Change of views on the war

voodooman · 03-31-2003

I just heard a top US official comment that no matter how many
US Military casulties, the Saddam regime will fall.

I support our actions there, as most probably know, however,
Im sorry, well, no Im not, but this could be over by now if
we didnt have the motherfucking media like GERALDO, ARNET,
and every other blood sucking, cockholster looking for a pulitzer
there. The media has NO concern whatsoever to the saftey of
our troops, they care about themselves and thats it.

When Bush decided to carry out this action, the objective was
clear, over the last 2 weeks, its become crystal clear, but the
rules have changed, and we are letting the opinions of all the
cocksucking countries that are supposed to be our allies, whom
we send millions of dollars, food, etc to, stand in our way of
completing the objective with minimal loss to US TROOPS.

Well, This sounds pretty contridicting to what I have said in the
last few days, which was, war is hell, and soldiers die, and for
the record, I still 100% support our troops and Pres. but if it
was up to me, This would be over and we would be moving on.

Sly · 03-31-2003

We need to get the media out of there. Not only are they risking the lives of our troops, but they're also forcing the military to choose different strategies so the media doesn't discover and report them.

We should focus on fighting Iraq, not some stupid reporter who's only concerned about a book deal.

cj · 04-01-2003

sly, couldn't have said it better myself!

leave the reporters on the outskirts and send them information when its been confirmed. i'm sick of seeing stuff that 5 minutes later has been changed because some reporter wanted to say it FIRST, true or not.

and why should our troops be worrying about these morons and their safety? they've got enough shit to worry about with armed civilians, suicide bombers and this little war thing we've got going on.

get the media OUT. we don't need to know everything.

XXXManager · 04-01-2003

I agree with you all to a certain extent.
But I will tell you what pisses me off..
With all the media there - and all the new technologies..
I hear on any opportunity that the pentagon says that the Iraqis hang women for waving to US troops and that they use kids as human shields infront of their troops and all kinds of horrible things...
CAN'T THEY FUCKEN SHOW US THAT?
If thats the truth - I WANNA SEE! Don't just tell me that!

It fucken pisses me off. They show POWs but can't show me how bad the Iraqis are?

Fuck that.
I am 110% for this campaign. Don't understand me wrong..
But why do they fucken loose this battle of PR if they claim its so obvious the Iraqis are doing so wrong in broad daylight?

Im pissed off

RawAlex · 04-01-2003

They lose the battle of PR because they are trying to hard to make it all nice... no pictures of bodies, no pictures of blood... heck, not very many places report civilian deaths directly, they are called "collateral damage"...

The embedded reports can't report - they have to hide when the shooting starts... so nothing really ever gets shown. They get pictures of tanks being blown up after they are abandoned, pictures of tanks firing at far away targets, but no real action, no real stories... just "they shot at some iraqis, who cooperated fully by dying."

They are getting out PRed by a country that is getting whacked by missles, and who's leader is either dead or in hiding... it's sad!

Alex

cj · 04-01-2003

maybe we dont see pictures of that because it doesn't actually happen in the way they want us to imagine ... sometimes our own imaginations based on carefully chosen words are a worse image than the reality, i'm sure if they had photos of that they would be around somewhere.

who knows

*shrug*

all i know is that I dont want to see that!!!

voodooman · 04-01-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 1 2003, 12:39 AM
... just "they shot at some iraqis, who cooperated fully by dying."

LMAO Alex!
---------

XXXManager,
The Al Jezzera ran video last week of hanged
iraqi's which in turn our news stations broadcast
it shortly after.

It has already been shown, time and again,
the arab media plays by the same rules as
Saddam, which is guerilla type tactics.
If the US and Britain want to remain the
bigger person, they cannot stoop to their
level. Thats how I perceive it anyways.
As I mentioned above, Fuck the PR, not going to win this war one way or the
other.

Almighty Colin · 04-01-2003

The embebs were a reaction to negative responses from previous wars. In every war, people have accused the military and the government of plenty of nasty things including lying about what is going on in the field - sometimes with good reason.

I am not certain I think the embeds are a good idea. SO FAR, I think they are MORE positive than negative though. They serve a positive role for the military. The embeds report information from the field faster than their own commanders do. Schwarzkopf's autobiography details how slow information was in getting from the field back to him.

One whole division stopped for the night against the plan - which goes to show commanders in the fields sometimes have a completely different view of things than command does.

Of course, in this war, tanks are outfitted with GPS receivers but other information can be gleaned from the live embed reports also.

We'll see what public reaction is once a soldier dies right in front of the camera or an embedded
reporter gets killed.

Last edited by Colin at Apr 1 2003, 05:36 AM

04-01-2003

i think that most people are skeptical no matter what is done or said by anyone. that will not change no matter how much information is available. i have noticed that the media in the field suddenly turned into instant military analysts as well which cant possibly be a good thing.

in general, i think its probably does more good than harm.

