who just got back from Iraq, again. She said things are actually improving, but the press there just did not want to hear it. They offered to show the press an orphanage they had “adopted” and help rebuild . Then they offered to show the press the site where they claimed an American soldier spit on a Koran( they made that one up to test the media). Guess which one the press did and did not care about!?
You make up your own mind as to what it means…..
Um… when the entire United States government manages to (re)build an orphanage, it’s not news.
Soldier spitting on a Koran, news.
Basic Journalism 101: run stories people actually give a crap about.
…but, thanks for playing.
Regardless. Why are we in Viet….I mean.. Iraq… again?
Go to YouTube and look up the Video of the planes crashing into the World Trade centers and the Pentagon- then strain yourself and try to remember…..
Odd how the media will not play those videos anymore…..Hmmmmm…..
Then think how you would feel if your family had been on one of those airplanes. Maybe Iraq was or wasn’t the direct culprit- but now the Muslim fanatics know we won’t cave like France, Spain and Germany.
We should do what General Blackjack Pershing did with Muslim fanatics- execute them after dipping the bullets in pig’s blood ! He had NO further problems with them ! But I’m sure some weenie liberals would have rectal sphincter spasms over that !
Iraq was involved in 9/11? Wow. Who knew?
bin Laden is where?
Cause and Effect Fail!
*psssst* Is your rectum having spasms yet?
THAT’S what that sensation is…. I thought it was just from having to deal with “those” people….
If you put up a political sight people are going to bicker, I only wish that the critics would sit in the same place as the soliders to start asking them questions directly. If most of the people who comment on this board actually went over there, they´d see themselves sadly mistaken.
As to liberal bias, there is and there isn´t, but I can tell you this. I am currently in spain at the moment, and the only way most people are informed is through there media and the media from America. most people barely know who John McCain is, and you can´t turn on most of the common television stations in the US to be informed about him. You may or may not think that john mccain deserves coverage, but the fact that we know so much more about Obama (nothing about his foreign policies are actually solid steps he is going to take, you really think he is going to meet without preconditions AND get anything done? HA!) and barely anything about McCain shows that at least the media prefers one candidate over another.
Lastly, Support our Troops means give them emotional support, you can´t support a person if you do not believe in the cause or reason they are doing something. You may not agree with the war, but you should emotionally support the troops by helping them finish what was started there, and then vote for those that would discontinue any more military action. If that doesn´t make sense to you I cry that you have the ability to vote.
can we also support the troops by contacting our representative to be sure they are cared for FULLY both over there (body armor) and once they get back (education, medical care)? Is that okay?
We should support the troops by providing appropriate funding for the time of their service and after (and that particularly includes psychological support). But we should also support them by holding the people accountable who sent them into a war of choice without justification or plan. Also, the people who supported the war perhaps could feel a little bit ashamed that they were willing to send young people into harms way without bothering to get the facts straight or to listen to the concerns of our closest allies.
As to the future of Iraq, it seems that once the people who f..ed everything up are held accountable, we could start with the decidedly positive and honorable task of helping to rebuild Iraq.
Less cheerful stupidity and more honesty and sincerity would be a way to honor and support the troops, methinks.
“THE MEDIA ISN’T TELLING US BOTH SIDES OF THE WAR!”
Idiots. When the United States of America builds a school in Iraq, that is about the furthest thing from a news story.
When the United States of America CAN’T QUELL A TRIBAL/ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS UPRISING in Iraq, THAT’S NEWS and I’f you don’t know why, take a big glass of bleach and chug it.
Or maybe we can tell both side of the Iraq War story. In addition to how we’re LOSING, maybe we can run stories on why they’re WINNING.
I’f……….heheh
I wish there had been bleach in the kool-aid you drank.
I guess I should actually comment on the content of your post too. At a point in the war where we are supposed to be rebuilding the country and not still fighting the war the bulding of a school or an orphanage (which I remember seeing a short 30 second bite on Fox about a handfull of soldiers volunteering in there own off time to rebuild one….that is newsworthy, no?) should be news. At this point we are trying to get the country to be strong enough to quell its own uprisings.
You seem to imply that the US should be able to mind control all of the tribal/ethnic/religious radicals into not uprising…. I don’t think we can do that. I also don’t believe we can, nor should, simply slaughter or imprison them all. It really isn’t our job anymore if you ask me.
Now don’t tell me, “We started this war and we should finish it!”. Because in the next breath you’ll tell me, “We should pull our troops out!”. Because you can’t have it both ways. Finishing it means leaving it as a whole country that can handle its problems internally, and, it would be irresponsible of us to do otherwise. Remember when we pulled out of ‘Nam and thousands upon thousands of civillians were slaughtered in the uprising there?
There isn’t going to be one monolithic opinion about how the war’s going from the troops. I know one who got pinned down in that big firefight in Fallujah and she believes the Iraqi people needed to be freed from Saddam’s rule, but she thinks we went about it in the wrong way. And personally, I think it’s insulting to imply that without the Great White Hope that is the United States, no other nation can possibly determine its own destiny. Democracy is not imposed at gunpoint. That’s exactly the opposite of what the word means.
Anyway, it seems like too many of the troops are brainwashed to begin with. They go into fighting a war like this with very specific biases and they believe all that tripe about the military “fighting for this country” (which it hasn’t since the Civil War, honestly–no war since has been a defense against attack, even WWII came *after* Pearl Harbor and then we went after Germany first), so you can’t tell them anything. And really, it’s for the best in terms of military readiness–if individual soldiers question the chain of command they may get their comrades killed in combat. But it’s not for the best in terms of the future of this country.
But anyway, with all the brainwashing, I read interviews with some of the soldiers who came back and it’s like a point-by-point regurgitation of all the lies the White House is spewing. I’m still waiting for them to find a stash of active, relatively new WMDs and all they’ve found is oil. Which is its own WMD, really, but according to the Bush regime global warming isn’t happening in the first place, so they’re not gonna see it that way.
The question is, why have you been brainwashed to believe all the lies of the liberals?
Ring any bells for you, Mouthpiece?
“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts.
… Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by “our” side. …
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. …
In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind.”
-George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism
BUt bunny, I would argue that the far left is guilty of the same thing as the far right. No matter what a Republican does, he is bad in the eyes of liberals. And vice versa. Moderates do not feel this way, but are drowned out by the tantrums thrown by the extremes of both sides. I would argue that both parties have been hijacked by opposite poles of nationalist forces. Thoughts?
Oh and, one more thing: When I speak of soldiers being brainwashed I’m not doing it as an outsider. I grew up a Navy brat. I joined the Army. I was an Army wife for a while. I have SEEN this stuff. I’m back in touch with an old Army buddy and he’s *still* parroting the Republican party line. Why, I have no idea. Watches too much TV, I guess.
What channel would that be? Sounds a lot better than the crap I see on tv.
that is a DAMN good question!