Poll: Americans 'Want To Win In Iraq'

[Covert_US]

http://drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

POLL: AMERICANS 'WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ'
Tue Feb 20 2007 16:21:32 ET

In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.

The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.

The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory, said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.

By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.

By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.

Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.

While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.

By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home."

When asked which statement best describes their position on the Iraq War, voters are evenly divided (50 percent - 49 percent) between positions of "doing whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country," and positions that call for immediate withdrawal or a strict timetable.

27 percent said "the Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."

23 percent said "while I don't agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."

32 percent said "whether Iraq is stable or not, the U.S. should set and hold to a strict timetable for withdrawing troops."

17 percent said "the U.S. should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq."

The survey also found that voters thought it would hurt American prestige more to pull out of Iraq immediately (59 percent) than it would to stay there for the long term (35 percent). Public Opinion Strategies "scored the best win-loss record among the major polling and media firms in the 2004 election" and was named Pollster of the Year in 2002.

[Midav]

The biggest problem is that many people want progress to happen suddenly.. quickly. Not once was it said that this war would be over quickly. It may take generations.

You have an ideology that believes once they die for a cause, they will be rewarded in heaven. Their numbers are increasing as well. many live in poverty.. What do they have to lose?

We have an overwhelming ideology that when you order something, consumption should begin within 120 seconds. Anything beyond is unacceptable. It has to happen right away. Also, people feel they have a lot to lose. Why give up comforts? The problem will go away by itself... Scary way to think.

No patience, want, want, want. Our troops are doing the best damn job they can. Our politicians and much of the population is negligent.

[bugkill]

my question is this, "who the f**k says that the american people knows what's best when it concerns iraq?", most americans don't even know their own state capitals, but we got polls that ask them about how the war is going or how they feel about the war. it is all BS that is being thrown around by the media in order to guage how effective their reporting of the war is.

it is all about the media showcasing their influence on the public, simple as that. what kind of answer would you get from a civilian when they are bombarded with images of bombings and dead soldiers, as if that is the only thing happening over there?

so, you get a poll that has the public saying that they want us to win, but then you can find another poll that states that we should leave, WTF? it is all crap and i've never seen where people, who have no clue about the situation, could be held in such high esteem, as if there opinion is the most informative one.

[Bombtrack]

The biggest problem is that many people want progress to happen suddenly.. quickly. Not once was it said that this war would be over quickly. It may take generations.

High fives for whoever can find the video of cheney saying he the war in Iraq will likely be over in 6 months

[Limeyfellow]

Would be nice if its true but as with everything else Matt Drudge talks out his arse and his site is mainly there to smeer and gossip about anyone considered a political enemy of George Bush and link to every article they can find to back a claim.

[justagoodolboy]

my question is this, "who the f**k says that the american people knows what's best when it concerns iraq?", most americans don't even know their own state capitals, but we got polls that ask them about how the war is going or how they feel about the war. it is all BS that is being thrown around by the media in order to guage how effective their reporting of the war is.

it is all about the media showcasing their influence on the public, simple as that. what kind of answer would you get from a civilian when they are bombarded with images of bombings and dead soldiers, as if that is the only thing happening over there?

so, you get a poll that has the public saying that they want us to win, but then you can find another poll that states that we should leave, WTF? it is all crap and i've never seen where people, who have no clue about the situation, could be held in such high esteem, as if there opinion is the most informative one.

Something called "the government governs with the consent of the governed." You know, one of the basic ideals that the United States political system was based on. Yet another poor soul corrupted by the idea that "government knows best."

[Miles.]

High fives for whoever can find the video of cheney saying he the war in Iraq will likely be over in 6 months

In the context of "removing Saddam" winning the war or "creating a stable and lasting democracy" winning the war?

[cover2]

To bugkill and others:

A lot with these polls depends on how the questions are asked. For example, if you asked me just the question: Would you like the USA to be successful in Iraq, I'd say yes. But then ask me, do you think this is possible? I'd say no. Hence I favor getting out. In fact, I never wanted us to go in to begin with, and there were many, though probably not a majority, who felt the same way (after all, most ignorant Americans didn't know the difference between Saddam Hussein and OBL). So now we want the USA out. That's how you get the seemingly contradictory poll numbers.

[XASA]

To bugkill and others:

A lot with these polls depends on how the questions are asked. For example, if you asked me just the question: Would you like the USA to be successful in Iraq, I'd say yes. But then ask me, do you think this is possible? I'd say no. Hence I favor getting out. In fact, I never wanted us to go in to begin with, and there were many, though probably not a majority, who felt the same way (after all, most ignorant Americans didn't know the difference between Saddam Hussein and OBL). So now we want the USA out. That's how you get the seemingly contradictory poll numbers.

The Moriah Group, who commissioned the poll, is a small marketing and PR firm in TN with a few local clients and no national presence or credibility, and the people who took the poll identify themselves as "Republican" on their web site, which also mourns the Republican losses in the recent election. All of which would lead one to question how the poll was conducted and whether or not it is a true representation of American public opinion.

http://www.pos.org/

[mi35d]

In comparison to the Polls conducted by the New York Times, polling registered voters in NY city who are predominently Democrats?

Those polls are to be accepted as gospel but one from another organization is to be scorned?

[cover2]

The NY Times has a worldwide readership, certainly nationwide. And they don't just poll liberal democrats from NY. They poll from all over.

[Tyler Durden 95]

"Want to win in Iraq" is one thing.

"Want to stay in Iraq for an indefinite period of time without assurance of victory" is another.

