Iraq pics you'd never see on CNN

[lather]

Nonsense. It has everything to do with it. Liberal Clinton pulled out of Somalia because he was so afraid of "creating another Vietnam" that he did so repeatedly, albeit on a very small scale. He was quick to use force and just as quick to run when resistance was met and polls were unenthusiastic.

So you reply with an ad hominem attack of your own?

Doesnt matter if the President is Conservative or Liberal. If the American people do not think its worth American lives in a long drawn out war where US objectives are unclear, then that President will be commiting political suicide if he choses to continue that conflict.


I cant see why you have politicize the issue and the thread, there was virtually no public support for a war in Somalia so the US pulled out.

What do you think will happen if there comes a time when there is no public support for continued war in Iraq? I bet the same thing will happen, Bush will look for an out, and as soon as there can be an honorable way to leave he will take that opportunity so as not to endanger public support for himself and his party. (if this occurs during his administration).



Sorry if I offended you by responding to your friend. Maybe if he could make a mature arguement without flaming, I wouldnt have to treat him like a 12 year old.

[lather]

He did have a point. Both sides of the media agenda would be hard at work if it wasn't for the above.

Now back to the topic. Good things happen every day, everywhere, unfortunatly only the bad make the news. It's not an anti war agenda.... it's ratings. I agree with George Carlin in the fact that the American people love war. That's why we average every 10 years a major conflict. More so since it can be shown on TV almost live.

Exactly! Of course its refreshing to see positive coverage and photos. Conversely, if pictures and film of US casualties were shown instead, support for the war in Iraq would erode.

If the restrictions were removed and the mainstream press were allowed to show them to the Nation, they would in a second. Not necessarily to be anti-war but to get ratings.


Dont see how this is a "Liberal" point of view. This isnt an issue of politcal ideals, its a pragmatic, realistic point of view about the press and public opinion. (For those that like to throw the "L" word at me just because they disagree with my opinion, that doesnt turn me into a liberal, Im more of a moderate.)
.

[B.A.M.]

Pics are pretty cool but all the jerks at my school who are against the war(im not) would probaly spit on the pics and say it wasnt true and that kind of negative stuff. But another point i'd like to make though i dont know if it holds any truth is that most kids at least in my school supported Kerry cuz they pretty much just didn't want a draft which bush stated he wouldn't. But still i think those kids are sissys but if i were drafted id be happy to serve

[fire1811]

nice find

[PissedGodzilla]

Well son, showing dead and wounded US soldiers on the nightly news would effect the war negatively. Liberal or Conservative has nothing to do with it.

Showing the dead pilot being dragged through Mogadishu ended our commitment to Somalia. Thats a fact that has nothing to do with being Conservative or Liberal.

My apologies if what horrifies me most is pictures of OUR boys being killed or wounded.

And another thing, if you cant have a discussion in a mature and non-insulting manner, its best for the adults here if you just go straight to bed, and no Xbox!

Restola = PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



quoted for truth, my friend... quoted for truth....

[TheDuelist]

The link you posted refers to the media covering the return of our fallen soldiers as their caskets are brought home. It in no way restricts the ability of the media to cover the war however they wish. If the "restriction" was real then we wouldn't have images of insurgents fire on our troops filmed by the media who are standing behind the very guys our troops are trying to eliminate. As for the Somalia issue, we can thank Clinton for that mess and most of what is going on now. He failed to authorize air support for th operation and failed to stay the course showing weakness to an enemy who exploited it to the fullest extent. Bloody the Americans and their people will demand to bring their troops home.

Bush has never wavered regarding Iraq. His message has always been clear. The problem is the media and their need for one upmanship. Lets show the bloody nasty stuff as opposed to the shiny happy side. We need more positive stories coming out of the area to show the American people why we are there. I love my country and I love our men and women in uniform. Until the country stands up and tells the media their tired of the BS nothing is going to change.

