Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Military Launches YouTube Channel

Posted by Zonk on from the you-can't-stop-the-signal dept.

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."

64 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting by andy666 · · Score: 2, Informative

    They have done other things like this with other media formats - like Soldier Radio in the 50's.

  2. Isn't that the definition of.... by iknownuttin · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "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.'

    Isn't that called "propaganda"?

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only if your a terrorist.

    2. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. It's called responding to the propaganda that has been done by the media for the past 4 years.

    3. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
      "Mission Accomplished"
      "Let Freedom Reign!"

      Who is spouting unfounded propoganda, again?

    4. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe no one defined the word propoganda to you when you were younger, but in general, propoganda is used to alter the perception of the public for a specific purpose, while reporting is stating what is going on in the world in as objective a manner as possible. (arguments of corporate sponsorship influencing media aside)

      Now I'm not saying bias doesn't exist in the various media outlets, but of the two entities (media and military) which has a history of, and a purpose for, propoganda?

      Saying that the military is being objective and the media is the propoganda.. that seems to go a bit beyond objectivity.

    5. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by Hemogoblin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Propaganda: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

      I have tagged the article as such.

    6. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is exactly what I mean. Nobody really has a CLUE what is going on right now in Iraq because the media is doing a horrible job depicting what's happening. Negativity sells, and they know that - especially when it comes to America and Bush and republicans.

      If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing - that we were being driven out of the country. Then when the military LIBERATED Iraq from an evil dictator who had murdered thousands upon thousands of people during his life, all of the channels besides Fox News made it seem like we conquered them, like we were raping their women, like we were killing innocent people on purpose.

      I'm sorry, I know that everyone here at slashdot disagrees with me, but luckily I have some karma built up, so I can say something like this.

    7. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The military just does what it's told.

      Like put up Youtube sites depiciting military actions in a positive light?

    8. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems pretty clear to me that there's a civil war going on Iraq at the moment. Are you honestly trying to dispute that? I don't mean this on the level of whether you consider it a "civil war", but are you disputing the fact that there's a bloody conflict going on in Iraq at the moment that claims civilian lives nearly every day?

      Also, your second paragraph is either an emotional appeal or a non-sequitur. It's perfectly possible to remove an evil dictator from power while also raping, looting and pillaging—you've simply used the first sentence to provide justification for the act and the second sentence to focus on consequences of the act. (The issue of whether a country is "liberated" or "conquered" is, admittedly, a nontrivial, political one. However, when a country invades another, removes an oppressive regime, and then replaces it with a government friendly to the invading country, both words may very well be said to apply—the invading country has both liberated the invaded country from that dictator, and secured itself a position of power in the new political situation(which is bluntly what conquest is all about—power, not necessarily explicit flag-planting).)

    9. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by jbengt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing"

      Uh . . . I did watch any channel other than Fox during the first part of the war, and I was never put under the impression that we were losing any battles, let alone the war.

      But I saw members of the UN inspection team state that they didn't think Sadaam had wepaons of mass destruction. I was presented with ex-generals commenting that we weren't going in with enough troops to keep control, which turned out to be true. I heard people speaking against de-Baathicization, because if firing all of them it would be impossible to replace the compentent staff, and also because too many people would be out of work, desperate for money, and with plenty of time on their hands to do mischief; both of those turned out to be true. I heard comments on how we weren't prepared to protect assets like national treasures, infrastructure, and amories (which is related to the above) - also turned out to be true.

      From the administration all I got was lies and misdirections about why America was starting a war and how successful it was.

    10. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sorry, I know that everyone here at slashdot disagrees with me, but luckily I have some karma built up, so I can say something like this.

      You boot-licking Republican cocksucker, you think you have karma to burn? I piss on Steve Jobs in Apple threads, that's some fucking karma!

      Ok, seriously, what's with the whiny persecution complex, and where the in Allah's name are you getting your information? People had to turn to BBC and al-fucking-Jazeera to get some real news on the invasion, because all the American outlets were only feeding us what the military was giving them.

      And in case you forgot, our soldiers have gone to jail for raping and killing Iraqis. That's what's great about this country, some modicum of justice is actually served because not everything can be hidden from teh librul media!

    11. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by coaxial · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but this is just blatent revisionism. The entire media fell in line with the Bush administration during the lead up to war. (The New York Times most notably.) During the invasion of they unquestioningly followed the official line. Anyone that challenged the official line was either thrown off the air (Phil Donahue most notably) or simply ignored. The media was played (The white house spreads the disinformation that Iraq has aluminium tubes to create a centrafuge, and then quotes that same story as support for what they're saying). Everyone got they're war on. The media thouugh, "I've got connections! I can get a Pulitzer! Explosions equal ratings!" The White House said, "My God! Our 9 year wet dream of invading Iraq has finaly come true!"

      Of course the invasion worked. No one ever doubted that. The media never questioned the official line right up until Abu Ghraib. Then they said, "What the hell?" just like anyone reasonable person would. Then they decided to report that for all the talk of "supporting the troops," the solidiers didn't have enough armor. It's just that now the official line has diveged so much from reality, you can't ignore it. Do you honestly believe Tony Snow believes himself when he compares Baghdad to when Washington DC was the "murder capital?"