[budgie]

I think if the poll was worded carefully enough they'd be left with little choice but a win. I saw teh Fox guys going around a protest (it was Hannity's show I think' asking protesters, "Why do you want America to fail in Iraq?"

A loadded question and one that - as far as the average non-discriminating viewer will be imprinted - pretty much answered itself.

Now if these pollsters go around asking 'win or lose?' Who's going to answer 'lose'? If they ask something like, 'would you rather pull out now or achieve victory later?', that automatically assumes 'pullout' equals 'failure'.

Pullout does not mean failure as a result - especially not if that failure has already been achieved in the form of disastrous policy-making in the first place. Pulling out may actually go further towards cleaning up the mess, but certain pollsters have already determined that since pullout can only mean failure there will be no safe alternative to 'staying the course' or, most laughably, staying until we 'win'..

[Midav]

High fives for whoever can find the video of cheney saying he the war in Iraq will likely be over in 6 months

Will likely?

[Bombtrack]

Yeah its a pretty good video, he says something to the effect that it'll be over ina couple weeks to 3 months, and he'd be surprised if it even lasted 6 months

[Jobu]

Put me down as an American who wants our country to win in Iraq.

Petraeus says we can still win, I go with his opinion.

[budgie]

And does Petraeus have a timetable or is it still 'as long as it takes'? A plan has to have a timeframe. Cheney and Bush's promises of a perpetual war - a struggle that will take generations - is hardly enticing.

[Baboonass]

The NY Times has a worldwide readership, certainly nationwide. And they don't just poll liberal democrats from NY. They poll from all over.

LOL!!!


You aren't very hip on media culture, are you?

Polls are exactly what you want them to be, but only if it works out in your favor.

NYT is notoriously left wing.

[Baboonass]

And does Petraeus have a timetable or is it still 'as long as it takes'? A plan has to have a timeframe. Cheney and Bush's promises of a perpetual war - a struggle that will take generations - is hardly enticing.


No it doesn't.

It certainly would be nice to have a nice clean plan of exactly how many days, how much money, how many causulties, etc..


The real world doesn't work that way.


Looking back, things certainly could have be planed better, but again, this is hind sight. Anytime you enter armed combat, there is a massive gamble. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

I'm all for a new plan of action, one that is a lot more aggressive both on assault and reaction, but this is an entirely different topic.

[Aztec Eagle 201st]

Americans due whant to win!! ...thats a silly statement, what american would whant to loose ? even if he dosent agree with the war.

And yes the U.S. should prevail there obligated to, since they have not won a war since WW2.

I wish the best for the U.S. troops.

[Atlantic Friend]

POLL: AMERICANS 'WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ'

What a shocker !

Really, was anybody doubting this ? The problem is never WANTING to win, it's BEING ABLE to win. I'm sure Germans wanted to win in 1945, even as Berlin was falling - but since winning wasn't an option, then at least making peace was something to look forward to. Ditto for France in 1940, the US in Viet-Nam in 1973-75, France in Algeria in 1962, etc, etc.

[Baboonass]

What a shocker !

Really, was anybody doubting this ? The problem is never WANTING to win, it's BEING ABLE to win. I'm sure Germans wanted to win in 1945, even as Berlin was falling - but since winning wasn't an option, then at least making peace was something to look forward to. Ditto for France in 1940, the US in Viet-Nam in 1973-75, France in Algeria in 1962, etc, etc.


I believe the point of this poll was to showcase the fact that leaving Iraq before victory is failure.

Winning is within our ability, militarily, but politically, it's a much harder sell. What we actually need to do to stabilize the region is political suicide and isn't going to sit well with a generational society (in the U.S.) that has never really lived with violence in context to the ME region.

I wouldn't lump our efforts in Iraq with Germany of 1945, or Vietnam, etc.. The battle front is fought more in the house of congress, and less in theater.

[cover2]

So, Matchanu, what does victory in Iraq look like? Draw me a picture/diagram/write a paragraph about what victory would be like. Because I've yet to get a straight answer from anyone about what that would be or how it could be achieved.

Thus, I want to win in Iraq, and if asked THAT QUESTION I'd say yes, I want the USA to win. However, I know it's fruitless/pointless, so I favor a pullout now. Saying that we could win militarily is silly, because all wars are fought for political gains. They go hand in hand. Techinically, I think we ALREADY won the military victory. And the political sell is not just here in Congress, but there in Iraq and its neighbors.

On another note, regarding your reply to how I'm not hip to media coverage, I've worked in politics and done polling before (admittedly not for the NY Times, but anyway...). And there are many ways to do it. Though I realize the Times is left-leaning, I think their polls TEND to paint a pretty accurate picture of how things/thoughts are going. I'd trust them a lot more than a Fox News poll. The Times tends to do theirs in conjuction with a nationwide television station or other magazine, which tends to give them more credence. As I said, it depends more on how the question is asked. Figures lie and liars figure....

[Baboonass]

So, Matchanu, what does victory in Iraq look like? Draw me a picture/diagram/write a paragraph about what victory would be like. Because I've yet to get a straight answer from anyone about what that would be or how it could be achieved.

..


If you have had problems finding a straight answer then you just are not paying attention.

Victory is a functioning democratic government and stability/security to maintain it's exsistance.

For now, we have the first half. Stabilizing the region is far more complicated. There are secular battles, power shifts, outside influences, old grudges, etc..etc..

The people of Iraq need to be unified in a common goal and support the elected government. The Iraqi government must be able to secure it's own peace.

When this is achieved, our presence will not be needed, and we can go home victorious.

[cover2]

If you have had problems finding a straight answer then you just are not paying attention.

Victory is a functioning democratic government and stability/security to maintain it's exsistance.