If we all wrote a letter to one major media outlet voicing our concerns instead of arguing here, maybe we could start something. Instead the argument will continue and all this energy will be wasted making a point no one will see because we are blinded by the desire to one up the guy we have to disagree with.

Oh well, so much for my new America.

[GT]

Doesnt matter if the President is Conservative or Liberal. If the American people do not think its worth American lives in a long drawn out war where US objectives are unclear, then that President will be commiting political suicide if he choses to continue that conflict.


I cant see why you have politicize the issue and the thread, there was virtually no public support for a war in Somalia so the US pulled out.

What do you think will happen if there comes a time when there is no public support for continued war in Iraq?

The only problem is that is how Bin Laden determined the resolve of the adminstration when we ran out of smolia. We payed a big price 8 years later... Am I saying that it is all Clinton's fault, no, his concern was with relelction. What I am saying is that there is an acculmation of smaller events that have led us to where we are now. The more diffcult part is finding individuals whom can see these changes and correct them before something like 9/11 happens

There is alot of stuff that goes on behind closed doors that I am sure the public wouldnt approve of, yet are essential for national security. This isnt some cooky conpircacy theory junk, but fact.


On topic,
I have some pics of a bud of mine in an Iraqi school, showing them "hook'em horns"

[Hasty8]

The reason the press/media does not show images such as these is becuase the press/media is mostly filled with America-hating liberals. In every war since WWII liberal America has constantly and consistenly sided with our enemies. Showing images that clearly show American forces are not murderers, torturers and rapists but are actually doing good over there is completely counter to their mindset and overall goals.

[edit]Here are just two fantastic storeis that you will simply never hear about if all you do is listen to the anti-America liberal media goons.

The Littlest Marine {Scroll to the bottom fo rthe story}
and
Brian Chontosh [/edit]

What also pisses me off is the NY Times. I know it's a little thing but when referring to the USMC they are Marines, not marines. I do not know why but my brother (who has forgotten more about USMC history and lore than I will ever know) assures me that it should be written with the capital M. Yet time after time the NYT refers to them as marines.

Whether you approve of the war or not is no reason to attack the soldiers who are doing that which most would not.

You may not like them but at the very leaast you should respect them. I certainly do.

OORAH!

[Destructo6]

I cant see why you have politicize the issue and the thread, there was virtually no public support for a war in Somalia so the US pulled out.

That's the point: he committed insufficient numbers of combat troops and support for a combat mission, then pulled out the moment that resistance was met. Like Vietnam and Kosovo, it was prosecuted half heartedly.

What do you think will happen if there comes a time when there is no public support for continued war in Iraq?

We've been told that's the case for the last year or so (about the length of the presidential race).

[Hasty8]

I cant see why you have politicize the issue and the thread, there was virtually no public support for a war in Somalia so the US pulled out.

Where in the name of all that is did you get this tidbit!!!!

Most of Americans didn't even know about our presence in Somolia until we lost 18 soldiers.

Then it was not public opnion that pulled us out but Clintons inability to take a punch that pulled us out.



Back to the topic.

In his birthday message to Marines this year, the Commandant, Gen. Mike Hagee, related a story about a Marine who had been wounded in Iraq earlier this year. A squad leader, he refused evacuation until he finally passed out from a loss of blood. When he woke up in an Army hospital in Germany, he talked the staff into releasing him. He borrowed some utilities from a Navy corpsman and then talked his way aboard an Air Force transport that was flying back to Iraq. But before boarding the plane, he called his wife to tell her that he was O.K. but that he wouldn't be home because the Marines in his squad needed him. As the old question goes, where do we find such men?

Where do We Find Such Men?

[RoadDawg]

The reason the press/media does not show images such as these is becuase the press/media is mostly filled with America-hating liberals. In every war since WWII liberal America has constantly and consistenly sided with our enemies. Showing images that clearly show American forces are not murderers, torturers and rapists but are actually doing good over there is completely counter to their mindset and overall goals.

