• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Trashing of the Troops

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
August 9, 2005
Trashing Our History: Troops in Iraq
By Thomas Sowell

Back in June, this column pointed out that it is impossible to fight a war without heroism -- but that you would never know that from the mainstream media. Nothing heroic done by American troops in Iraq is likely to make headlines in the New York Times or be featured on the big three broadcast network news programs.

That fact has now been belatedly recognized in a New York Times opinion piece, but with a strange twist.

After briefly mentioning a few acts of bravery in Iraq -- including a Marine who smothered an enemy grenade with his own body, saving the lives of his fellow Marines at the cost of his own -- the Times' writer said, "the military, the White House and the culture at large have not publicized their actions with the zeal that was lavished on the heroes of World War I and World War II."

Think about that spin: The reason we don't hear about such things is because of the Pentagon, Bush and "the culture at large."


Neither the Pentagon, the White House or "the culture at large" can stop the newspapers or the televisions networks from publicizing whatever they want to publicize. They all have reporters on the scene but what they choose to feature in their reports are all the negative things they can find.

The very issue of the New York Times in which this essay appeared -- August 7th -- featured a front-page picture of a funeral for a Marine killed in Iraq. If you judged by the front page of this and many other newspapers, our troops in Iraq don't do anything except get killed.

The plain fact is that the mainstream media have been too busy depicting our troops as victims to have much time left to tell about the heroic things they have done, the far greater casualties which they have inflicted on their enemies, or their attempts to restore some basic services and basic decencies to this country that has been torn apart for years by internal and external wars -- even before the first American troops arrived on the scene.

The unrelenting quest for stories depicting American troops as victims -- including even front-page stories about the financial problems of some National Guardsmen called to active duty -- has created a virtual reality in the media that has no place for heroes.

Senator John Kerry has called the activation of reservists and National Guardsmen "a backdoor draft," as if joining the reserves or the National Guard is supposed to mean an exemption from ever having to fight. The theme of troops as victims has been a steady drumbeat in the media, because of the way the media have chosen to filter the news, filtering out heroes, among other things.

This virtual reality can become more important than any facts. Even a young lady interviewer on Fox News Channel -- of all places -- recently asked a guest how long the American people will be able to continue supporting the war in Iraq with all the casualties.

All the American deaths in Iraq since the war began are not even half of the deaths of U.S. Marines taking the one island of Iwo Jima in a couple of months of fighting. And Iwo Jima was just one battle in a war that was raging on other fronts around the world simultaneously and continuing for nearly four long years.

It is not the casualties which are unprecedented but the media filtering and the gullibility of those who accept the virtual reality created by the media.

This is a re-creation of the media's role in the Vietnam war, where American victories on the battlefield were turned into defeat on the home front by the filtering and spin of the media.

Even the current Communist rulers of Vietnam have admitted that they lost militarily in Vietnam but hung on because they expected to win politically in the United States -- as they did, with the help of the Jane Fondas, the Walter Cronkhites and a cast of thousands in the streets and on campuses across the country.

The very people who have been anti-military for years, who filter out American heroes in battle, are now proclaiming that they are "honoring" our troops by publicizing every death by name, day in and day out.

Has the dumbed-down education in our schools left us so ill-equipped that we cannot see through even the most blatant hypocrisy?

Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-8_9_05_TS.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
The very people who have been anti-military for years, who filter out American heroes in battle, are now proclaiming that they are "honoring" our troops by publicizing every death by name, day in and day out.

Sounds like disagreeable, but with a differant name (liberal biased media)
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Steve said:
The very people who have been anti-military for years, who filter out American heroes in battle, are now proclaiming that they are "honoring" our troops by publicizing every death by name, day in and day out.

