Irreparable harm being done to/by the US military?

The timing of the revelation of these revolting things is suspicious to me.

From what I've read, it almost seems the new Iraqi govt. is feeling its oats. In Maliki's original "reconciliation" plan, he DID ask for a timetable for our withdrawal, and he DID have an amnesty provision for those who had killed U.S. troops. But they were quickly squelched, probably by our "ambassador" there, who has been calling lots of shots for many months now.

 

yeah, you can thank anti-Bush liberal carpetbagger pricks who magnify, dwell, and scream upon, crap like this... note how this is somehow a bigger deal than Berg or what happened in Falluja...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 2 2006, 08:25 AM) [snapback]280091[/snapback]</div>

First, do you even know what a carpetbagger is, Squid? At least put your pejorative terms in their correct context.

Second, this IS a very big deal. It is a betrayal of trust of the first order, whereas with Nick Berg the hideous act of his beheading was in line with what the world would expect of desperate immoral terrorists. I would be much MORE alarmed if this incident was treated as business as usual.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ribbs @ Jul 2 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]280097[/snapback]</div>

Who gives a crap? Metaphorically the same...

Sure, it IS a big deal...

...one that should have been covered up and effectively buried. This bad press does NO ONE any good, it's war, crap like this WILL happen, quitely remove the soldiers and punish them accordingly, out of any public light. Crap like this only fans the flames. The insurgents must LOVE when stuff like this leaks out, as far as I'm concerned, it effectively hands the enemy over even MORE ammunition...

of course, the ardent anti-Bush scumites LOVE it also, for precisely the same reason. Lots of parallels between terrorists and the bandwagon Bush hatas, one in the same as far as I'm concerned... matter of fact, I have somewhat more respect for the terrorists, at least they're pure...

:angry:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 2 2006, 06:39 PM) [snapback]280330[/snapback]</div>

Well now you have TWO words to look up - carpetbagger AND metaphor. Who cares? I do. If one feels as passionately as you do one would be well served to pay attention to precision in your messages. Poor communication undercuts your own message and makes you appear stupid. Entries such as yours only help the other side of the argument.

I wager that even you, as an ardent supporter of the USA, don't wish to weaken the Bill of Rights and the Constitution by advocating restriction of the press. I don't care for the blather that passes for news on Fox, but I would fight for the rights of those fools to speak their pea-brained minds. To do otherwise is to invite a totalitarian state - not a place most red-blooded americans want to live in, regardless of political affiliation. Wake up, squid.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ribbs @ Jul 2 2006, 10:31 PM) [snapback]280357[/snapback]</div>

please, you're the one that needs waking up. in case you haven't noticed, there is no such thing as free speech, or freedom of the press ANYWAY. this ideal you and others speak of, is nothing but a facade to keep the masses at bay, "feeling" good and sedate. Anyone with a .5% of a brain can manipulate communications anyway they see fit, paint any picture they want, so to speak, particularly if they have money or great influence to back them...

the greatest, most effective, totalitarian state, is one where you think you can't possibly be living within it...

h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 2 2006, 07:51 PM) [snapback]280362[/snapback]</div>

So in your view, we are already in a totalitarian state, but I'm so clueless as to not be aware of it? And you've given up, except to rant on the priuschat board? And you believe that freedom of speech and the press as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is a "facade"? That is some seriously defeatist cynicism. Sounds like time to move to some well-armed compound in the piney woods there, brother.

I would have to agree that the press is not as free as it should be - though corporations are the problem there, not the government. Generally speaking the freest radio and television is provided by public money thru programs such as National Public Radio and PBS, unfettered and untainted by commercial interests. Unfortunately the current administration is doing all that it can to dismantle these outlets.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ribbs @ Jul 2 2006, 10:59 PM) [snapback]280413[/snapback]</div>

"Freedom of the press" is not just for large newspapers. At the time that was written, newspapers were local in scope, usually owned by a single person or a partnership, and very much reflected the political views of the owners. Larger newspapers with corporate money often don't reflect the views of the owners, but have their own editorial boards ... the city section manager has more power over how the newspaper reads than the owner in a practical, day to day sense.