For now, we have the first half. Stabilizing the region is far more complicated. There are secular battles, power shifts, outside influences, old grudges, etc..etc..

The people of Iraq need to be unified in a common goal and support the elected government. The Iraqi government must be able to secure it's own peace.

When this is achieved, our presence will not be needed, and we can go home victorious.

That's all a hoot! There's a functioning democratic gov't in Iraq? I don't think so. Because if everyone there voted, there'd be a Shiite Government in charge. And saying that it's functioning when it controls nothing that we don't try to control for it is living with blinders on.

Stabilizing the region will never happen. Ever.

The people of Iraq will not be unified in a common goal, b/c there are many separate groups of people (sunni, shia, kurd, etc.) with very different goals and objectives, and they are not going to suddenly learn to compromise.

So, I guess if we have to stay til your version of victory is achieved, we will be there for eternity, bankrupt the nation, make even more enemies, and be destroyed like the Roman empire. And many will die in the process. Good luck with all that.

[Baboonass]

I bet you listen to a lot of Depeche Mode and The Cure, don't you?

[Miles.]

I bet you listen to a lot of Depeche Mode and The Cure, don't you?

Hey, hey, hey... ;)

You're asking for a flame war. ;)

[Baboonass]

Hey, hey, hey... ;)

You're asking for a flame war. ;)

Naw, just making a point about seeing the glass as half empty, the sky is falling, etc....

"We're all doomed, let's slit our wrists".

I don't see it that way, and thank God prievious administrations didn't either.

[Hollis]

Reporting the conflict.

If the media reported deaths in the USA from smoking there would be a deafening cry to ban smoking, hang people who sell cigarettes etc.. Imagine every day, every death being reported, from the smoking. How they died, the cost of providing medical aid etc...........

Say, the same with alcohol, driving a car, Alcohol and Smoking alone claims about 400,000 plus lives in the USA alone...... that can easily (I don't smoke so, it is easy for me to say) AVOIDED. Autos claim about 44,000 lives each year not to mention the other costs.

The media has been pandering, as Matchanu said, "The sky is falling" almost at the conception of this conflict. Only time when public rage over 9/11 forced the Now anti war gurus to be Pro-war, did the media keep hush it anti-war bias.

Maybe the conflict reporting is a good thing, our society can collectively walk around with our anti-war heads firmly concealed in our collective buttocks and ignore nearly 500,000 people needlessly dieing in the USA over self serving habits/excessive/and laziness.

[Miles.]

Yes, and the newspapers are the first to beat the drums of war.

Also, the first ones to scream "we're losing."

All the news that fits our agenda.

[Baboonass]

Yes, and the newspapers are the first to beat the drums of war.

Also, the first ones to scream "we're losing."

All the news that fits our agenda.


And for breaking news on Anna Nicole Smith.


Yup.

[cover2]

Matchanu can say what he wants about the music I listen to, etc. Notice how as soon as I tore down his arguments, he resorted to guessing, seemingly in an insulting manner, what type of music I listen to. I actually sometimes long for music of the 80's, though I only like a song or two by each of those bands.

I was against the war in Iraq from the start, so I stand my ground. I'm not relying on the changing media coverage...I was against it when they were gung-ho. I despise Congress for not having the gonads to stand up to Bush back in 02-03 (and think how much better some would look if they had, instead of now having to backtrack, flip flop, etc.!), and still not even able to pass a NON BINDING resolution. Sad sad.

However, I don't think the sky is falling or that I should slit my wrists or anything like that. I was all for going into Afghanistan, and am all for seeking victory there. The sad thing is that the USA took the collective eye off the ball there, didn't solidify the victory, and now things there are looking gloomy as well, all so Jorge Bush could have his little war against a guy who threatened his dad. And, by the way, the elder Bush was always smart enough NOT to have this war. He was right in 1991 and he's even more right today. Sadly, his ignorant, stubborn, and generally hapless son did not take his advice, and a bunch of people in the USA voted for him, TWICE, because he "talks to God". Where will God be for us when things really get bad?

[Baboonass]

Matchanu can say what he wants about the music I listen to, etc. Notice how as soon as I tore down his arguments, he resorted to guessing, seemingly in an insulting manner, what type of music I listen to. I actually sometimes long for music of the 80's, though I only like a song or two by each of those bands.

Bla bla bla bla bla
?


Actually, I answered your question as you asked it.

You then went off on a tangent.

I hardly see you "tearing down my arguments".

In any case, you are so blinded by your ideology, you fail to recognize anything outside of your political beliefs.

It's unfortunate, and typical from the extreme left and right.

Anyway, this website really isn't for you. You should really have a gander at Democratic Underground, you'd feel much more at home there.

[Baboonass]

In case I have to draw you a picture


You wrote;



So, Matchanu, what does victory in Iraq look like? Draw me a picture/diagram/write a paragraph about what victory would be like. Because I've yet to get a straight answer from anyone about what that would be or how it could be achieved.?


O.k., here is a straight forward question. You wanted to know what is needed to claim a victory in Iraq. Fair question, although rudementory and thouroughly discussed.


Anyway, I responed with an answer.


If you have had problems finding a straight answer then you just are not paying attention.

Victory is a functioning democratic government and stability/security to maintain it's exsistance.

For now, we have the first half. Stabilizing the region is far more complicated. There are secular battles, power shifts, outside influences, old grudges, etc..etc..

The people of Iraq need to be unified in a common goal and support the elected government. The Iraqi government must be able to secure it's own peace.

When this is achieved, our presence will not be needed, and we can go home victorious?

I think that was pretty cut and dry.

