Iran: Bluff Or Real?
Timmythemoonpig
Join Date: 2003-11-08 Member: 22407Members
Join Date: 2003-11-08 Member: 22407Members
in Discussions
There's a sudden upsurge in the usual 'dusty country with oil' 'evil' and 'regime' mind control sayings being broadcast from the white house, Tony Blair is wisely keeping his mouth shut at home though. Someone here said regime change was never on the cards for Iran, maybe something like coalition or Israeli strikes to disable Iran's evil nuclear hollowed out volcanos was more likely....but now its been mentioned Alot...I mean alot (by the white house)
Personally I think its a bluff, timed to come after non-disastrous Iraqi elections to have biggest impact. Theres no way the US would even remotely try to regime-change Iran? would they? they'd certainly be on their own, and it would be a hell of a fight...think of the ratings...
Personally I think its a bluff, timed to come after non-disastrous Iraqi elections to have biggest impact. Theres no way the US would even remotely try to regime-change Iran? would they? they'd certainly be on their own, and it would be a hell of a fight...think of the ratings...
Comments
Her Majesty's Royal Marine Corps
A strike? well why not. The troops are in position already, the opportunity was never better than now.
The word "Lebensraum" suddenly pierces my consciousness like white-hot frag grenade shrapnel.
Whatever happened to snatching Syria?
Another programme I saw had a snippet of a guy talking to Syrian students who were wondering why America was branding them an evil country. Syria and Cuba are definitely the axis of diet-evil. China is much worse than either of them, I'd put China neck and neck with Iran for human rights and 'harbouring' terrorists, but China is friend, good China.
American TV audiences will be hungry for a war in about 2/3 years though, the cruise missile stockpiles will have to be used up before they go out of date and it will be time to deliver some freedom to Iranian terrorist scum.
I like a good hypothetical war discussion as much as the next guy, but let’s keep it to the realm of reality and tone down the anti-American sarcasm please.
If I had my wish there wouldn't be a single reporter in Iraq, the media has done nothing but hurt the war effort, it's like Vietnam all over again.
As for us actually invading Iran, there is only one way I could possibly see us doing it and even coming close to success as things stand now. The people of Iran would have revolt and we would need to quickly rush to their aid. Sort of like the Kurds in 1991, except this time we actually help.
We would absolutely need the support of the Iranian people because we simply do not have the money or the men to democratize a nation like Iran at this time.
Well number one the media has to follow the rules of the FCC, we don't need Mrs. Jenkins 3rd grade class to turn on the TV on inauguration day and hear "and in other news a suicide bomber blew himself up in Fallujah today, warning the following scenes may be graphic." And before she gets there her class is treated to blood covered walls and limbs scattered across the street, and taking your example to the extreme, perhaps they show a dead marine blown up in the attack and that marine happens to be a little girl’s father or brother?
How would you justify that?
No that stuff you find on the internet, which is good because if you want to see the realities of war you can. I for one don't want to see dead US troops every morning on CNN. Acknowledge and appreciate their sacrifice, but keep your eye on the big picture. The human mind naturally feels sympathy for individual cases, if the media were to keep showing individual marine deaths constantly that would be more demoralizing then the constant slanted reporting. What you suggest is simply ignorant at its core, the media serves no place in war and when the media interferes to the point of interfering with victory, then they need to be removed. What you suggest is the removal of the media.
No the media is not that open with their bias, they do it in a much more subtle way. "10 marines were killed fighting in Iraq today" they focus on this body count so much sometimes, as if were going to hit some magic number and just pull out of the country. Am I to believe that 10 marines died in combat and didn't kill 4x as many terrorists? (Or "insurgents" if you prefer)
You know these guys are largely foreign terrorists poring in from Syria and Iran; it might be important how many of these guys we kill, don’t you think?
How would you justify that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aww the poor little children? show it after 9:30 pm, thats what we have here..a watershed for when all kids are in bed. Whats wrong with showing it then? and if someone doesnt like it? switch it off...noone is being forced to watch it? They showed dead bodies from the tsunami strangely enough, what about brown people dying of starvation on tv? thats allowed. War images are very censored.