Our press is absolutely free. You can start a newspaper tomorrow without any censorship from the government. If you don't think the NY Times is free enough, start a newspaper.

NPR and PBS are not "free"; they have their editorial standards just as every other segment of the press has. Plus, they are limited by what the government WANTS them to do. At any time, Congress can dictate their activities. They are the least free of all the press organs in America, and should be eliminated, as they present the greatest threat to press freedom of all the press in the country.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 2 2006, 11:08 PM) [snapback]280414[/snapback]</div>

You had me until this statement. If it was true that the government controls what is being reported on NPR and PBS, why is it that both of these organizations are the first to take the government to task for malfeasance? And always are producing the most in depth and cogent reports on the most important issues of the day? The freedom of these programs comes from the fact that they don't have to live and die by ratings - therefore they don't attempt to appeal only to the lowest common denominator (i.e. no incessant Jon Benet Ramsey stories). Unfortunately for the first time an administration - this one - has attempted to bend PBS to its political will. When that failed they now are trying to slash all funding for PBS. That would be a loss for all of us. I really don't want my primary source of non-print news to be funded by Chevy and Budweiser commercials, do you?

NPR and PBS ARE free - free to establish their own editorial policy and change it any time. Free does not necessarily mean balanced or even thorough, just free to do as they please.

Oh well, at least we still have The Daily Show and The Colbert Report!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ribbs @ Jul 3 2006, 01:40 AM) [snapback]280440[/snapback]</div>

Actually reagan also tried to dismantle public radio. Declared publicly he would 'bury them'. Came close too. Like all Cons, he believed either blindly support him or he'd squash you. Remember, when reagan couldn't persuade congress to support his idea of democracy he traded planeloads of drugs for arms and illegally armed guerillas. Naturally, Cons protected and insulated him from impeachment even tho this was a blatant end game around the law.

 

You are right - I stand corrected.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 2 2006, 10:51 PM) [snapback]280362[/snapback]</div>

We have to remember,
If we go hog wild towards the liberal agenda where everything is equal and everything is fair and it does not matter if you produce or not or have any productivity all you’re still entitled the same amount of potatoes, then you will find every American in line for said potatoes. Think of this unemployment lines of 2000 as our inability to live within reality as we listen to podium pushers promise us the world of unattainable dreams, of an unreachable utopia for the impossible price of FREE? Oh really since when? Quite frankly it cannot exist without the commitment, integrity and teamwork that built this country in the first place. Freedom is not free, it did not just pop up one day and say HELLO, HERE I AM, HOPE YOU LIKE IT.

No sir, freedom was paid for, it was bought and paid for by the blood, sweat and tears of those that came before us and wanted to live as three-man and by God they achieved something and it is just crazy for us to throw all that away based on the desire to get something for nothing and foolish for us to believe in any leadership that promises such..

NPR's Liberal Agenda: :blink:
http://pointofview.typepad.com/pov/media/index.html
http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/archives/cat_npr.html
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

As for our military, is a superb and honorable fighting force. I would have to agree, take the bad apples out quietly and prosecute them accordinly and leave it out of the medias grasp.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ribbs @ Jul 3 2006, 01:40 AM) [snapback]280440[/snapback]</div>

I happen to like both PBS and NPR, even though most of the political leanings of the folks there are decidedly more liberal than mine. Prior to the cable science channels, it was hard to find any useful science reporting on broadcast media anywhere else. And I will agree that currently they enjoy editorial freedom, but political pressure on them directly from the government is so much easier for the politicos to exert. While the individual reporters and others involved would leave in protest, it would be very easy for the government to replace them with compliant reporters and use both as an organ of the government for propaganda. They may have more safeguards in place than I know about, but I've always view government ownership of broadcast media to be a dangerous thing.

