US Military Launches YouTube Channel
Jenga717 writes "The US military has launched its own channel on YouTube, in efforts to shift the media's focus of Iraq from a negative to a more positive light, and to 'counter the messages of anti-American sites.' From the article: 'The footage is not picked specifically to show the military in a good light ... and is only edited for reasons of time or content too graphic to be shown on YouTube ... And while all the clips currently posted have been shot by the military's combat cameramen, soldiers and marines have been invited to submit their own clips.' The question is, where are they supposed to submit them? Starting 'on or about 14 May 2007', the Department of Defense will block troop access to Myspace, Youtube, MTV, and more sites, due to a 'growing concern for our unclassified DoD Internet, known as the NIPRNET'." More commentary below.
The troops will be unable to access these sites from any computer on the DoD network, yet are still able to access them from their home computers — which they can't use on the DoD network. So why the censorship? The DoD cites security reasons, but the Commander of Global Network Operations (DoD's Joint Task Force)"has noted a significant increase in the use of DoD network resources tied up by individuals visiting certain recreational Internet sites." The PDF released by the DoD reminds troops that this "benefits not only you, your fellow Servicemembers, and Civilian employees, but preserves our vital networks for conducting official DoD business in peace and war." Sounds like quite a sticky situation."
Isn't that called "propaganda"?
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
I understand that being deployed military is quite a bit different from working in an office, but there are many, many sites I can't get to from my desk at work that I can get to at home. If I try to go to somewhere the network gods say I shouldn't, I get a big Websense error message instead.
Gaming sites? Filtered. Hacking sites? Filtered. Gambling and porn as well (I assume, haven't tried those.) Recently, they've figured out how to filter the google cache of pages sometimes, too.
Unfortunately, sometimes the hacker sites have been the sites with the info I need for work, but the guy two cubes down has a VPN to his home up most of the time, or I just wait until I go home and look stuff up there.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
the whole bit about footage too graphic for you tube... well by its very nature that is what puts the military in a bad light. sounds like propaganda to me.
on another note... I'm in the air force, and for quite some time the base network has blocked access to the following (though some of the blocks have since been rescinded):
1.e-bay
2.something awful
3.any flash content
4.any URL with the word "game" in it
5.any URL with the word "forum" in it
6.countless other harmless sites that don't come to mind right now
Here is a nice video from the good american army educating the Iraqi population?
Is that the kind of classified information we should not allow the marines to post?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c4_1176720508&p=1
John Vai
Even if the military is spreading propaganda, it is always good to listen to all sides in a debate. Even if you disagree with someone its a great idea to learn why they hold a certain belief. Once you understand someone's point of view, it is easier to persuade them to change their mind or to argue against them. Its even possible that you might agree with them.
Heres a cute comic that neatly summarizes what I mean: http://xkcd.com/c106.html
What the anti-war and anti-troops (two distinct, sometimes linked groups with separate agendas) don't want is a source of public information that they cannot control or spin for their own purposes.
Aside from the obvious example of Fox News, all other TV news outlets have a consistent negative slant on the efforts in Iraq.
It scares the Hell out of the George Sorros backed loons that there might actually be an information source they cannot control.
I don't suppose they will be posting these:
The famous "Awe Dude" air-strike on a crowd of civilians. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQUK5rA4DaI
Or this apparent murder of civilians driving by in their cars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnyjH5wusqs
Or the Apache killing these unarmed men in a farmers field, working on a tractor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmZRyNd6ru8
Or executing a wounded Iraqi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W41srr6CQU
Blowing up Mosque's doesn't look so good either. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFVnqUJWsiU
The abuses are isolated. The enlisted men that are honestly "good guys" trying to to good in a bad situation are many and plenty. The crap reasons that we're over there is another story but the everyday soldiers bearing the brunt of it take it really well and do a lot of good. I agree its a fubar situation but the average enlisted guy dealing with it over there is doing a damn fine job.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
I would say it is safe to say that the number of soldiers handing out candy and flowers vastly outnumbers the numbers that are stacking up naked Iraqi's in pyramids.
Personally, I am sympathetic to the idea. Not every soldier that goes to Iraq raps a few women and then guns down some kids. Hell, the entire 'surge' is based around the idea of sacrificing more Americans to save more Iraqis. Right now US soldiers are setting practically undefended in outposts all over Baghdad instead of turtling up in their bases and air striking anything that looks threatening. The point of the shift in strategy was basically to put Americans more in the line of fire and restrain the force they can use so that fewer civilians die. They are focusing on civilian protection instead of force protection.
I don't think people fully realize what this means. We KNOW that more soldiers will die as we expose them in an effort to defend the civilian population. I am sympathetic that the army is a tad irritated at being called baby killers while everyone ignores the fact that they are paying in American blood to reduce civilian casualties inflicted by both collateral damage and intentional terrorist/sectarian attacks.
Now, it can certainly be argued that this is a complete waste of American lives. It can certainly be argued that we would be better off to saying we are sorry for kicking over their iron fisted dictator that kept them you line, write out a big check, and tell them good luck on not committing genocide against each other. That said, give the army some credit. They are being told to pay in their own blood to achieve some political objective. If they want to show that they do more then gun down civilians, let them. God forbid anything other then tragedy be reported from Iraq.
Is there really some reason they needed this when they already have DVIDS?
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
You're pissed off that people are using a medium with potential to empower, to empower themselves? Hmmmm. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
... and then they built the supercollider.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams: 'Anyone who wants a position of authority should under no circumstances be allowed to do the job'
FGD 135
What about the lives of Iraqis?