Quote:

The embedded reports can't report - they have to hide when the shooting starts... so nothing really ever gets shown. They get pictures of tanks being blown up after they are abandoned, pictures of tanks firing at far away targets, but no real action, no real stories

i certainly would not agree with the above since i have been watching them report in the middle of fire fights and rocket attacks. "can't report" is a pretty strong way to characterize the effectiveness of putting so many journalists directly in the middle of battles. never in the past did the world have access to so much information, so quickly as they do today.

Almighty Colin · 04-01-2003

I've noticed that the "military analysts" that say the most negative, sensationalist things get the most play.

Almighty Colin · 04-01-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 1 2003, 01:39 AM
They lose the battle of PR because they are trying to hard to make it all nice... no pictures of bodies, no pictures of blood... heck, not very many places report civilian deaths directly, they are called "collateral damage"...

...

They are getting out PRed by a country that is getting whacked by missles, and who's leader is either dead or in hiding... it's sad!

What are the criteria and objectives by which the PR war is being lost? What goals and objectives would be met by showing dead bodies and more blood? Who are "THEY"?

Opti · 04-01-2003

I suspect the miltary may believe that having a reporter embedded makes the TV networks at home more likely to devote airtime and help keep the public interest high.

Unfortunately, I do think this is a serious issue for the war planners.

Strangely enough we seem to have a lot less full on war coverage in Aus than we did during desert storm.... don't think there is an embedded Australian TV reporter though

Almighty Colin · 04-01-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by cj@Apr 1 2003, 01:40 AM
maybe we dont see pictures of that because it doesn't actually happen in the way they want us to imagine ... sometimes our own imaginations based on carefully chosen words are a worse image than the reality, i'm sure if they had photos of that they would be around somewhere.

Interesting point.

A similar thing happens I think when people read about past wars in synopsis. The action seems really fluid, fast, and continuous when summarized but there are lots of starts and stops in any campaign - even blisteringly fast ones.

voodooman · 04-01-2003

A bit off topic, but I just didnt want to start a new topic for this.

Anyone see the footage of the aircraft that sliiiiiiiiiiid off the deck of
an aircraft carrier?

Also, Saddam is reported as trying to bring the war to
the USA.

04-01-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 1 2003, 05:54 AM
I've noticed that the "military analysts" that say the most negative, sensationalist things get the most play.

but thats news i think. all news is like that all over the world. you can look at any newspaper headline on any day anywhere in the world and see that. i think its equally true everywhere. without sensationalism, there is not going to be much interest. if it was not made to be colorful, it would just be a monotone stream of facts and figures and it would be like reading a trigonometry equation.

i have not really noticed that with the analysts as much as i have with journalists trying to characterize the situation (with no expertise) and double guess the enemy and speculate on whats really happening. it seems to me at times to be no more beneficial or accurate than to just have them come in after the fact and report on what happened.

but i think that without Journalists, Kosovo provides a good example of what you are left with... just pictures of bombed buildings in Belgrade and an accidentally bombed bus of civilians. information warfare is a real part of the equation and these regimes built and hold their power based largely on their ability to use information and propaganda effectively to sway public opinion. i think that was a big backlash for NATO in terms of how the media was used by Milosovich and Co... and not by NATO. All NATO could do was say "well, you will just have to take our word for it" and they made a lot of claims that they could not and never really did substantiate i.e. mass graves, mass executions, massive losses to the Serb military etc.

Almighty Colin · 04-01-2003

Quote:

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Originally posted by -= JR =-+Apr 1 2003, 08:44 AM-->
QUOTE (-= JR =- @ Apr 1 2003, 08:44 AM)

__________________
Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.

Secret Friends, LATINA Secret Friends , My Cam Friends

Almighty Colin

View Public Profile

Visit Almighty Colin's homepage!

Find More Posts by Almighty Colin

04-01-2003 #17

-= JR =-

Guest

Posts: n/a

i was on the news once when i was 8 years old for getting hit by a truck afterwhich the truck stopped with his rear tire on my stomach - perfectly between my hips and rib cage.

it was pretty sensational. i considered the reporting to be balanced and fair... right up until they started using the word "miracle" and "lucky" to describe my survival without injury.

it was really hard to feel lucky when you are an 8 year old in intensive care with IV's in both arms and a heart monitor beeping away and i could not move without feeling like all my skin was being ripped off your body and then having a big, mean doctor come in and shove a suppository up my little tiny ass twice a day. (my intestines were paralyzed)

I guess even "fair and balanced" is also sometimes a matter of perspective.

-= JR =-

Bookmarks

Google

Thread Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is On

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:41 AM..