What if they show a dead marine who happens to be someone's father? thats because dead Iraqi soldiers obvious don't have children who watch tv. What if the family finds out cos its on tv? well show the footage a day or two later when they do know...but thats just..just wrong...well so is war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No that stuff you find on the internet, which is good because if you want to see the realities of war you can. I for one don't want to see dead US troops every morning on CNN. Acknowledge and appreciate their sacrifice, but keep your eye on the big picture.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course you don't want to see dead US soldiers on CNN, if you and the rest of America saw them support for war would dwindle rapidly, no coffins, no dead marines, but you are allowed to see mass graves, dead Iraqi soldiers...its the usual double standards.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The human mind naturally feels sympathy for individual cases, if the media were to keep showing individual marine deaths constantly that would be more demoralizing then the constant slanted reporting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Demoralizing to the country at war. If it just showed the truth then yes that would be demoralizing to America, UK and Iraq. Both sides. Do you know that most reporters strive to be unbiased?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What you suggest is simply ignorant at its core, the media serves no place in war and when the media interferes to the point of interfering with victory, then they need to be removed. What you suggest is the removal of the media.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, thats what you think, that they shouldnt even be in Iraq. I suggest that they show the truth, including the grisley truth that you don't want Mrs Jenkin's class seeing. I suggest the entire freedom of the media.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No the media is not that open with their bias, they do it in a much more subtle way. "10 marines were killed fighting in Iraq today" they focus on this body count so much sometimes, as if were going to hit some magic number and just pull out of the country. Am I to believe that 10 marines died in combat and didn't kill 4x as many terrorists? (Or "insurgents" if you prefer)
You know these guys are largely foreign terrorists poring in from Syria and Iran; it might be important how many of these guys we kill, don’t you think?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its so funny you give that example. The dead marines count, insurgents don't. They arent even bothered...how many died in Fallujah? they couldn't be arsed simple as that, how many civilians died? pff who cares. Did you watch any fox news during the war? did that look like 'unbiased reporting' to you? Its a simple case of double standards the media should be fair and free (just like the media has become in Ukraine) yet it should not report on the true horrors of war? why?
because a) children might see it
because b) victims family might see it
which is rubbish because they already do that, just not with American or UK casualties. I'm not having a go at you, I know you are American and thats where your loyalties lie but as an Irish person (who is pretty pro-american already) I can clearly see these unbelievable discrepencies and double standards in reporting.
If this turns into a marine vs legat I'll just give up straight away. So you don't need to quote me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
-ok so we just fought a war against iraq and we're still involoved with iraq, and our nation was divided, a war with iran? it would bring conflict over seas and here. and i agree with the poster saying our budget woudn't be able to handle it.
-it's hard to say wether it's a bluff or not, i mean if they build a nuclear weapon , i HIGHLY DOUBT we'll go in there and risk getting nuked. if bush were to strike it would be soon. this is why you don't hear much about north korea, their so close to their nuclear project that bush is just going to throw words at him ( what are you gonna do, fight a crazy communist with a nuke? ) .
-so i think it's a bluff, i'm sure the people of america would not support him, this would cause LOTS of disturbence in the middle east and more suicide bombings, and might upset OPEC.
i stated random points but, i think their pretty valid.
When has the media ever interfered with progress/victory in Iraq? Unless you're talking about lowered support for it.
What if they show a dead marine who happens to be someone's father? thats because dead Iraqi soldiers obvious don't have children who watch tv. What if the family finds out cos its on tv? well show the footage a day or two later when they do know...but thats just..just wrong...well so is war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know why you feel the need to see dead US soldiers, if you can't figure out on your own why that kind of stuff is normally not shown, I shouldn't have to explain it to you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course you don't want to see dead US soldiers on CNN, if you and the rest of America saw them support for war would dwindle rapidly, no coffins, no dead marines, but you are allowed to see mass graves, dead Iraqi soldiers...its the usual double standards.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That’s exactly the problem; we do not want what happened in Vietnam to happen again with Iraq. I don't care whether or not you support the war or not, but even the most passionate Bush haters must know that pulling out of Iraq before its ready would be a disaster. So yea...let’s demoralize the whole country and let the soldiers who died that you want to show on TV die in vain.
You see the mass graves because those were innocent people who were murdered by a man we put in power and then removed. Where is the double standard?