      It's convient to say that no one know what's going on, but that's simply isn't true. There's a civil war on, and the situation in Iraq has steadily gotten worse. Hell, Cheney is over there in May 9th and says, "Violence is down fairly dramatically," And then an explosion rocks the very building. This week the State Department said that everyone going outside the buildings in the green zone needs to wear body armor. This is bad. 30 bodies a day are being found. That's the work of militia death squads. Four years ago, we didn't have those problems. The Iraqi Ministry of Education reports that only 30% of school aged children attend class, because they're parents fear for their safety. That's down from 75% last year. There's been a steady exodus of highly educated professionals from that country. We're talking doctors, teachers, people needed to maintain a cohesive society. McCain visits Baghdad and says, "Look I can walk though a market, and the generals don't need armor." He had 100 guards, armor, and attack helicopters with him, to walk through a market that mostly closed becaused no one wanted their picture taken with the Americans. The Army issued a statment saying that McCain was "mistaken" when he said Prateaus would go about Baghdad without armor. McCain didn't even belive himself.

      This situation in Iraq is is bad. It is very very bad.

      It's very convienent and comforting to believe that Fox is telling the truth, and everyone else is lying, but that simply isn't true. Even if you ignore the fact that Fox News has gone lockstep with the Republican party since its inception; you have the entire world media on one side, and then you have Fox News. Who you going to believe? Well obviously Fox, since everyone hates America, including a majority of Americans.

      Fox News demostably has lousy coverage. Numerious media studies have show that people that primarily get their information from Fox News are grossly misinformed. But I'm sure that's just because reality has a well known liberal bias.

    12. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by bdjacobson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How the hell can someone justify modding the parent flamebait? If you disagree with what he says, then post your own freaking reply, don't be a coward and simply mod him down. If you don't like how our modding system works, go to digg. There's a reason we don't have a "-1, Wrong" option. There are other opinions that think we're doing fine in Iraq. I suspect most of the people doing this (modding flamebait for little reason) are against the war in Iraq but haven't talked to anyone that has actually been there (see above links). They get their dose of information from the biased media (yes, [insert your favorite media channel here] IS biased because they have advertisers that want viewers. What do you think sells? What's going to create more of a reaction and cause someone to tune in? "War in Iraq largely successful, see all the power plants we've set up, see how we have to fix them every week because people steal cables and metal from them" or "2031st soldier dead after suicide car driver disguised as civilian seeks 'aid'. Still trying to identify bodies" Hint: not the first one.) and are too lazy to or don't bother tracking down all the facts for evaluation. Or maybe they just have an agenda which is too weak to express in words but delights in modding down. Besides, if you really fear for our country's reputation with the rest of the world, then this baseless negativity (scrutiny is always good but mindless flaming isn't, which, if you took the time to read the parent's post, wasn't flamebait at all as far as I can tell) isn't going to help in the least. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're unpatriotic for not supporting the war (which Bush's supporters did say soon after 9/11); what I AM saying is that for better or worse we've already made the decision to go across and interfere with another country, so the last thing we need to complete the job is internal dissent. We had a direct physical presence in Japan and Germany for some 5 years after WW2, and still were very involved for another 5 years after that. We didn't have to rebuild with rogue terrorist groups using citizens as shields and dressing like them for the element of surprise on our troops. We had the full support of the inhabitants, and it still took 10 years (I would say it's unreasonable to assume we could have done it much faster) to sort everything out. Our situation in Iraq? We _had_ the support of the Iraqi populace for a time, not so much anymore; there _are_ still terrorists fighting back; we're 5 years in and I'd say we need to take another good 5 years to finish up...and halfway through we've got people already fussing about how long it's taking. Shoot, it wasn't 2 years after we went in that the dissent started. Do you seriously think you can turn a country around from dictatorship for the last several hundred years, to democracy, in just a few years? The people that are a part of the police force over there only police because it pays the bills-- they don't have a sense of national patriotism for their newfound freedoms; or if they do, it's not like ours. To expect them to instantly change their worldview of the way life is ("I have no rights" to "I can do as I please") in less than 5 years is borderline insanity. I don't know about this youtube deal; I think a lot of good will come from it...CNN or whoever hates on this with no just cause can flame all they want but if these clips are simple candid recordings of soldiers going about their lives (Hey, make it a "Reality TV" sort of show that'll be sure to garner interest), there's not much dirt they're going to be able to throw around about the veracity and truth of reports. What I _would_ like to see is money spent creating movies that the Iraqi population can relate to, that are free to view and take home, that purpose to show the Iraqis the benefits of free choice, and how much _less_ evil democracy is compared to other forms of governm

    13. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by toddhisattva · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Saying that the military is being objective and the media is the propoganda.. that seems to go a bit beyond objectivity.
      It is about seriousness, which fosters honesty.

      Soldiers are serious.

      Media are a joke.

      Really -- think about the reportage of technical stories. Can you read a newspaper story about IBM's Cell without cringing at the gross oversimplifications and outright distortions? Reporters are morons, and worse, they lie. Doubt me? Get interviewed!

      I have a simple rule about reports from the fronts: if it ain't .mil, it's bullshit.

      At least the military knows what they're talking about, without which objectivity is impossible. Lacking knowledge, the media cannot be objective, and can do nothing but reprint their favorite propaganda from the 20th century.

      The media broadcasts more propaganda than the American military is capable of producing. In the military, it would take three sheets of paperwork for every sheet of propaganda. The media is under no such obligation to document their "work," they can just make shit up when they feel like it and down to the presses it goes.

      The American military is more objective than the media, and less propagandist.
    14. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This all depends on your viewpoint.

      I would challenge most politicians to walk through South Central LA without adequate precautions.

      Some nut job in Iraq blows up 30 people and it's a civil war. Some nut job in VA kills 30 people and it's a nut job.

      For the most part the large majority of Iraqi territory is doing very well thank you. You don't hear about that on the evening news (see previous comments on this topic).