04-01-2003	#4
XXXManager Members Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 144	I agree with you all to a certain extent. But I will tell you what pisses me off.. With all the media there - and all the new technologies.. I hear on any opportunity that the pentagon says that the Iraqis hang women for waving to US troops and that they use kids as human shields infront of their troops and all kinds of horrible things... CAN'T THEY FUCKEN SHOW US THAT? If thats the truth - I WANNA SEE! Don't just tell me that! It fucken pisses me off. They show POWs but can't show me how bad the Iraqis are? Fuck that. I am 110% for this campaign. Don't understand me wrong.. But why do they fucken loose this battle of PR if they claim its so obvious the Iraqis are doing so wrong in broad daylight? Im pissed off __________________ View & search ALL threads from ALL boards - Inc' sexy Oprano Get alerts by Email or ICQ about threads you are interested in. *Today's impossible is tomorrow's convention.*

04-01-2003	#5
RawAlex Members $100 for every ImLive sign-up Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,036	They lose the battle of PR because they are trying to hard to make it all nice... no pictures of bodies, no pictures of blood... heck, not very many places report civilian deaths directly, they are called "collateral damage"... The embedded reports can't report - they have to hide when the shooting starts... so nothing really ever gets shown. They get pictures of tanks being blown up after they are abandoned, pictures of tanks firing at far away targets, but no real action, no real stories... just "they shot at some iraqis, who cooperated fully by dying." They are getting out PRed by a country that is getting whacked by missles, and who's leader is either dead or in hiding... it's sad! Alex __________________ Let's go to the edge of disaster Push the pedal and go a little faster Let's slam into a wall at ramming speed Let's go to the edge of a mountain Jump off and lets start countin' Hit the ground and tell me if it bleeds

04-01-2003	#8
Almighty Colin Members Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,059	The embebs were a reaction to negative responses from previous wars. In every war, people have accused the military and the government of plenty of nasty things including lying about what is going on in the field - sometimes with good reason. I am not certain I think the embeds are a good idea. SO FAR, I think they are MORE positive than negative though. They serve a positive role for the military. The embeds report information from the field faster than their own commanders do. Schwarzkopf's autobiography details how slow information was in getting from the field back to him. One whole division stopped for the night against the plan - which goes to show commanders in the fields sometimes have a completely different view of things than command does. Of course, in this war, tanks are outfitted with GPS receivers but other information can be gleaned from the live embed reports also. We'll see what public reaction is once a soldier dies right in front of the camera or an embedded reporter gets killed. Last edited by Colin at Apr 1 2003, 05:36 AM __________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content. Secret Friends, LATINA Secret Friends , My Cam Friends

04-01-2003	#10
Almighty Colin Members Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,059	I've noticed that the "military analysts" that say the most negative, sensationalist things get the most play. __________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content. Secret Friends, LATINA Secret Friends , My Cam Friends

03-31-2003	#1
voodooman Members Respin bullshit press Your Comments Are Welcomed Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 2,695	I just heard a top US official comment that no matter how many US Military casulties, the Saddam regime will fall. I support our actions there, as most probably know, however, Im sorry, well, no Im not, but this could be over by now if we didnt have the motherfucking media like GERALDO, ARNET, and every other blood sucking, cockholster looking for a pulitzer there. The media has NO concern whatsoever to the saftey of our troops, they care about themselves and thats it. When Bush decided to carry out this action, the objective was clear, over the last 2 weeks, its become crystal clear, but the rules have changed, and we are letting the opinions of all the cocksucking countries that are supposed to be our allies, whom we send millions of dollars, food, etc to, stand in our way of completing the objective with minimal loss to US TROOPS. Well, This sounds pretty contridicting to what I have said in the last few days, which was, war is hell, and soldiers die, and for the record, I still 100% support our troops and Pres. but if it was up to me, This would be over and we would be moving on.

03-31-2003	#2
Sly Members Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 29	We need to get the media out of there. Not only are they risking the lives of our troops, but they're also forcing the military to choose different strategies so the media doesn't discover and report them. We should focus on fighting Iraq, not some stupid reporter who's only concerned about a book deal.

04-01-2003	#3
cj Members Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Down Under Posts: 5,202	sly, couldn't have said it better myself! leave the reporters on the outskirts and send them information when its been confirmed. i'm sick of seeing stuff that 5 minutes later has been changed because some reporter wanted to say it FIRST, true or not. and why should our troops be worrying about these morons and their safety? they've got enough shit to worry about with armed civilians, suicide bombers and this little war thing we've got going on. get the media OUT. we don't need to know everything.

04-01-2003	#12
Opti Members Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,205	I suspect the miltary may believe that having a reporter embedded makes the TV networks at home more likely to devote airtime and help keep the public interest high. Unfortunately, I do think this is a serious issue for the war planners. Strangely enough we seem to have a lot less full on war coverage in Aus than we did during desert storm.... don't think there is an embedded Australian TV reporter though