Sounds like disagreeable, but with a differant name (liberal biased media)

I see he's gone again. You don't suppose he was really Peter Jennings? :???:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
While that could be true, I would likely believe she is trying to hitch a ride on Jihadist Jane's vegan bus to his funeral,,,

and with the low powered vegie bus, thier internet connection can't connect to the real world...
 

ez now

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Steve, Cal, Can you two post some of the troop bashing you say Dissagreeable is doing so the rest of us dont think you two are lying peices of sh trash
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Ez, while there could be two responses to your mouthful of crap, but to respond with your same tone would show that you actually said something worth responding to, which you didn't...

as for the troops bashing "read disagreeable's posts" and you will see how often I have responded to her continued "troop bashing"

and why is it that whenever you (and disagreeable) can't repond with facts you call me and others liers?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Just a couple of Disagreeables posts and mine,
Dis wrote:
"Military Recruiters Lie About Dangers In Iraq"

My reply:
Gee another Anti- military piece, how nice,,,and right after the 4th,,,

Disagreeable the Recruiters are actually Military men and woman, not some Republican group,

Dis wrote:
"But two recruiters from Colorado have been suspended as the Army investigates accusations that they encouraged a teenager to lie and cheat so he could join up." (link below0

And, of course, we know now that it wasn't just these two recruiters. It was a wide spread problem that the Army claims to have fixed. Take a look at the lower right of that site. It contains stores about recruiting woes of the Guard and problems with the Reserve. Proof that I was right last year when I said this war would damage the Army.

My response:
Sad to see that nothing changes, leave it to one who claims to "support our troops" to find some article about to drag them through the mud, hanoi Jane and medal toss would be proud of you,,,I am not,,,your just a sad old man with a huge problem,

I am and always will be proud of the men and woman who serve with dignity and Honor day in and day out with no reporter , there to see the true American Heros they really are...

I could go on all night with her anti-military quotes and the many times I have confronted that same attitude,,,but why bore you with facts.....
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Steve, you put way more effort into that than what was deserved. BTW, what the hell is a "lying peice of sh trash"? Seems indicative of a brain on drugs.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
You guys are starting to sound desperate here. Are you actually beginning to realize that the American people are turning against this war? I told you that when they realized Bush had lied to get us into this fiasco, they'd turn against him. His approval ratings are in the tank; about were LBJ's were during VietNam. Things are getting uglier in DC and in Iraq.


Pretending that the Army can make their recruitment goals won't put any more boots on the ground in Iraq. Pretending that this constitution in Iraq will make the insurgents happy won't make it true. This is a quagmire that Bush has spent billions of our dollars on, cost us almost 2,000 American lives, and untold international good will. So trash me all you want; I'm right and the American public is moving to my view.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
2,603
Reaction score
0
In order to believe that Bush Lied............you must also acknowledge that Clinton Lied.


February 1998
President Clinton gave a major policy speech arguing that Iraq must be threatened with force. He explained that "Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat" on his disarmament obligations and that "meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security." "Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions," he said, including "an offensive biological warfare capability -- notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs."
As evidence of the threat, Clinton solemnly recounted the defector's tale: "In 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.” Kamel's defection was similarly invoked virtually every time a senior Clinton policy maker addressed the Iraq issue during the inspections crises of 1997-98. Sandy Berger said it "forced [Iraq] to reveal additional weapons stockpiles and production capacity it had insisted it did not have." Madeleine Albright said it "marked a turning point" in Saddam's efforts at deception. And William Cohen said that as a result, "Iraq confessed to having materials and munitions it had lied about for years."
Kamel became the poster child for Iraq's strategy of deceit and concealment. His name was bandied around on Sunday morning talk-shows and newspaper op-eds. He featured prominently in a Frontline documentary on Iraq and he turned up in articles in The New Republic and The Weekly Standard.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
passin thru said:
In order to believe that Bush Lied............you must also acknowledge that Clinton Lied.


Clinton has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Period. As much as you may try to shift the blame to Clinton, the Iraqis, the Senate, anyone but Bush, it was George W. Bush's decision to invade a soverign country that was no threat to the US. It was no different than Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
2,603
Reaction score
0
I get it......................................

Clinton never had any dealings with Iraq.....................hmmm
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Disagreeable wrote:
Pretending that the Army can make their recruitment goals

I didn't pretend I provided facts disproving your lies and other anti-military propoganda....

but to show a few more facts....

For 2003:
All of the services have met their recruiting goals for the past two fiscal years, and all expect to (easily) meet them again this year."


For 2004:
"The Army enlisted 77,587 soldiers through September, besting the year's goal by 587 soldiers.

For 2005:

The Department of Defense has just issued a press release announcing July recruiting data. You'll be pleased to hear that "The Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force met or exceeded their active duty recruiting goals in July."