      Yes, there is violence. But it is being perpetrated by a minority of the populace. The VAST majority just want to be left alone. But Islamofacists need to be in control, have everyone toe their line, so they kill to terrorize.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    15. Re:Isn't that the definition of.... by MrNonchalant · · Score: 2, Informative

      All but a very few posts on Slashdot fit that definition.

  3. Typical work network rules by Ritchie70 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  4. blatant censorship by evwah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  5. dont watch it then by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    just because the military puts up its own youtube channel doesnt mean you HAVE TO watch it. the right to speak/broadcast doesnt mean anyone will listen. keep that in mind

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  6. I'm not watching it ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... until it has sleeping cats falling off TV's, narcoleptic dogs and drunk people doing the Macarena.

    1. Re:I'm not watching it ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is it ok if the videos are taken at gunpoint? You mean rather than renting them?
  7. Is that classified? by John+Vai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Is that classified? by Chris+Daniel · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apparently, those are Afghan children, not Iraqi children.

      --
      Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
    2. Re:Is that classified? by sponga · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That was in Afghanistan and not Iraq before you get too many 'interesting' mod points for false info even though it says 'Life as a Grunt in Afghanistan'; besides it doesn't rain there like in the video and they have nowhere near the good weed/hash that Afghanistan has. I was over in Afghanistan and brought back an ounce of Afghan Hash after getting injured; one of the little Afghan kids tried to extort charges from me for more money and said if I didn't pay more he would go tell my Sarge.

      The situation is different in Afghanistan and people are not as hostile as I hear it is in Iraq; although the situation has gotten a little more aggressive over there in the last few months especially in the Northeastern section.

      While were on videos here is a nice one in Iraq of a cute little Kurdish Iraq girl; well she was cute until the Muslims got to her.
      http://www.filecabi.net/video/horrific-stone.html
      We would see this all the time though when the husband would literally beat the wife into a bloody mess or a punching blow right to her head stunning her not to talk to us; yeah that shit is intense over there and the least of my worries is a couple of soldiers telling some foreigners to say thing they don't understand.
      More actual Iraq videos and not ones from Afghanistan; not propaganda but actual soldier shot footage
      http://www.filecabi.net/video/executegen.html
      http://www.filecabi.net/video/getting_rocked-fixed .html
      http://www.filecabi.net/video/Hunt_For_Insurgents. html

  8. Re:The truth by faloi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only way to get positive feedback is to not exist, at least if you're in authority.
     
    How many bad cops are there, really? But there are plenty of people that paint them all with the same brush. I'm not saying that the military is filled with righteous humanitarians who just get stuck in a rough spot every now and again. But the fact is that bad news sells and good news doesn't. When given the choice between bad news and good news, the bad news will win every time. That having been said, I don't think the DoD should be in the business of making sure their side of the story gets told. I know people over there now, and have few friends that have made it back. It's still a war, they're still in the military, and the story isn't going to be all rosy. Or all bad.

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
  9. Editorial decisions by OriginalArlen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The footage is not picked specifically to show the military in a good light ...

    Oh really? So what is the criteria then? number of shots on target? cost to the taxpayer of munitions expended? rounds discharged per second?

    Entertainment value?

    I mean, c'mon, that's just such a silly statement. What other reason can the military ever have for releasing any media at all beyond terse official communiques?

    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    1. Re:Editorial decisions by mochan_s · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What other reason can the military ever have for releasing any media at all beyond terse official communiques?
      I would think the purpose is obvious.

      To recruit.

      I've seen TV ads where an FPS turns into the US Army video - albeit a little "Saving Private Ryan" hue to it all - and then a "sarge" shouting about the real challenge.

      The people who watch videos on youtube are the target recruiting age demographic.

    2. Re:Editorial decisions by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the purpose is to recruit, how can they not pick clips which show the military in a good light?

  10. Re:Why the propaganda? by falcon5768 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The military didn't come up with this hairbrained Iraq scheme you moron. The government did, and so far they have done a great job telling idiots like you what to think.

    The military is a spiked club, they dont think they just do. And what they do is the will of the Executive and Legislative branches. If you have such a issue with the militarizes actions why dont you get off your fat ass bitching on a computer and let your state representative and the moron you voted into office KNOW that. And if they dont listen then you need to get every single person you know to vote them out.

    The only people who we have to blame for this whole war disaster is the entire population of the United States. The republican supporters for being idiotic sheep, and the loony ass democratic supporters for doing a shit job and showing the idiotic sheep exactly what they are and coming up with a solution instead of just saying "the republicans screwed up." If the democrats had actually HAD a plan to get the troops out last election, there wouldnt have been a re-election of Bush.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  11. Re:Why the propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The military has no business telling people what to think. The consensus is that this is a failed mission (as the world warned the US it would be) and they have to live with that.

    The military isn't the one that said that we should invade Iraq. All CIA and defense intelligence reports supported the worldwide consensus that Iraq could be contained and that the WMD reports were not conclusive. But Bush and Cheney's lackeys liberally interpreted those reports and suppressed others to make their case to invade Iraq. The military isn't part of the political decision process that failed us, nor did we empower them with any means to do so. The military is just trying to win an unwinnable war that they were forced into by the President and Congress.

    If you want to blame someone, blame those who doctored the intelligence briefings and who exaggerated the claims. Blame those who gave the President the power to wage war without any checks and balances. Blame the new political class who has not only discarded isolationalism, but has completely embraced interventionalism. Blame those who ignored President Eisenhower's extremely blunt warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex (his speech at the end of his Presidency). Blame those who think we need to keep a standing army of the same size we had during the Cold War. Don't blame the 18 or 20 year old kids who are over there because or system failed them. If you are an American, then you are part of the system that *ordered* those kids to go over there and die. Don't blame them when you don't like the results that your system chose.