Advertising dollars do not censor content, at least in terms of censorship prior to broadcast. Sponsors can withdraw their ads after the fact, but for the most part, that is rarely done. If 60 Minutes slams Audi, the carmaker can pull their ads, but BMW is more than happy to fill that spot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 3 2006, 11:49 AM) [snapback]280591[/snapback]</div>

I did not mean to imply that corporations censor the news directly. It is just that in the commercial world everything is driven by ratings. News becomes entertainment first and foremost. That is why you won't find your beloved science programs on Clear Channel or CBS - if the show isn't zippy enough, the ratings drop, the advertising dollars evaporate, and the show disappears. Publicly funded programs don't have that monkey on their backs. And public funding does NOT mean that the programs are government run - they are by design independent. Quite a bit of the funding comes from private foundations and companies, without regard to ratings - only quality counts.

Where government insidiousness really raises its ugly head is in the use of 'video news releases', or VNR for short. The Bush administration has been producing propaganda pieces that masquerade as normal independent news. These segments are aired on local news shows around the country without reference to the actual producer - our government. THAT is scary, straight up manipulation of the media, 1984-style. If you haven't heard of this, check it out. Do a little googling. Our government is not the only party responsible for this practice, but they are the biggest and baddest.

I hope that the accusations of atrocities currently in the news prove to be untrue. I also hope that the freedoms that so many have died for are never abridged for the sake of political expediency.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ribbs @ Jul 4 2006, 01:00 AM) [snapback]280913[/snapback]</div>

Well, the best science programs are not just on PBS anymore; niche marketing of cable channels has changed the distribution model for these programs. With 300+ channels available to me, its harder and harder to justify spending tax money on programing.

I think all content should have its source identified if the broadcast agency is not the originator of the information. I don't know specifically what the VNR are, but I can imagine. Political "image making" has been going on a long time and "sunshine" is still the best antidote for it. I'm always shocked by the "medical breakthroughs" the news stations report, without much thought about the incentive for the pharmaceutical or medical devices company in getting their side of the story out when they hand the news agencies the videotape.

 

Off Topic:

A Conservatives view on liberal arguments relating to the war, america and other topics:

During the past few months, I have spent countless hours watching people try and have rational debates about the various issues surrounding Iraq, America and other topics with Liberals on this message board.

I've wondered over and over why they all seem to follow certain patterns. I've been trying to codify the rules that they (The liberals) seem to use, to increase my ability to identify the tactics they're using. When I identify which rule they're following, they invariably reply with strings of invective, proving that they know exactly what they're doing. Following are the top five Liberal "Rules" for Arguing that I've so far identified, having been repeatedly subjected to all these as well as some other posters here.

#1: Attack Your Opponent
If you feel that your opponent is trying to use facts to your disadvantage, attack him or her personally. Call your opponent names, insult his ancestry, insult his career, imply that he performs improbable sex acts with animals or his own mother -- or both. If you can arouse his anger, you will have him on familiar ground where he can be beat.

Your aim is to make your opponent stop using those pesky facts and figures to win the argument -- everyone knows arguments are supposed to be emotional, not cold and rational, so he's doing it wrong to start with. Names guaranteed to upset an opponent with a conservative bent are Nazi, Neo-Con, Dittohead (meaning he's a fan of Rush Limbaugh), and Sheep. Spell "Republican" and "America" with a K in them, to suggest that your opponent is a member of the KKK -- but if they mention that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a Klansman, accuse your opponent of making an ad hominem attack! Make sure to claim that your opponent is either a dupe, is brainwashed, or is perhaps working for the government. If at all possible, make personal attacks on President Bush at the same time; that usually forces people to try and defend him.

#2: Switch Your Arguments
If you feel that your are beginning to lose an argument, change it. Switch sides altogether if you have to. For instance, if you are arguing that there are no biological or chemical weapons in Iraq, and your opponent quotes one of the many UN reports that state there definitely were banned weapons there, suddenly change your argument to "of course, there were, the US gave them to Saddam". Never mind the fact that you were just saying they didn't exist -- the purpose is to confuse your opponent and keep him from winning the argument. And in the above instance, if your opponent shows records from the CDC proving that Iraq requested medical samples through the World Health Organisation to combat anthrax and botulism, switch your argument BACK AGAIN and claim that Saddam destroyed the WMD he made form the samples after kicking out the inspectors in 1998, ignoring your earlier arguments that there never was any, and then that the US provided it. Logic is for losers! Consistency is for conservatives! If your opponent gives up the argument, loudly proclaim a victory!