So, insted of actually responding to my post within the bounds of it's context, you wrote;


That's all a hoot! There's a functioning democratic gov't in Iraq? I don't think so. Because if everyone there voted, there'd be a Shiite Government in charge. And saying that it's functioning when it controls nothing that we don't try to control for it is living with blinders on.

Stabilizing the region will never happen. Ever.

The people of Iraq will not be unified in a common goal, b/c there are many separate groups of people (sunni, shia, kurd, etc.) with very different goals and objectives, and they are not going to suddenly learn to compromise.

So, I guess if we have to stay til your version of victory is achieved, we will be there for eternity, bankrupt the nation, make even more enemies, and be destroyed like the Roman empire. And many will die in the process. Good luck with all that.


?

Your response was just a rambling personal opinion of your views. It was pure buffoonery and really no worthy of a dignified response.

Just "the sky is falling" boo hoo hooing.

I guess I needed to clairify this as you just don't seem to quite get it.

[cover2]

The original post was all about how Americans want victory in Iraq. I was pointing out the difference between what we want and what is achievable. What I want and what I'm sure most Americans want is victory. However, what I've known, and many others are finally starting to realize, is that the picture of victory that you and others have described is not achievable through any realistic means, time period, etc.

You painted a nice rosy picture. I'll grant you that. But it's not happening and won't happen. You said there's a functioning democracy there. Where? The so-called Green Zone or whatever it's current name is? If so, that's about it. A functioning democracy, to my eyes, is one that can speak for and protect its own people. The current gov't in Iraq is doing neither. And, by your own argument, if that doesn't happen, the rest will certainly never happen. It's a pipe dream. I'm not blinded by my own ideology. What's frustrating for me and others like me is that we SAW this coming, plain as day, in the Fall of 2002, yet it's all happened regardless. And if I saw it coming, the powers-that-be should have.

In any case, yes, you defined what victory would look like. But I'd give Bush and his people 20 years, and it still wouldn't happen. One only needs to look at the past of that region to see the future.

On a final note, I did not ramble. I instead addressed each of your points one at a time. Next time I'll number them for you.

[Baboonass]

The original post was all about how Americans want victory in Iraq. I was pointing out the difference between what we want and what is achievable. What I want and what I'm sure most Americans want is victory. However, what I've known, and many others are finally starting to realize, is that the picture of victory that you and others have described is not achievable through any realistic means, time period, etc.

Actually it is, but not by it's current stratigy. Stratigies change as the situation dictates. It has become very apparent that the initial plan was flawed, so we'll fix it. If every plan was a set in stone "this is how it's going to be no matter what" kind of deal, no overall goal would ever be achieved. How many battles durring WW2 did we loose? If we all thought the way you did in that time frame, we would have packed up and left the Pac Rim to the Japanese, and Europe to the Germans.

There is a realistic means to this end. I don't know if there's a realistic plan on the table yet, but I can think of a few. My idea is to clamp down on the buffoonery. Impose martial law, heavy reaction and retaliation for insurgent attacks, Fallujah type raids, etc.....

I realize this is very argumentative, but I base this in ME culture and Iraqi population dynamic. Respect in the ME region is not gained by building bridges or fixing the plumbing, especially in a military capasity.

Anyway, I'm not in the inner loop at the Pentagon, so it's simply speculation.


You painted a nice rosy picture. I'll grant you that. But it's not happening and won't happen. You said there's a functioning democracy there. Where? The so-called Green Zone or whatever it's current name is? If so, that's about it. A functioning democracy, to my eyes, is one that can speak for and protect its own people. The current gov't in Iraq is doing neither. And, by your own argument, if that doesn't happen, the rest will certainly never happen. It's a pipe dream. I'm not blinded by my own ideology. What's frustrating for me and others like me is that we SAW this coming, plain as day, in the Fall of 2002, yet it's all happened regardless. And if I saw it coming, the powers-that-be should have.

Hmm, I guess the elected government in Iraq just doesn't exsist? It's fledgling then, not fully functioning.

Never-the-less, it is still a freely elected governement by the people, it's the first step and far better than it's previous regime.

It's much the same as any other flegling government from any nation throughout history. The U.S. barely survived after it's independance from Britton, yet, here we are.

So no, it's not a pipe dream, this was bound to happen and was more or less expected, just not on the leval that it is. Not impossible, just more difficult. I have my own thoughts about the how and why, but it's gets really long winded.

You SAW this comming only because you wanted it to fail. This fight is not over yet, but you still want to call it a failure. Your political ideology is showing.




In any case, yes, you defined what victory would look like. But I'd give Bush and his people 20 years, and it still wouldn't happen. One only needs to look at the past of that region to see the future.

On a final note, I did not ramble. I instead addressed each of your points one at a time. Next time I'll number them for you.

Again, "the sky is falling". You want failure because it suits your ideology. You stated before you were against this war from the start, so why would you want a victory?

How long do we have to be there? who the hell knows?

Just for giggles, here's a question for you. How long was the U.S. involved in Germany and it's rebuilding after WW2?

Japan?

What was the time table set at for these countries to be stabilized?

When did we pull all of our troops out of these nations?

[cover2]

It seems you've calmed down some and make some sense.

How long were in Japan after WW2? Not sure of the exact dates of the end of the "reconstruction", but I think it was during the Korean War. Perhaps 1953 or so? Germany even earlier if you don't count the NATO stuff that's still there today.