  12. I'm gonna post these i think by im+just+cannonfodder · · Score: 4, Informative

    well better post some true history on what the usa and uk are up to then so i'd better link these vids on mp3's to the site!

    Rory Bremner gives a hilarious and historical look at the history of conflict in Iraq.

    1 Between Iraq and a Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by43joQLYj8
    2 Beyond Iraq and a Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JCLwhwTmM
    3 Beneath Iraq And A Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipa8DuKyN6I

    Robert Newmans History of Oil:

    1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Ecd6361Ls
    2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZefONsT1E8
    3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ0RX3vz-Og
    4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLxxybJWVRI
    5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsknJvrfSYA


    WE ARE NOT IN IRAQ FOR OIL !!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWiLshk6fSU


    an interesting lecture by Michael Ruppert: part on starts after brief music:The Truth and Lies of 9-11 A lecture by former LAPD narcotics officer, Michael Ruppert, held at Portland State University in November 2001. He explains how September 11th is connected with oil, gas, heroin, money laundering and the US stockmarket

    1: http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug95-hour1mix. mp3

    2: http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug95-hour2mix. mp3

    --
    The Truth Is Out There:
  13. This does nothing. by FunWithKnives · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is completely pointless. I already support the troops. By and large, they are just doing what they have been told to do. I also have no doubt that Abu Ghraib and others all began at the top of the chain of command and worked their way downward, providing plausible deniability to the people who were actually responsible for it all.

    The only way that this is about the troops at all is in the sense that they are even there in the first place. This is about the U.S. invading a sovereign nation on false pretences. It is about our soldiers dying not for our safety, to keep the country free, or to liberate an oppressed people, but simply for oil interests. It is about the Iraqi families which have been torn apart, killed, and subjected to death and destruction every day, caused by both extremist groups and U.S. forces. It is about placing the security of the country in the hands of NATO, aggressive multinational diplomacy, and rebuilding the infrastructure of a decimated country.

    Showing us that the U.S. troops are performing their given tasks is going to accomplish absolutely nothing at all.

    --
    "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
  14. Are there blooper reels? by arcite · · Score: 2, Funny
    You know things like:

    - accidently shooting your friend in the back

    - blowing up children by mistake

    - shooting at reporters as they wave the white flag of war... ect

  15. Points of view by Hemogoblin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  16. Re:Why the propaganda? by Boronx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you think the generals aren't up to their ears in this fiasco, you're living in a fantasy land.

    --
    Play Command HQ online
  17. War Crimes Clips by MrSteveSD · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:War Crimes Clips by chuckymonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here, let me help you out a little. I happen to know the guys from the apache farmer video. Think about it for a second, it's night....late at night. How many people do you know work on farm equipment in the dark late at night? Also when we went out there after all of this you know what we found? Oh, wow missiles and rockets, the only reason that they didn't shoot at the Apache is that they didn't know where it was. When you can't tell the enemy from the guys that aren't the enemy bad shit happens. No, it's not right but it happens, just because you didn't hear about it in other wars doesn't mean that it doesn't happen either. Oh, and blowing up a Mosque we only do when there is good reason (think bombs) to do so. You're going to believe what you're going to believe no matter what someone tells you, but everything you see on Youtube and the TV isn't necessarily what the person showing it to you tells you it is. Also before you go waving around the Geneva convention about shit you may want to read it, I remember reading somewhere that if the enemy doesn't follow it you don't have to either and I do remember some videos of people having their head sawed off among other things. I feel for the Iraqis, as did most of my compatriots in Iraq but it's not our fault if shit happens... we cannot I repeat cannot tell the difference between the enemy from the innocents so some innocents do get caught in the crossfire. How about you blame the suits who put us there in the first place? I sure as hell didn't want to go and most people in the military are not the bloodthirsty sick fucks you seem to think we are. That's why I got out of the military, I saw way too much and couldn't stand the thought of my little girl never knowing who her daddy was. Nor could I stand to see another little girl dead in the street because some asshole decided to start shooting and grabber her to use as a shield. That made me equal parts angry and sick, I actually vomited when it was over and sometimes I have nightmare because of it. Oh, but you don't see those videos do you?! You also don't see the videos of the guys walking into a crowd of schoolchildren and then setting off a bomb hoping to get one or two soldiers do you? No, because you want to fervently to believe that the soldiers in the service are bloodthirsty animals to soothe your conscience for some strange reason. So you sir can fuck off and maybe try to get your facts straight.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    2. Re:War Crimes Clips by couchslug · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Or the Apache killing these unarmed men in a farmers field, working on a tractor."

      I notice you selected the SNIPPED version. Here's a link to the full version.
      Watch old boy play "hide the SA7", using his buddies and their equipment as cover. Note the whole interaction between the people, including the initial conversation by the car and the rapid ditching of the weapon in the field. I contemptuously defy anyone to link these behaviors to tractor repair. I work on ag equipment and tractors, and there is nothing among my parts stash or tool collection that is the size and shape of a handheld SAM tube. That is no grain drill section (note the dangling end cap when he runs), PTO shaft, or similar.

      http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001763.html

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wdJo-eoLxI (search 'helicopter kills" and compare versions)

      "Or executing a wounded Iraqi"

      How would/do/have YOU act/acted when you suspect(ed) an enemy fighter may be "playing possum"?

      http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/U.S._Navy_finds_soldie r_shot_wounded_Iraqi_at_Fallujah_in_self_defense

      "A known tactic of anti-Iraqi forces (AIF) is to feign injury or death, and the marine could reasonably claim they were still a threat."

      "Blowing up Mosque's doesn't look so good either."