I have yet to see dead Iraqi soldiers on TV, I have seen dead terrorists and injured civilians but the Iraqi soldiers are our allies, not often are their dead shown.
I feel your ether ignoring or overlooking some very basic concepts here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Demoralizing to the country at war. If it just showed the truth then yes that would be demoralizing to America, UK and Iraq. Both sides. Do you know that most reporters strive to be unbiased?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you know many more don't?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, thats what you think, that they shouldnt even be in Iraq. I suggest that they show the truth, including the grisley truth that you don't want Mrs Jenkin's class seeing. I suggest the entire freedom of the media.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Umm, we already have freedom of the media. Do you think the media is not showing dead US soldiers because the government is stopping them?
They could very well show it, but ratings would most likely drop and the outrage would simply not be worth it. Also I like to the think the media has <i>some</i> common sense and decency and has learned it's lesson from Vietnam…that’s what I like to think anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its so funny you give that example. The dead marines count, insurgents don't. They arent even bothered...how many died in Fallujah? they couldn't be arsed simple as that, how many civilians died? pff who cares. Did you watch any fox news during the war? did that look like 'unbiased reporting' to you? Its a simple case of double standards the media should be fair and free (just like the media has become in Ukraine) yet it should not report on the true horrors of war? why?
because a) children might see it
because b) victims family might see it
which is rubbish because they already do that, just not with American or UK casualties. I'm not having a go at you, I know you are American and thats where your loyalties lie but as an Irish person (who is pretty pro-american already) I can clearly see these unbelievable discrepencies and double standards in reporting.
If this turns into a marine vs legat I'll just give up straight away. So you don't need to quote me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate to say it but Americans care more about Americans. Its hardy "pft who cares" about the civilians but lets face the facts, One American dieing will get more airtime then 50 Iraqi civilians in America. Again common sense is a big factor here.
No kidding Fox news isn't unbiased; I think everyone knows that, what did you expect from them?
I think your confusing "double-standards" with common sense. Americans don't want to see dead Americans on the news, which is not a very hard concept to understand. You show pictures of the enemy dead...because they are the enemy; they are the ones who killed our troops. Very simple concepts here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->just an FYI before i comment, i didn't read anyones post so sorry if i repeat what somone else says....i did read like 1 0r 2 posts...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just an FYI, I didn't read your post.
If you can't bother to read what other people have posted on a topic, why would you spend time making your own post?
Please don't get me started on the Vietnam war? it was a disgusting ugly war and was exposed for that...if you were in power would you have covered it up? covered up the bombing of Laos? you know that the US dropped more bombs on Laos than were dropped in the entireity of world war 2? was America at war with Laos? America bombed Cambodia, killing approx 600,000 civilians, was America at war with Cambodia? when a war turns nasty should we just ignore the nasty sides of it? ignore Abu Graib? you know the American media very nearly did ignore Abu Graib...
The American military learnt a valuble lesson from Vietnam...control the media...embed reporters, censor as much news as possible, tactical lies, etc. The police in LA do a good job why should one incident with Rodney king spoil it? why not cover it up? why even report it? its for the good of the nation...thats how Hitler kept things going. You live in a democracy, with democracy comes free press, free press is defined by unbiased reporting, after Vietnam unbiased reporting has started to slip away in America and its not good. Its downright pathetic when reporters cant even ask Bush about America's worst day in Iraq, or would you rather paint a rosy picture?
Its very very simple, if America/Coaltion/Whoever is genuinely doing good things, then unbiased, open, full and truthful reporting will reveal it, the population isnt stupid, but we are easily influenced. You are already a very biased pro-American person so its hard for you to see what I am saying.
If you want a good example, look at the British press, media, tv reporting during the gulf war, I feel that was as unbiased as it comes, they took a critical eye of both sides, they certainly weren't cheering the troops on on live news tv. In my country we are very patriotic but we arent so blindly patriotic to believe and worship everything the government does, we take a flat sarcastic line because we know politians can be lying bastards. If we were in a conflict and our government started censoring pictures of our troops coffins coming home I am telling you we wouldnt stand for that for one second.
Remember how the world didnt react to Rwanda..why was that? media footage of Hutu's hacking tutsi babies to death might have changed that don't you think? maybe there was footage but the hutu leaders deemed it unsuitable to release the footage...