Although each BATTLE plan changes, the plan to end WW2 actually changed very little for the USA from the time of Pearl Harbor until the end of the war. As stated, it was hold steady in the Pacific, knock Italy out as quickly as possible, cross the English Channel as soon as a sizeable enough force and enough landing craft are available, knock out Germany, then concentrate on Japan. That was stated by VERY early 1942 in various meetings, documents, etc., held by FDR and his people. And, guess what....3.5 years later, it worked out exactly that way. AND, I might add, America was pretty sick of the war by August of 1945, and that was a war that the notoriously short-sighted US public had more of a right to be behind. The war in Iraq has gone on as long, the "reasons" behind fighting have changed several times (Iraq was involved indirectly in 9/11, Iraq has WMD or WMD capacity, if we leave now it'll be worse, etc.), and there is no plan in sight for bringing it to an end.

I'd love to hear your opinions on how to do it right. And I don't say that facetiously. I'd really like to hear them, b/c I'll be they're more sensible than anything our gov't has thrown together to this point.

I would like a victory in Iraq. I WISH it was as they said it would be, with open arms and flowers for all of our troops. It pisses me off we've lost 3000 soldiers, plus all the wounded, for NOTHING. I have never wanted them to fail, and you are wrong to assume that consciously or subconsciously I have wanted this. I want just the oppposite. If I thought it was going well I'd have voted for Jorge in 04.

Despite all of the problems I have with Bush, I'd prefer that those troops not died in vain and that Iraq would be a beacon of democracy for the Middle East. But it's not going to happen. We now see there's a reason why Saddam ruled the way he did. He had to, for look at that country now.

[Baboonass]

It seems you've calmed down some and make some sense.

How long were in Japan after WW2? Not sure of the exact dates of the end of the "reconstruction", but I think it was during the Korean War. Perhaps 1953 or so? Germany even earlier if you don't count the NATO stuff that's still there today.

We were involved in German politics, (by involved I mean directly invovled) for 14 years after the end of WW2.

Japan was a bit longer, but actually moved faster due to McArthur's reconstruction plan, (utilizing the sitting government and emporer to resore order, etc..)

We still have troops in both those nations to this day.

Abit different, my point is simply this. When we (the U.S.) make a military decision to conquer another nation's government, we have an obligation to reconstruct the damage done and do everything in our power to help benifit that country. We are also looking out for our own best interests. We maintain outposts in other nations not only for their defence, but to protect our capital interests and our own national interests. Iraq is no different in this regard. I'll explain more on this later.


Although each BATTLE plan changes, the plan to end WW2 actually changed very little for the USA from the time of Pearl Harbor until the end of the war. As stated, it was hold steady in the Pacific, knock Italy out as quickly as possible, cross the English Channel as soon as a sizeable enough force and enough landing craft are available, knock out Germany, then concentrate on Japan. That was stated by VERY early 1942 in various meetings, documents, etc., held by FDR and his people. And, guess what....3.5 years later, it worked out exactly that way. AND, I might add, America was pretty sick of the war by August of 1945, and that was a war that the notoriously short-sighted US public had more of a right to be behind.


Far to vauge of an answer and not accurate. This is precisely the type of answer that the government is giving you right now that you are so much against, (invade, take out Saddam, install a government, maintain peace and restore order).

There was little plan in the start. The campaign in the far east and europe happened at the same time. It was a colosal cluster from the start, but soon gained ground when Germany invaded Russia. The first course of action was to take North Africa, why do you suppose that is?

Here's a time line, (ETO).

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm


Anyway, my point here was there was no announced "exit statigy", there was no "detailed plan",or anything even remotly simular to what is being demanded today. We suffered many set back and failures. The loss of life was staggering, (over 10,000 in one day at durring the invasion of Nomandy), estimates are over 25 million killed durring WW2, (total).

Our involvement militarily was 3.5 years, but politically much longer. We as a nation were also far more involved, (rationing, war bonds, etc..) The human toll was far greater. Everyone gets sick and tired of being in a state of war, but that hardly applies to now as it does then.

You would hardly know we are even at war unless you turned on the news, had someone in the familiy or friend in the service, or you yourself was enlisted. OIF and GWOT are almost transparent, and definatly take a back seat to far more impotant aspects of our culture, (such as MTV, The Oscars, Anna Nicole Smith, etc...) Sure, it's in the back of everyone's mind, but no one is really put out by it. No one is suffering any more or less for it, (unless you have a direct connection of course).


The war in Iraq has gone on as long, the "reasons" behind fighting have changed several times (Iraq was involved indirectly in 9/11, Iraq has WMD or WMD capacity, if we leave now it'll be worse, etc.), and there is no plan in sight for bringing it to an end.

Here's were the buffoonery begins. No one ever said Iraq was involved with 9-11. This was a misnomer put out by the far left to divert attention and produce a straw man. Iraq was involved with state sponsed terrorism, (not on the scale of Iran or Syria, but that's an entirely different subject), and did have direct ties to AQ. The cruxt lays with the fact many people equate terrorism with AQ, and completly ignore the fact AQ is mearly the flavor of the month in a sea of terrorist groups.

Iraq's WMD programs did exsist. Were is it all now? who the hell knows. Could be buried in the sand somewere, could be in Iran or Syria. One thing is for certain, it certainly hurt us politically when they didn't show up after the invasion. Saddam wasn't stupid, he knew he could never stand up to us in a straight fight, but he did know that winning a war has little to do with military might in the age of mass media and it's outlet for propaganda.

You say there is no plan in sight, do you work at the Pentagon? Are you part of the "big 6"?

Then it's just a guess then, and not even an educated guess at that.

There is a plan in place, the same as it's always been, but the statigy has got to change.

In WW2, our invasion of the root nations (Germany and Japan) and subsequint occupation and rebuilding went much faster and smoother. There was still some resistance and insurgency, but not nearly on the scale of Iraq.