What also pisses me off is the NY Times. I know it's a little thing but when referring to the USMC they are Marines, not marines. I do not know why but my brother (who has forgotten more about USMC history and lore than I will ever know) assures me that it should be written with the capital M. Yet time after time the NYT refers to them as marines.

Whether you approve of the war or not is no reason to attack the soldiers who are doing that which most would not.

You may not like them but at the very leaast you should respect them. I certainly do.

OORAH!

First I'll agree about the respect part. They should be highly respected.

Now onto the other part. Being liberal, once again does not make a difference on what the media shows. They get higher revenue when something "shocking" comes on, because it attracts viewers like a bug zapper attracts moths, which equals more money. Their political stance has nothing to do with the fact they show bad stuff over the good. They show what attracts the people. When was the last time you drove down the freeway with a accident and didn't see people "rubberneck" as they drive by. It's not the "liberal" side of people, it's the human nature side of people. Especially the Amercian nature of people. People like the dirt more then they do anything else. The media makes a living off of these people. I'll once again say it's unfortunate this happens. It's not the "anti american liberals" in the media. It's the everyday Joe that is the cause.

Most of the people didn't know we were in Somalia. Which is probably the main reason we had to leave. People didn't know why, so they were against it. Losing 18 troops over something no one knew why we were there is always a bad thing. People accept the Iraq deal now cause they feel it's "justified". People saw no justification in somalia. So they yanked the chain, before all hell broke loose at home.

[dsrkd]

xXhAppyAznXx

Thanks for the link.

[RiddalinJunkie08]

What do you think will happen if there comes a time when there is no public support for continued war in Iraq? I bet the same thing will happen, Bush will look for an out, and as soon as there can be an honorable way to leave he will take that opportunity so as not to endanger public support for himself and his party. (if this occurs during his administration).

There is a fallacy in your arguement here lather. You see, since it is Bush's second term in office, he doesn't have to cater to the peoples demand (i.e. he doesn't have to worry about pissing off the people who backed him for office because he no longer needs their support because he cannot run for a third term.) So as cold as it sounds, Bush can do whatever he wants as long as he asks Congress first so they don't envoke the War Powers Act (which they have never had to do.) Now go take a course on American Government before you come back and share your thoughts.
-Mark

[lather]

There is a fallacy in your arguement here lather. You see, since it is Bush's second term in office, he doesn't have to cater to the peoples demand (i.e. he doesn't have to worry about pissing off the people who backed him for office because he no longer needs their support because he cannot run for a third term.) So as cold as it sounds, Bush can do whatever he wants as long as he asks Congress first so they don't envoke the War Powers Act (which they have never had to do.) Now go take a course on American Government before you come back and share your thoughts.
-Mark

Every 2nd term President wants their party's control in the White House after they are gone. A president's decisions are just as well thought out in their second term as in their first. After all Im pretty sure He would want a Republican in the White House in 2008 wouldnt you think?


A President has to ensure his party has a great chance of remaining in the White House after his 2 terms expire. Why would he run around doing whatever he wants just because he cant run for a third term?

[lather]

The only problem is that is how Bin Laden determined the resolve of the adminstration when we ran out of smolia. We payed a big price 8 years later... Am I saying that it is all Clinton's fault, no, his concern was with relelction. What I am saying is that there is an acculmation of smaller events that have led us to where we are now. The more diffcult part is finding individuals whom can see these changes and correct them before something like 9/11 happens

There is alot of stuff that goes on behind closed doors that I am sure the public wouldnt approve of, yet are essential for national security. This isnt some cooky conpircacy theory junk, but fact.


On topic,
I have some pics of a bud of mine in an Iraqi school, showing them "hook'em horns"

Very true. Instead of being a leader, Clinton was being a politician. He could have commited more troops and do a better job convincing the American public of the importance of Somalia. Leading in other words.