What about Somalia then...when America went the warlord Aideed, it was for the best if the footage of American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogidishu wasn't shown, then maybe you could have captured him and maybe Somalia would have been a better place.....but thats what really happened...they dragged American soldier corpses through the streets, thats free press, democracy. If you don't want free press, go fascism, but its been dead since the forties really.
Please don't get me started on the Vietnam war? it was a disgusting ugly war and was exposed for that...if you were in power would you have covered it up? covered up the bombing of Laos? you know that the US dropped more bombs on Laos than were dropped in the entireity of world war 2? was America at war with Laos? America bombed Cambodia, killing approx 600,000 civilians, was America at war with Cambodia? when a war turns nasty should we just ignore the nasty sides of it? ignore Abu Graib? you know the American media very nearly did ignore Abu Graib...
The American military learnt a valuble lesson from Vietnam...control the media...embed reporters, censor as much news as possible, tactical lies, etc. The police in LA do a good job why should one incident with Rodney king spoil it? why not cover it up? why even report it? its for the good of the nation...thats how Hitler kept things going. You live in a democracy, with democracy comes free press, free press is defined by unbiased reporting, after Vietnam unbiased reporting has started to slip away in America and its not good. Its downright pathetic when reporters cant even ask Bush about America's worst day in Iraq, or would you rather paint a rosy picture?
Its very very simple, if America/Coaltion/Whoever is genuinely doing good things, then unbiased, open, full and truthful reporting will reveal it, the population isnt stupid, but we are easily influenced. You are already a very biased pro-American person so its hard for you to see what I am saying.
If you want a good example, look at the British press, media, tv reporting during the gulf war, I feel that was as unbiased as it comes, they took a critical eye of both sides, they certainly weren't cheering the troops on on live news tv. In my country we are very patriotic but we arent so blindly patriotic to believe and worship everything the government does, we take a flat sarcastic line because we know politians can be lying bastards. If we were in a conflict and our government started censoring pictures of our troops coffins coming home I am telling you we wouldnt stand for that for one second.
Remember how the world didnt react to Rwanda..why was that? media footage of Hutu's hacking tutsi babies to death might have changed that don't you think? maybe there was footage but the hutu leaders deemed it unsuitable to release the footage...
What about Somalia then...when America went the warlord Aideed, it was for the best if the footage of American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogidishu wasn't shown, then maybe you could have captured him and maybe Somalia would have been a better place.....but thats what really happened...they dragged American soldier corpses through the streets, thats free press, democracy. If you don't want free press, go fascism, but its been dead since the forties really. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should look at the history of Vietnam before you choose to comment it and how the war was conducted. If you want the truth war crimes were actually lower then during WWII, This was due to the advent of a full time Military Police(MP) force. The propaganda coming from the mouths of Kronkite are to blame on what was preceived on the home front. Had Barry Goldwater been elected the Republic of South Vietnam would of been stablized maybe in the late 70's and the bloodbath that happened after the US left the nation would of never happened. Abu Garaib was a isolated incident and is NOT how the US Military conducts it'self. If anything the media exploited it and blew the entire situation out of proportion. It's quite simple really, no one cares to report of the good things happen in Iraq.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you know this... how?
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you know this... how? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to prove that an incident like this happens. It is not the normative, unless your letting your own prejudices cloud your better judgement. Isolated incident and nothing more. Unless you can bring up evidence of such activity.
Might I remind you it was our military police who investigated Abu Gariab, not the media. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Seeing as it was isolated I do wish it hadn't even come out, not because I love the military so much I hate the idea of them getting in trouble. But because it put a bad face on the entire American force in Iraq and gave more ammunition to the anti-war crowd, who naturally fanned the flames of this controversy, while our troops in Iraq paid for it.
Seeing as it was isolated I do wish it hadn't even come out, not because I love the military so much I hate the idea of them getting in trouble. But because it put a bad face on the entire American force in Iraq and gave more ammunition to the anti-war crowd, who naturally fanned the flames of this controversy, while our troops in Iraq paid for it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No matter what the media is going to villanize the military. They did it just a few days ago because some comments made by probably one of the baddest marines in the core. Because he said shooting people was fun. Not the general conception for marines has always been to enjoy killing the enemy. It's how we train them. Grim as it may be. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Thoughs of us who have family in the marine corps know what the USMC really stands for, Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.