      Nor does using them for military purposes, which removes their protected status under the GC.

      "Or this apparent murder of civilians driving by in their cars."

      All we have is a "stovepiped" view from a cam, with no overall context as to what actions were taking place nearby. Note the cameraman, "Doc" comments that no unarmed people were harmed, and he would probably have been in a position to view the cleanup. Those vehicles could have done a driveby or similar off-camera, but we don't know either way.

      "The famous "Awe Dude" air-strike on a crowd of civilians."

      Post-strike assertions go both ways, but the ground controller called it in during the ground battle.
      What did he see that we didn't?
      All we see from the video is a group of people moving purposefully in one general direction.

      Ideology-based conjecture is not proof.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:War Crimes Clips by BgJonson79 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it only applies to uniformed soldiers. No uniform, no protections.

      Of course, we should be better than that, too.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

  18. Re:Invasion is Liberation by darthflo · · Score: 2, Funny

    50 years from now, when the USA is a pathetic, second-rate banana republic, the world will marvel how the people let it happen.
    Now I did know since quite some time that e.g. Europe is /a few hours/ ahead of the USoA, but 50 years...? news to me.
  19. The war at home. by ushering05401 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No one is even pretending that American mass media is for the dissemination of unbiased facts anymore. Read the article, read the slashdot summary... all of it contains biased wording.

    I accept that this may be modded offtopic. It just pisses me off that everyone is pushing their agendas via a medium that has such potential to empower.

    The media climate has reached a point where even if I were to put together a youtube series depicting the life of veterans after returning to the states, chronicling both their triumphs and their tragedies, the series would be politicized by all the f*cking pundits and bloggers and politicians to where very few people could view it without preconcieved notions about my own personal opinions about war, politics, and the state of our democracy.

    Anyone else out there feel like you can't even trust what you see with your own eyes anymore? Do any other Americans out there feel like it is damn near impossible to speak directly to your fellow countrymen without having your words filtered through the opinions of the talking heads that fill their t.v. screens and babble out of their radios?

    Regards.

    1. Re:The war at home. by dangitman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It just pisses me off that everyone is pushing their agendas via a medium that has such potential to empower.

      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.
  20. Re:See All of you! by DittoBox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  21. Re:See All of you! by Shihar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  22. Department of Government Duplication Department by davmoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  23. That depends on how you define it... by ChePibe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Propaganda is a funny word with a million connotations. Sure, this could be called propaganda, as could much of the reporting coming out of Iraq from various outlets.

    Wars are hard to cover, and the mish-mash conflict/counter-insurgency that is Iraq is no exception. The problems are similar to those of any other big, contentious political conflict, such as elections, only now people are shooting each other, a reporter's access is often limited to a certain area and frequently only to one side, and the emotions run about 100 times stronger.

    I like the use of the word "propaganda" in Spanish better, as a word used to describe any advertisement as well as its perhaps less savory meanings. Propaganda tries to influence people, yes, but it can play a role in informing people. A car ad, for example, informs me about say the gas mileage of a car and attempts to convince me to buy the car at the same time. The information regarding gas mileage is accurate and factual, but it is not simply handed to me straight - it's done in a persuasive manner.

    News "reporting" has become more of the same, as the 24 hour networks seem to have a system where supposedly unbiased reports - and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're all biased - are viewed, and then commentary from a pundit whose main qualification is having an opinion is solicited, and this commentary runs just as long if not longer than the report itself. I for one am tired of hearing Jack Cafferty, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs (I particularly dislike Dobbs, but that's another post), Hannity and Colmes blabber on.

    The problems are not simply ones of bias - it's a lack of depth, and this problem exists on the supply and demand sides as well. American news outlets have consistently cut back on international news for well over a decade now, and other than a few select cities worldwide most simply don't have correspondents overseas. The results of this problem could easily be seen in the recent Israeli-Lebanese (well, whoever exactly the other party was - it was pretty nebulous) conflict last summer. The major wire services, news outlets, etc. simply didn't have many reporters in Beirut to keep track of things. They flew out their usual talking heads and depended on the information of local stringers, who often have their own agendas and biases built in. A textbook example of this would be the Adnan Hajj photography controversy - a local stringer who doctored photos and used misleading captions to get his point across.

    Keeping reporters overseas is expensive, and combat embeds - the safest method of transportation for journalists in Iraq - isn't exactly cheap, either. If you notice, television coverage in the U.S. is often interspersed with clips of combat and other footage from the Iraq conflict recorded during the invasion over four years ago. Or from the latest 12 - 24 hour embed a reporter did with a unit, which is hardly sufficient time to get to know things. Troops also hate these short embeds, something I say from personal experience not as a soldier but from long discussions I had with a French friend talking about his military experience in Afghanistan as a unit commander. Reporters often kept his group from getting the job done. After putting up with a few embeds, he told all those who followed that if fighting occurred they were on their own - and he sure hoped they brought weapons and ammunition.

    But there's another reason for this lack of depth of coverage: Americans don't really care about what's going on in the world. Fewer than 20% of Americans have a passport at any given time, and I'd wager that 4 years into a massive troop deployment in Iraq more than 50% of the public still couldn't find the place on a map or identify its capital city. Americans tend to have strong moral feelings about war in general, good and bad, but few and far between are those actually informed. This apathy combined with the extremely

  24. Re:See All of you! by db32 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You make me sick. The number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines over there doing good things for the locals VASTLY outnumbers your disgusting stereotypes. Yes that shit happened and more than a few service members we upset by it too, because ignorant asshats like you start running around proclaiming that everyone is doing it. How much charity have you done for the people over there? I have known airmen that have setup donation programs for the kids out there for blankets, food, clothing. These men and women giving up their precious off duty time (which you have terribly little of out there) and their own money to reach out to the local community and help. I bet you don't know anything about the parts of northern Iraq where the locals have announced that for every American killed or kidnapped in their community they will hunt down and kill 100 of these little militia members running around causing problems.