#3: Raise The Bar
When your opponent presents you with proof of anything -- UN records of WMD stockpiles, Amnesty International records of humanitarian crimes, eyewitness accounts of rape, torture, murder, etc -- state that it's not enough to convince you. Tell your opponent that his so- called "proof" doesn't mean anything at all. Insist that anything from only one source doesn't count. Force him or her to go back and search for more proof... and more, and still more. Eventually, your opponent will grow tired of trying to convince you with mere facts and figures, and either give up or get angry -- and then you know you've got him! You can tell everyone that your opponent lost because his or her proof was "laughable".

#4: Attack The Source
When your opponent presents you with those pesky facts, there's only one way to beat him -- attack the source. Refuse to give credence to anything reported by the Weekly Standard, or NewsMax, even if your opponent's facts come from another source as well. Any news outlet even slightly to the right of the New York Times, the LA Times, CBS, ABC, NPR and Time is immediately suspect.

Put down FOX news channel and anyone that refers to it -- ignore the fact that they have reported the same stories as every other network. The fact that your opponent uses any of those obviously biased sources automatically proves him wrong, a brainwashed tool, a sheep, etc (see rule #1). If he gives you information from a web site, attack that site as being biased, or right-wing.

If he attacks your sources as being left-wing, scoff at that argument -- you know that "left wing" and "correct" are the same thing. Quotes from any liberal source (even a non-journalist's web page or blog) are automatically correct, while any conservative source is OBVIOUSLY distorting the facts to make an ideological point.

#5: Blame America First/Moral EquivalencyIt's very important, at all times, to remember that America is the REAL bad guy here, everywhere, and for all time. If your opponent shows facts about Saddam's humanitarian offenses, match them with claims of America's own "atrocities". Although your opponent will claim there is no comparison between the two, continue to claim, for instance, that Saddam's 30- year record of using rape, murder, torture and mutilation on prisoners merely accused of crimes is the EXACT SAME THING as Texas administering the death penalty after due process of law.

Argue that because America has not always been absolutely perfect, Americans have no right to judge any other country, no matter what it does, even though the Geneva Convention did not exist until after WWII. Stay focussed on your vision of an evil America ruled by corporate greed, evil America slobbering to kill the innocents in other countries, evil America ruthlessly building an empire, and evil America only pretending to be benevolent and generous to other countries.

Never give credence to your opponent's arguments that America rebuilt countries like France, Germany, Japan, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc... it was obviously a ruse of some kind! Always seek to put the worst possible interpretation on everything America does or ever has done, or any statement by any member of the Administration. Remember that America exists only to dominate the entire world, like a James Bond the supervillain. For reference, watch as many Oliver Stone movies as possible. Remember that American soldiers always act exactly like the soldiers in the movie Platoon and there is always a conspricy surounding anything that happens on our soil that points back to the goverment.

This is how I've watched Liberals argue every day for the last few months. The only thing that matters to them is winning, by any means or tactics necessary to convert your way of thinking. Finding out the truth of the matter doesn't seem to matter at all, does it?

Im just gonna paste this here to remind the other Conservatives, the rules to the liberal arguments and what to look out for so they do not sucked in. Arm yourselves with knowlege..

Enjoy! B)

 

Priusguy - don't you think your rules of debate engagement apply to all sides? Everybody likes to win an argument, that's human nature. Personally I'm not interested in labels, conservative or liberal. I'm much more interested in what we have in common - that's where progress and hope lies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ribbs @ Jul 4 2006, 02:41 PM) [snapback]281073[/snapback]</div>

I'm much more interested in what we have in common - that's where progress and hope lies.

I couldnt agree more...