But yeah, thats all Abu ever did, had the military really wanted to they could of stuffed it under the desk and make it look like it never happened.
Funny you should mention the 40's. Lets have a frank and honest discussion about Government, Journalism and War in the 40's. First, are you aware that journalists to a man were overwhelmingly supportive of the Government's efforts to wage war? That they would selectively report, emphasise and glorify everything they could that painted their troops in a positive light? That the Government would very often distort or control the information they recieved in order to make sure it was positive? Any American casualties were reported in small print, and always, always in the larger picture as a few heroes who sold their lives dearly?
The Government itself would publish largescale information whipping up the people, and demonising the enemy. It would also round up people, based on their race ie Japanese, and put them in containment camps for security fears. And this is the war that most people consider the most morally valid and defensible war in Western history.
The only flag draped coffins the public saw were those next to Big Bold Headlines "Patriotic Hero Laid to Rest", and then underneath in smaller type "Mother Proud her Son Did His Duty".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->why not cover it up? why even report it? its for the good of the nation...thats how Hitler kept things going<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, let me add a little to that statement - It's how Roosevelt kept things going, its how Churchill kept things going. The British got pounded at the Dunkirk route, then a massive bombing blitz started in 1940. For the next two years, they would have no significant military victory.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You live in a democracy, with democracy comes free press, free press is defined by unbiased reporting, after Vietnam unbiased reporting has started to slip away in America and its not good.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In Vietnam, biased reporting slipped from overt Government bias into overt anti-Government bias. For the first time in US history, the media turned on its own country, and for some strange reason, that country lost. As the Vietnamese are now admitting - we got militarily spanked in Vietnam, thank God that the US media made sure we won the propaganda war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its very very simple, if America/Coaltion/Whoever is genuinely doing good things, then unbiased, open, full and truthful reporting will reveal it, the population isnt stupid, but we are easily influenced. You are already a very biased pro-American person so its hard for you to see what I am saying.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the US media isnt interested in anything good happening in Iraq. I finally found those pieces of positive material published on Iraq in the mainstream media - there was a story yesterday about an Iraqi poll guard who wrestled with a bomber, then both got detonated, and the Iraqi's named the school after him. Then there was an article reporting that Iraqi civilians fought off and killed 5 insurgents that tried to stop them voting. And thats the first positive thing I have read in 2 odd years of war reporting in the mainstream media.<a href='http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Text/dieppe.html' target='_blank'>the Dieppe Raid</a> was launched in mid 1942 to try and get the ball rolling in the other direction
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of the 4,963 Canadians who embarked for the operation only 2,210 returned to England, and many of these were wounded. There were 3,367 casualties, including 1,946 prisoners of war; 907 Canadians lost their lives.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think this was endlessly repeated on the radio? Pictures of bloodied and wounded Canadians under the headline "Slaughter", which would be the only way an unbiased reporter could put it? Hell no - this story was whitewashed, downplayed, and quickly forgotten.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In my country we are very patriotic but we arent so blindly patriotic to believe and worship everything the government does, we take a flat sarcastic line because we know politians can be lying bastards. If we were in a conflict and our government started censoring pictures of our troops coffins coming home I am telling you we wouldnt stand for that for one second. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your country was blindly patriotic during WWII throughout two years when they were fighting a war they looked very much like losing. The only way they managed to remain patriotic was because a) the media was conducive to it, b) their leaders remained unswervingly grim but positive and definately determined and c) they were also getting bombed, so the horrors of war wasnt just something you saw on the telly (not that they had a telly) and then went and protested.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you don't want free press, go fascism, but its been dead since the forties really. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Summation - your version of free press didnt exist in the 40's. Its nonexistance was one of the reasons the population overwhelmingly supported its Government and believed that they were going to win, and things were looking positive. Over 81,000 American casualties, including 23,554 captured and 19,000 killed - the single worst battle for Americans in terms of losses - in the Battle of the Bulge. You know what the press got the people all fired up over? The coffins coming home? The carnage? The couple of french peasants who ended up on the wrong end of a shell? No - it was the American commander's reply to the German demand they surrender: "Nuts". America, and indeed any free nation, cannot wage war if their media constantly undermines them, as it did in Vietnam, and as it is seeking to do so in Iraq.