    I'm sorry for the 3 people you know that came back. I know a few that didn't come back, and I know hundreds who have been over there for months to years. I suppose the fact that I was there makes me a baby killing, civilian raping, prisoner torturing asshole too huh? Well I'm certainly glad that the people like you are far away from the field and with no weapons, the 15-20 iraqi locals riding on a flatbed doing random work on the base (trash, sandbags, etc) all started waving and smiling at our group on my first day there. I would much rather be surrounded by the people that see that the military is doing its best to try and help (far from the politicians goals).

    Go watch your local news and see how many 'good deeds' type stuff gets reported, and then see how many murderous rampages and serial killings get reported, and how much coverage each gets. Then ask "gee, I wonder what more people watch and where they get their ratings". Then think for just one moment "I wonder if the news channels are doing the same thing with the war that they do with our local news, showing the most disturbing and horrific things for ratings and glossing over the mundane and good because noone pays attention to it".

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  25. Re:The truth by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To paraphrase Douglas Adams: 'Anyone who wants a position of authority should under no circumstances be allowed to do the job'

    --
    FGD 135
  26. Where is the channel? Was it removed? by CaroKann · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to the article, the channel is named "Multi-National Force-Iraq", but a search on YouTube does not turn up anything.
    The article states it is the 16th most subscribed channel on YouTube, but I don't see it anywhere in the top subscribed channel list.

    Did the military or YouTube remove it?

  27. Bob Herbert: by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...According to the most recent government figures, 37 million Americans are living below the official poverty threshold, which is $19,971 a year for a family of four. That's one out of every eight Americans, and many of them are children.

    More than 90 million Americans, close to a third of the entire population, are struggling to make ends meet on incomes that are less than twice the official poverty line. In my book, they're poor. ...

    The number of poor people in America has increased by five million over the past six years, and the gap between rich and poor has grown to historic proportions. The richest one percent of Americans got nearly 20 percent of the nation's income in 2005, while the poorest 20 percent could collectively garner only a measly 3.4 percent.

    So, what makes America more secure? "Fighting" "terrorists", or using the 150 Billion to support those at home?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  28. It's the IMPACT, not the number. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Probably. But that doesn't matter.

    The IMPACT of a single innocent child being killed by our troops outweighs a literal TON of candy and flowers being handed out.

    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.

    Meanwhile, comments from REAL military leaders ...
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/12/ap/natio nal/main2795082.shtml
    So dead women and children don't matter to the officers in charge.

    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.

    Again, read the above link.

    The problem is that this is now an occupation. We are occupying Iraq. But we are still treating it as an invasion.

    We need to switch our strategy to law enforcement now. No more bombings. No more tanks.

    The war is over. We won. But we're still going to lose Iraq because we cannot understand that police work is not the same as calling in another bombing run.

    That said, give the army some credit. They are being told to pay in their own blood to achieve some political objective.

    And the fault of that is our government AND the military leadership.

    Our troops WILL crack under pressure. We KNOW that. Yet we keep putting more pressure on them because we still believe that Iraq is a "war" when we are really an occupation force.

    The military leadership refuses to tell the politicians "NO".

    God forbid anything other then tragedy be reported from Iraq.

    Iraq IS a tragedy.

    We paint schools and then shoot the parents of the children because they're traveling too fast when they approach our road block. How is that anything other than tragic?

    Our troops are PEOPLE, not machines. They cannot take the continued stress.

    And now we're extending their tours.
    1. Re:It's the IMPACT, not the number. by dave_boo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, your post has a lot of logical fallacies in it.

      First to say that the actions of a few condemn the whole is an idea that is propagated by those who can not adequately create coherent thoughts. It's almost childish. I realise that you may not believe that, but there are others out there who paint the world with such a brush. But based on that, should we start rounding up Iraqis off the street and executing them since some of them are jihadists who aren't content with attacking only the foreign invaders, but also Sunnis, Kurds, Sh'ias, Druzis, etc? And what of foreign nationals that the US military finds in Iraq? Since quite a few of them are fighters, and the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them, should they be taken out behind the latrines and shot as spies?

      Your thoughts that the force should be segued into a policing action would be nice if the people that were causing problems were natives. However, the US lead coalition was not the last bunch of people to invade their country. With the second wave of invasion, they've brought forms of Islam even more radical that what existed pre-invasion. Most Iraqis don't want these foreign influences interfering with their country any more than they want the US doing it.

      Your assertion that we're going around murdering people who approach roadblocks too quickly is quite sad. Quick, how long have we been over there? Yep, 4 years. In 4 years, I'm sure everyone's either heard how to behave around the US military (which most likely offers them quite a bit of latitude compared to the conditions they had to put up with under the Baathist party), or they've read THE FUCKING signs. Every single convoy has them posted on the back of the vehicles in large letters (both Arabic and English). Furthermore, as I said earlier, quite a bit of leeway is allowed them. Case in point. I have a friend who works as a convoy gunner. They're taught how to identify and dissuade people from approaching the convoy. At any rate, he was on patrol one day when a vehicle was approaching the stopped convoy. IIRC, they were dismounting for a toilet break. He followed the ROE perfectly, but at the last minute, squeezed off a single shot (if it escalates, the gunner is supposed to aim for the engine block and than walk their fire across the cabin). This finally got the old man's attention. He veered off the road and my friend saw two little girls' heads pop up looking around. Bet you never heard that did you? But of course, according to your thinking, since people have been killed before at roadblocks, that makes them all bad rather than separating the really bad people from the average joe.