So what was the difference? Were the people less fevorant? hardly, both nations were extremely patriotic and nationalistic.

For starters, The use of statigic bombing over this 3.5 year perod of time left both countries in rubble. Civilian causulties were massive. By the end of the war, there was little fight left in anyone and everyone just wanted peace.

Second, we kept the military leadership (not the nationalist) in power to help with the rebuild/restucture of the goverenment and security. We imposed harsh laws and restrictions then let up.

Our ablity to wage a "cleaner" war, (smart bombs, surgical strikes, etc..) is great for political PR, but tactically unsound when it comes to regime change and occupation.

I'm not nessesarilly saying we should go back to carpet bombing, but there needs to be a hard look at our ability to transform an entire system of government if we continue to fight wars this way. Our biggest mistake was assuming a nation that was living under oppression would be greatfull to freedom and embrace it's newfound democracy. I think was was a lack of understanding of ME culture and a weakness (both governmental and the U.S, civilian populace, politics) to impose effective means to assimilate this process into a translated means.


I'd love to hear your opinions on how to do it right. And I don't say that facetiously. I'd really like to hear them, b/c I'll be they're more sensible than anything our gov't has thrown together to this point.

Thanks, but I think my means would have me impeached and imprisoned in no time if I were the POTUS. Militarily, it makes sence, politically it's suicide.

I'm hoping that our "big 6" is on the same train of thought that I am, we are just going to have to wait and see.




Despite all of the problems I have with Bush, I'd prefer that those troops not died in vain and that Iraq would be a beacon of democracy for the Middle East. But it's not going to happen. We now see there's a reason why Saddam ruled the way he did. He had to, for look at that country now.

I think I see where you are comming from now. I belive there is a very real possiblity of a thriving democracy in Iraq, and a chain reaction effect with the other nations in that region. But you are right, there is a reason Saddam ruled the way he did, and we should have taken notes.

The only real fix is a "iron glove" resolution. It's not going to be popular here but it's a language they will understand and respect.

[Hollis]

What a shocker !

Really, was anybody doubting this ? The problem is never WANTING to win, it's BEING ABLE to win. I'm sure Germans wanted to win in 1945, even as Berlin was falling - but since winning wasn't an option, then at least making peace was something to look forward to. Ditto for France in 1940, the US in Viet-Nam in 1973-75, France in Algeria in 1962, etc, etc.


I think, because of the media harping on the US winning and partisan politics blaming the President for not winning, The KEY POINT............. The victory in Iraq is NOT in the hands of the MNF..... it is in the Hands of the Iraqi People. We can only aid them.

We won the war with Saddam and his army. The war to stabilize Iraq, bring "law and order", Justice, civil peace is not for the MNF to win, the Iraqi people Must win it.

The Only way the MNF can we it, is if, the MNF/USA declares Iraq as part of their nation and take over complete control of Iraq....... THAT is NOT going to happen, that has never been the plan.

So the media can Harp all it wants on the MNF not obtaining victory, it is a Moot point....... it is a tactic to support the anti-war/bush crowd. It serves only the tangos in the end.

This is part of the same tactics used against the USA during the Viet-Nam war, to create a cultural mindset of defeat.

A good link that explains it:

http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id27.htm

[Firetxmi]

Actually it is, but not by it's current stratigy. Stratigies change as the situation dictates. It has become very apparent that the initial plan was flawed, so we'll fix it. If every plan was a set in stone "this is how it's going to be no matter what" kind of deal, no overall goal would ever be achieved.


lol...

"Stay the course!" "Stay the course!"

[Jobu]

lol...

"Stay the course!" "Stay the course!"

? I believe Match's text that you quoted would be more along the lines of:

adapt and overcome

[Firetxmi]

? I believe Match's text that you quoted would be more along the lines of:

adapt and overcome

I understand that, I was highlighting the fact that one would think that "adapt and overcome" would be a good strategy, but for the longest time we seemed to hear the chant of "Stay the course!"


"Adapt and overcome" seems to be a new concept for some...

[Jobu]

I understand that, I was highlighting the fact that one would think that "adapt and overcome" would be a good strategy, but for the longest time we seemed to hear the chant of "Stay the course!"


"Adapt and overcome" seems to be a new concept for some...

I don't believe that to be true. "Stay the course" was used more in the context of not losing sight of the final objective which has not changed. Flexibility in how you achieve it has never been discouraged as far as I know.

[Firetxmi]

I don't believe that to be true. "Stay the course" was used more in the context of not losing sight of the final objective which has not changed. Flexibility in how you achieve it has never been discouraged as far as I know.

Spin it how you will......

[Jobu]

Spin it how you will......

I will, it's better than accepting the liberal media's spin on it.

[Baboonass]

lol...

"Stay the course!" "Stay the course!"



For a time, this was the correct course of action. Build up and implement Iraq's own security police and support their actions. Keep a low profile and hope the Iraqi's see that they are governing themselves only we are there only as an adjunct.

It didn't work.

Now is a good time (actually, better if it was eariler) to change the statigy and impose new and harsher tactics.

We played nice, they saw this as weakness.

It's high time for a harsh lesson in immediate and overwhelming response to insurgent attacks on our convoys. It's time to find and destroy insurgent strong holds and personnel. I could go on and on.

[XASA]

I will, it's better than accepting the liberal media's spin on it.

I find it absolutely amazing that conservatives continue to blame the media for the Iraq clusterfcuk. At what point will you accept the fact that shooting the messenger doesn't change the message? The last time I checked, the media didn't invade Iraq for spurious reasons, the media wasn't in command when we invaded without enough troops or equipment, the media wasn't overseeing the post-invasion fiasco that allowed looting, the Iraqi Army to be disbanded and an insurgency to flourish, nor did the media create a situation where our brave servicemen and women are caught in the middle of a civil war. Yup, everything would be just great if it wasn't for the liberal media. What a crock of sh*t.