In a team game, or anything that is strenuously contested, you do not stress your own failures. You have to remain permanently upbeat, permanently referring to your successes, while discussing <b>with the players in the field, and not the supporters</b> were you went wrong to try and prevent it from happening again. Any team that falls prey to a "Oh gawd we ballsed that up lets all focus on that" is doomed, and if the fans get wind of a defeatists attitude, they pack up and they leave. A government cannot wage war without the people on its side, and the media is dedicating itself to making sure that they get the defeatists message.
That's why the media has no place in Iraq - they are a hinderance to the war effort.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They did it just a few days ago because some comments made by probably one of the baddest marines in the core. Because he said shooting people was fun. Not the general conception for marines has always been to enjoy killing the enemy. It's how we train them. Grim as it may be. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bang on.
“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis said during a panel discussion. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them,” he said.
Oh noes, he forgot that after every bullet is fired, US troops have to yell "Sorry, Sorry, Oh God the Humanity, isnt war terrible", then have at least 5 minutes quiet time to cry quitely and reflect on the moral and philosophical consequences of killing in anger on the battlefield. Then he raises himself again, takes another shot and repeats the process.
But turning away from the whole "Whats wrong with the media fighting the government?" question - Iran.
I had hoped that it would just be the Israeli's who would, like last time, save us from French built nuclear plants in oppresive regimes like Iran, but the Iranian's have learnt their lesson from last time. They have split up their nuclear facilities, and have buried them deep underground. It will be very difficult for the Israeli's to just carry out a single airstrike like last time. This has me worried, as I was really hoping the Israeli's would simply do what had to be done like last time <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I just assume the above concept was one everyone understood; sometimes the easiest things are the hardest to explain. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyway how did this topic about Iran turn into a "Medias affect on war efforts" discussion?
Let’s get back on topic.
<a href='http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12160908%255E663,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/st...255E663,00.html</a>
That warning was pretty straight foreword, Iran "cannot be allowed" to develop nuclear weapons.
She also says that military action in Iran is "not on the agenda at this point in time."
What I glean from that is they are trying to nudge Iran into doing what we want without an invasion I really don't think we could unilaterally support.
I keep hoping Israel will be the one to crush Iran’s nuclear ambitions if they refuse to back down. One because they have the most to lose from a nuclear Iran, and second because I don't know if I could put up with the **** storm the anti-war protesters would make if American troops had to go in. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit: Eep, you changed your post Marine, now I look like a parrot! I withdraw my nice comments above. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I just assume the above concept was one everyone understood; sometimes the easiest things are the hardest to explain. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyway how did this topic about Iran turn into a "Medias affect on war efforts" discussion?
Let’s get back on topic.
<a href='http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12160908%255E663,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/st...255E663,00.html</a>
That warning was pretty straight foreword, Iran "cannot be allowed" to develop nuclear weapons.
She also says that military action in Iran is "not on the agenda at this point in time."
What I glean from that is they are trying to nudge Iran into doing what we want without an invasion I really don't think we could unilaterally support.
I keep hoping Israel will be the one to crush Iran’s nuclear ambitions if they refuse to back down. One because they have the most to lose from a nuclear Iran, and second because I don't know if I could put up with the **** storm the anti-war protesters would make if American troops had to go in. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit: Eep, you changed your post Marine, now I look like a parrot! I withdraw my nice comments above. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, Israel is poised to strike. Apparently my middle eastern "friends" seem to think it's ok for a state, thats hated by it's people. To develop such weapons. Iran wants to be in the same boat as North Korea. Because frankly, it's not for their protection. Israel has been saber raddling and is not afraid to operate even at risk of sactions from the United Nations. If Israel did attack, see to it that America blocks any votes to sanction Israel.
Latest news on Iran doesn’t really surprise me, but it's a very interesting read none the less.
Latest news on Iran doesn’t really surprise me, but it's a very interesting read none the less. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
/action waits in anticipation.
Finally doing what Jimmy Carter had the balls not to. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->