  29. Re:What the Anti-War/Anti-Troops Crowd wants... by packeteer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    I'll bite...

    Who is anti troops? The only people who are anti troops are the right wing nuts that want the troops to die because of their crazy religious beliefs. We all know that during Vietnam a lot of people WERE anti troops. It was a terrible thing but we moved past it. People understand not to blame the troops anymore. It's a really easy way to attack someone to say they are anti troops but it just isn't ever the case any more. By using this arguing tactic you are showing how morally bankrupt you are and how indefensible your position is.

    --
    unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
  30. Re:See All of you! by DittoBox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thank you for invoking Godwin's Law.

    --
    Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
  31. Not With My Taxes, Thanks by banished · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The so-called "censorship" exists because:

    1. Congressionally-mandated enforcement of business ethics. It is a waste of taxpayer resources to have GIs visiting sites such as YouTube, MTV, etc., as these sites are not mission essential. (Something possibly only the over-30, not still living with mommy crowd might understand.)

    2. Operational security prohibits visiting any web site that permits posting of messages, or in this case, videos. Residents of the 5-pointed cesspool have seen too many instances of publicly accessible forums used by DoD personnel to post information about operations that are yet to occur. It's the old, "Loose lips, sinks ships," mindset. Rightfully so.

    !%$@#%#@! Slashdot is blocked on my DoD system, so I had to go home to Mommy's house and post this.

    1. Re:Not With My Taxes, Thanks by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a waste of taxpayer resources to have GIs visiting sites such as YouTube, MTV, etc., as these sites are not mission essential.

      You can't be serious.

      I guess GIs should not be allowed to have any reading material, and music. No DVDs, either. No recreation time. After all, none of those things are "mission essential." The only thing they should be allowed to read is operations manuals.

      Yeah, I'm sure that's going to make for happy troops. It's so great to ask these soldiers to supposedly defend America's freedom, while not allowing them to have any of that freedom. Makes total sense. Won't cause lower morale at all. Will help recruiting efforts immensely.

      Operational security prohibits visiting any web site that permits posting of messages, or in this case, videos.

      By this logic, they shouldn't be allowed to write any letters home, either. Do you have some pathological hatred for humanity?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  32. Re:What the Anti-War/Anti-Troops Crowd wants... by Rasit · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes because troops are not allowed to disobey orders they see as illegal. Troops are not allowed to think for themselves so we can't blame them can we?

    As far as I have heard troops are obliged to refuse to carry out clearly illegal orders, I think that rule was created after Nuremberg trials

  33. Consensus is propaganda is consensus is propaganda by toddhisattva · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The consensus is that this is a failed mission (as the world warned the US it would be) and they have to live with that.
    Reality is not subject to consensus.

    I am sure more than one philosopher has written about this at length. Doxa vs. episteme etc.

    Anyone who thinks the Game (I call it "The Second Great Game" to put its proper historical perspective) is over when we have Persia in a pincer between Bactria and Babylonia, what a lightweight twit to be so blown about by public opinion, so ignorant of history... well I am hoping that reality is far more textured and profound than any consensus!

    Consensus is doxa, hearsay, trivia, rumor, crap. Even legend and outright myth have more truth than does public opinion.

    If we do lose this, well I am sure more than one good author has written at length about that scenario, that desire of public opinion that fart of a million asses:

    Dan Simmons

    Orson Scott Card
  34. Re:What the Anti-War/Anti-Troops Crowd wants... by ClassMyAss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aside from the obvious example of Fox News, all other TV news outlets have a consistent negative slant on the efforts in Iraq.

    Pardon my French, but these "efforts" are a fucked up mismanaged mess that have slanted all by themselves towards the negative - it's what happens when you roll into a country and toss the government that's been in charge for twenty years without any reasonable plan to end the power vacuum and restore order. What the anti-war crowd wants is for the Bush administration not to fuck this situation up, but it appears to be too late for that. The situation is a mess, it's been handled terribly from every point of view except the military one (I will give them credit - they've done an admirable job when they've had missions to accomplish, the only reason they didn't win the war yet is that the politicians forgot to pin down exactly what "win" would mean in this context, they just thought that things would magically heal themselves and it would be obvious). Yes, America has a badass army that can destroy whatever it wants with very little trouble; unfortunately it also has some mentally challenged leaders that forgot they would need to clean up the mess left by removing an active dictator from a country that's forgotten how to rule itself.

    Iraq is no longer a war, after all. A war involves two organized armies having at it, as in with actual commanders and weapons; Iraq is just a bunch of idiots blowing crap up on the roads to scare the people trying to calm things down. We're now trying to quell an insurgency, which is exactly what the anti-war set warned would happen, and warned that we didn't have a plan to deal with. If I recall the response from the Bush administration was that the Iraqis would not do this because they would be so happy to be rid of Saddam. If that had been true, we would have stopped arguing this crap two years ago.