I guess all those stories about new schools and hospitals being built are being buried on the back pages because it is unsafe for anyone to leave the Green Zone to report on them.

Being a literate country, I think most Americans know the difference between sh*t and shinola and the only ones buying into a vast liberal media conspiracy are those who are still drinking the Kool Aid, who are, fortunately, a shrinking minority.

[Baboonass]

I find it absolutely amazing that conservatives continue to blame the media for the Iraq clusterfcuk. Bla bal bla bla bla.

I see you are gifted at spinning as well.

Denying the fact there is liberal media is like denying the fact there is conservative media.

Both are going to spin a story that suits them best. The difference is, Liberal media outlets far outnumber conservative media outlets.

Wars are fought and won by popular opinion. If you can sway opinion to your favor in the manner you report, (or not report) a story, then you can affect the manner in which a situation is handled.

It's a manner of propaganda, and ignoring it's implications to the war effort is akin to "ignoring the man behind the curtain".

So who's drinking the Kool Aid now?

[XASA]

I see you are gifted at spinning as well.

Denying the fact there is liberal media is like denying the fact there is conservative media.

Both are going to spin a story that suits them best. The difference is, Liberal media outlets far outnumber conservative media outlets.

Wars are fought and won by popular opinion. If you can sway opinion to your favor in the manner you report, (or not report) a story, then you can affect the manner in which a situation is handled.

It's a manner of propaganda, and ignoring it's implications to the war effort is akin to "ignoring the man behind the curtain".

So who's drinking the Kool Aid now?

Let me make sure I understand your take on the media and popular opinion. Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your views are "liberal," and being so, are spreading propaganda to turn Americans against a war that could be won if they weren't? That major news outlets, which are owned by corporations with a vested interest in America being successful, are siding with the enemy because they are "liberal". You guys who still believe in the conservative mantra about the so-called MSM, are incapable of comphrending what the real problems are in Iraq because you need a scrapegoat for a failed policy.

I know what constitutes propaganda. Been there, done that. Most research on the effects of propaganda shows that, on its own, it won't change someone's mind on an issue, even if that person is undecided. However, it will reinforce existing shared opinions. According to you, the American people are gullible dupes who can't form an opinion on what is wrong in Iraq without the help of a "liberal" media conspiracy. Like I said before, those who think like you are part of a dwindling minority, which, IMHO, is a good thing.

[cover2]

Machanu and friends,

I've been out of the loop all day, so have to play catch-up.

First, regarding your ideas of the involvement of the USA in WW2, check your timelines again. You said there was no plan for the USA in WW2 until after Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Yeah, Operation Barbarossa began June 22, 1941, 6 months before Pearl Harbor! I'm sorry but I must include a "duh" here. The USA did not have a plan b/c the USA was not fighting at that point. It was at one of the conferences (Tehran? Casablanca? I forget which) that the plan was made, and we stuck to it in general terms through the end of the war. You can't argue with that. Sure, some battles didn't go as planned, but the general strategy was followed and it worked.

Secondly, the USA, through the SF Treaty, ended the Occupation of Japan effective in April of 1952 (as I'd said, during the Korean War). So that's 6.5 years from the end of the war, at which point the Japanese had their own, STABLE, FUNCTIONING democracy, able to see to the needs of it's people and defend their rights.

I don't see how you can compare these anyway, b/c even though we still have troops there and in Germany, they are not peace-keepers. They are not fighting. They were not fighting. There was no insurgency. Very different, apples and oranges, to me. They were there more as a show of force against new enemies (Communists) in the respective regions, not to do much in the countries themselves. Very different.

That's about all I have to say. Your other points are well-taken (that the Iraqi military should not have been disbanded, which you said, is pretty well-established now by many as a mistake of the highest order by the USA).

If we then go back to the original post of this entire thread, then, I'd have to say again, that most Americans would like victory in Iraq. And since you brought up the WW2 reference, I will continue.....since the USA and it's allies were able to rebuild Germany and Japan, two much more potent foes by comparison with Iraq, within a few years, it's quite understandable that the American public would be fed up by now and want the USA out. I never wanted them to go, so it doesn't matter to me how much Lou Dobbs or Wolf Blitzer or Chris Matthews beat that dead horse. I thought it was wrong at the time and dumber now. So, if asked, yes I want victory. But do I think it's possible? No.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Let me make sure I understand your take on the media and popular opinion. Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your views are "liberal," and being so, are spreading propaganda to turn Americans against a war that could be won if they weren't? That major news outlets, which are owned by corporations with a vested interest in America being successful, are siding with the enemy because they are "liberal". You guys who still believe in the conservative mantra about the so-called MSM, are incapable of comphrending what the real problems are in Iraq because you need a scrapegoat for a failed policy.

I know what constitutes propaganda. Been there, done that. Most research on the effects of propaganda shows that, on its own, it won't change someone's mind on an issue, even if that person is undecided. However, it will reinforce existing shared opinions. According to you, the American people are gullible dupes who can't form an opinion on what is wrong in Iraq without the help of a "liberal" media conspiracy. Like I said before, those who think like you are part of a dwindling minority, which, IMHO, is a good thing.

The way I view it is that the media was harping the war from day one, they are the reason Bush is fighting a pc war, every single move made by the US military is under the non blinking eye of the media, just waiting to pounce on a civilian casualty, abuse by our soldiers and our soldiers deaths.