But to Bash our troops and use opinion and misleading statements to say that the military is falling short is once again proven to be a liberal lie....
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
You're pitiful, Steve. You post all this cra..., excuse me, stuff without a single reference to back it up. I've posted reference after reference showing that the Army and Guard are not meeting their recruitment goals. The Army met their June goal only because they lowered it from the June '04 goal! One of Cal's posts even referenced the fact that the Army and Guard recruitment goals aren't being met. But dream on. The only people who believe this undocumented "stuff" are those who have drank the kool aide. And I'm not bashing the troops; I'm bashing the Bush Bunch. They've taken a strong, well oiled fighting machine and trashed it. It makes me very angry.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
I went directly to the source of the "recruiting goals" the US ARMY..

But you called them and me liers...so why post a link for you when I already did so...

By the way...the goals were revised up, not down....

but if you have one shread of fact to disprove the Army meeting it's goals then post away, but stick to the facts, not opinions.....
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
2,603
Reaction score
0
You are the laughing stock of this board. I stated facts that are out there, but if you choose to hide from them so be it.
On another post I offered verification of facts and you wouldn't even look because you knew you wouldn't like what you find.
REALLY WE KNOW YOU LOOKED BUT IT WOULD NOT FIT YOUR AGENDA SO YOU IGNORE THESE FACTS

There is no use to try and communicate with you because you pick and choose which facts you want to.

Have a happy day living in your shell.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Steve said:
I went directly to the source of the "recruiting goals" the US ARMY..

But you called them and me liers...so why post a link for you when I already did so...

By the way...the goals were revised up, not down....

but if you have one shread of fact to disprove the Army meeting it's goals then post away, but stick to the facts, not opinions.....

You are truly pitiful, Steve. I've posted this before and I can do it again, with references. Link below; my emphasis.

"The June surplus breaks a string of four straight months in which the Army missed it goals by wide margins.

Through June 27, the Army had recruited 47,121 new soldiers in 2005. That's more than 7,800 below the number it needed to be on track to meet its goal for the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

The Army's success in June can be partly attributed to modest expectations. The June 2005 goal was more than 1,000 recruits lower than the June 2004 goal."


So you can go on pretending all you want, but the US Army is falling apart. One reason the Pentagon is talking about bring troops home from Iraq is because there simply aren't enough for another full rotation!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-29-army-recruiting_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
 

ts

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern nd
Disagreeable said:
You're pitiful, Steve. You post all this cra..., excuse me, stuff without a single reference to back it up. I've posted reference after reference showing that the Army and Guard are not meeting their recruitment goals. The Army met their June goal only because they lowered it from the June '04 goal! One of Cal's posts even referenced the fact that the Army and Guard recruitment goals aren't being met. But dream on. The only people who believe this undocumented "stuff" are those who have drank the kool aide. And I'm not bashing the troops; I'm bashing the Bush Bunch. They've taken a strong, well oiled fighting machine and trashed it. It makes me very angry.

You say the well oiled fighting machine is turned into trash and you are not bashing the troops?????
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Thanks TS, it seems others are on to Disagreeables trashing our fine troops,

Dis wrote:
but the US Army is falling apart

The other night I went to watch a friends child play in a local football scrimmage match, they lagged in the first Quarter, but we cheered and supported them, they lagged in the second Quarter, we still cheered and supported his team, in the third Quarter they held thier own, we still cheered and supported them. in the end they changed thier game plan and came out on top, winning against the odds since 01, , we never had a doubt, as we truely supported the team.

Just as our great Army will, they may have missed the medias, monthly goals, but they saw a short fall addressed the needs and will as ussual overcome this minor obstruction...

and I no matter how dim it may look to the liberal media will continue to support our troops
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
2,603
Reaction score
0
It is amazing that Bush has any support, with all the liberal media campaign against Bush and to run him down at any turn. It has been the biggest campaign of history to trash Bush.

When we send a young man into battle we must give him all the support we can. If he knows back home his mother is protesting the war he volunteered for, he is not giving his total concentration to his job. That my friend can get a soldier killed.

Protest if you want but remember there "ain't no free lunch"
 

Latest posts

Top