    So we're screwed? Should we leave? Who knows...it doesn't appear that things are going very well, which I'm pretty sure even Bush admitted himself, and I really do feel for the Iraqis, so maybe it would be worth sticking it out a little longer to see if we can at least leave things slightly less dangerous than they are now. But as you get yourself all heated up about the anti-war leftist commie shitbag bastards with their patchouli douche and smokable underwear, don't forget this key fact - they were right. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. The entire justification for this war was mistaken, even if it was not an outright lie. Iraq was not even on the radar when it came to being a dire threat to the United States. I know the standard right-wing line from here: Saddam was a bad guy, are you saying it would be better if we left him in power? Well, no, I would never argue the world was better with him, yes, he was a real nasty leader. But there are a lot of bad guys out there. If we start wars with each of their countries just because they're bad guys...well, we just can't, for lack of resources, troops, and morale. There are too many places where we don't like the current leadership, and these kinds of missions do not tend to turn out well, either for our country or theirs. We don't have the energy as a nation to keep reliving the same military regime change nightmare over and over. And the fact is, without the WMD "proof" showing that Saddam was a clear, imminent threat, we would never have gone in because people wouldn't have supported it. Unlike politicians (real or armchair), most real people like to be extremely careful about sending their children off to war, so don't underestimate how totally messed up it is that thousands of our people have now died and killed because of a war that probably shouldn't have started at all.

    So whatever...the point of this rant is that the Republicans in control of this war are the ones that messed up - it's ridiculous to point a finger at the media and scream "BIAS!" for reporting on it. You can try to spin this a

  35. Mod parent up by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

    The full version of the "helicopter kill" video was shown on ABC Nightly News. Watching it, it's pretty obvious the guys who were killed were looking around, trying to make sure they weren't being watched, and trying to minimize the time they were actually in possession of what looks a lot like a SAM launcher tube. It's very ironic that a version of the video edited to make the military look bad should show up in a discussion criticizing the military of propaganda.

  36. they are still responsible by misanthrope101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A person is responsible for their actions even if they are just there to earn a living, just following orders, don't really believe in what they're doing, or secretly think that the Decider is a moron. If they torture someone, they're a despicable person, even if it's okayed or ignored through the chain of command, and even if they get away with it. Our troops are human beings doing a job for pay, and shouldn't be viewed as sainted martyrs incapable for shouldering responsibility for their actions. They chose to take the money, chose their actions, and are no less culpable for their actions than the CIA or State Dept civilians. That they didn't make the policy doesn't exempt them for moral responsibility for implementing the policy.

  37. Re:What the Anti-War/Anti-Troops Crowd wants... by A1C+Lickey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry, but I have to disagree. I am one of the troops and believe me there really are people who are still anti-troops. Some people do still freak out when we try to do normal everyday things. I've been called freak, monster, murderer, nazi, and baby killer. Now I'm not saying a large portion of the population is anti-troops; for the most part people can separate between the war and the troops.

    And it's no surprise that DOD will be uniformly blocking access to these sites, for several years it has been specifically forbidden by the regs to us DOD computers for personal use. By most accounts, Myspace, YouTube, and the like are all for personal use. In fact many bases already block these sites on their networks. And it isn't censorship either. The government is paying for that bandwidth for official use only. We can't have our networks go down because too many people are trying to read their personal e-mail or post videos online, for the military this is our job, this is what we do every day.

    There are plenty of sources of information that the military can't spin. If we want to we can post on Myspace or YouTube from our personal machines. If you're in the desert then you can visit those sites from the computers in the MWR center (Morale, Welfare, Recreation Center) or from the internet cafe if the base has one.

  38. What's your point? by anomaly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Poverty is one of America's most persistent and serious problems. The United States produces more per capita than any other industrialized country, and in recent years has devoted more than $500 billion per year, or about 12 percent of its gross national product, to public assistance and social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps, and Medicaid.
    http://www.econlib.org/library/ENC/PovertyintheUni tedStates.html

    The poverty problem is not essentially a money problem. We already spend fortunes of money on poverty programs, have for 40 years, and it's getting worse, not better.

    People are not poor solely because they don't have money. There are many factors, and it's a complex problem. I submit to you that there are several things that could be done to dramatically reduce poverty in the US, and few of them require throwing more government-managed dollars at the issue.

    The core issues revolve around what people consider to be an acceptable living standard in our culture, and what is "normal."

    People who are able to work should work.
    People should not borrow money for things that depreciate.
    People who don't understand the consequences of borrowing money should not borrow money at all.
    People who have no ability to earn an income should not start families.
    People who do start families that way should lean predominantly on their family members to help provide food and shelter rather than turning to the government. If you can't pay rent on an apartment, then you should get roommates to help pay the bills. This is common in other cultures. In my neighborhood there are several first-generation immigrant families. Most of them rely on family members and non-family members to help pay the mortgage. To those of us who are not immigrants, this seems unacceptable. Why? Because we're spoiled.

    I do have compassion for people, and know that there are some people who just cannot make it on their own. (Mental handicap, physical infirmity, crushing medical bills, etc.)

    As I see it, the largest root cause of the poverty problem is
    a) People are not willing to get the education that they need to provide the earning opportunities that are needed.
    b) If they do have an education, they are unwilling to work hard and consistently to earn money.
    c) If they do earn money, they do stupid things with it. e.g. play the lottery, borrow money to buy cars, run credit cards to the limits for crap they don't need, 100% mortgages with interest-only options, and
    d) then get overextended, borrowing to their credit limit where they are abused by financial institutions who are driven by shareholders who care about profitability more than whether these companies are abusing people to drive up profits. These mortgages and credit cards should never have been issued in the first place. Those people could not afford to borrow that money.
    e) refuse to learn how to develop relationship skills, and they buy into the lie that divorce solves your relational problems. As a result, children are thrown into poverty because the income that was insufficient to cover one household now is split to try to cover expenses for two households.

    There are many things we can do to help reduce poverty. Most of them involve getting people to stop living above their means, learn to sacrifice a bit, hold people accountable for bad choices, and teach relational skills so that families are not broken into multiple households. It's not a money problem, it's predominately a character problem, and that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the money being spent in the war on terror.

    Respectfully,
    Anomaly

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?