Its been blatently obvious since the Clinton years which party and which politics they prefer.

So to say the media has no bias towards one side of the political aisle is a bold face lie.

We just had a refreshment of the medias idiocy with the short conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

Do you not remember "Disproportionate Force" battle cry of the media, their whining is the reason for Iraqs failures and for Israels quick retreat.

Their demanding of PCness is what puts all leaders in a political bind and forces them to practically tie one hand behind each soldiers back.

The media has already decided the outcome of one war before and have let that get to their heads and are now trying their damndest to tell you I told you so even if it means undermining the US or even bring harm to our soldiers or citizens.

[Baboonass]

Let me make sure I understand your take on the media and popular opinion. Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your views are "liberal," and being so, are spreading propaganda to turn Americans against a war that could be won if they weren't? That major news outlets, which are owned by corporations with a vested interest in America being successful, are siding with the enemy because they are "liberal". You guys who still believe in the conservative mantra about the so-called MSM, are incapable of comphrending what the real problems are in Iraq because you need a scrapegoat for a failed policy.


LOL!

You must work for CNN.

No, that is not what I'm saying, not at all. Liberal slant on a news story is in the content and tone of the report. If a partiuclar reporter or major news outlet has deciedly political views one way or the other, they are going to slant their story accordingly. Sometimes, this can manifest itself into outright lies and deception. After all, who going to rebute if they won't alow it?

There can be other publications that will counter their story, but whatever political ideology you happen to follow is going to determine who you choose to believe. Unless you are there and witness it first hand, all you have are the reporters version of events.

You don't have to believe me, simply watch a story unfold as reported by as many major news outlets as you can, you will get different versions of the same story. I know first hand how a reporter will slant, and outright make stuff up in a report to fit his political agenda.

The media is in the buisness to make money, accurate reporting is not always required or wanted. If it's flashy, it sells ad space. The more drama it creates, the more viewers to justify the cost of commerical air time.

Did I ever say the liberal media was "siding with the enemy"? Were in the hell did that come from? Anyway, they are certainly not helping, but I don't believe that they are consiensly aiding the enemy, but rather trying to elevate their own political agenda. Sometimes the two will coinside, but I think this is more out of a complete misunderstanding of the bigger picture.


I know what constitutes propaganda. Been there, done that. Most research on the effects of propaganda shows that, on its own, it won't change someone's mind on an issue, even if that person is undecided. However, it will reinforce existing shared opinions. According to you, the American people are gullible dupes who can't form an opinion on what is wrong in Iraq without the help of a "liberal" media conspiracy. Like I said before, those who think like you are part of a dwindling minority, which, IMHO, is a good thing.


O.k., how have you "been there, done that", in the world of propaganda?


Once again, you are attempting, (and failing) to put words in my mouth. Never once did I imply, or even hint that the "American people are gullible dupes who can't form an opinion on what is wrong in Iraq without the help of a "liberal" media conspiracy". These are your words, obviously this is something that hits home with you, so sorry.

If you choose to believe that I am part of a "dwinding minority", have at it, it certainly is not based in any factuality.

[Baboonass]

First, regarding your ideas of the involvement of the USA in WW2, check your timelines again. You said there was no plan for the USA in WW2 until after Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

I think you are missing the point here. This isn't so much about the history of WW2 and what the overall mission was, but rather that not everything went as planned durring this time frame. Our track record is far better now than it was then when it comes to decisive battles and overall victories.

We are still on the same mission in Iraq as when we started. Even in WW2, there was no time table set for these actions or an "exit stratigy" which such a popular term now. We had no idea how long the war was going to last, just as we don't know how long OIF is going to last. There are way too many variables. I would certainly like to see it over sooner than later, and would hope that there are people in places working furiously trying to solve this.


Anyway, I was mearly making a comparison based on campaign failures yet still obtaining the overall goal of total victory. I blundered through some details on the when and were, so my bad on that.


Secondly, the USA, through the SF Treaty, ended the Occupation of Japan effective in April of 1952 (as I'd said, during the Korean War). So that's 6.5 years from the end of the war, at which point the Japanese had their own, STABLE, FUNCTIONING democracy, able to see to the needs of it's people and defend their rights.

We are still there today.


I don't see how you can compare these anyway, b/c even though we still have troops there and in Germany, they are not peace-keepers. They are not fighting. They were not fighting. There was no insurgency. Very different, apples and oranges, to me. They were there more as a show of force against new enemies (Communists) in the respective regions, not to do much in the countries themselves. Very different.

There was an insurgency, in both theaters at the end of WW2. In Germany, it was the Wearwolfs, Hard core SS. Not effective really, nor large, but still an influence on some communities for a few years after the end of the war. They were hunted down and killed in a timely manner, mainly because of the manner in which we conducted the rebuilding operation.

In any case, this isn't a direct comparission, it wasn't meant to be. Simply a point about troop occupation as it relates to local and national interests. It was also a comparison of how the wholesale slaughter of the civilian populace through stratigic bombing over a long period of time is a benifit to the expediency of the rebuilding of that nation.



That's about all I have to say. Your other points are well-taken (that the Iraqi military should not have been disbanded, which you said, is pretty well-established now by many as a mistake of the highest order by the USA).

If we then go back to the original post of this entire thread, then, I'd have to say again, that most Americans would like victory in Iraq. And since you brought up the WW2 reference, I will continue.....since the USA and it's allies were able to rebuild Germany and Japan, two much more potent foes by comparison with Iraq, within a few years, it's quite understandable that the American public would be fed up by now and want the USA out. I never wanted them to go, so it doesn't matter to me how much Lou Dobbs or Wolf Blitzer or Chris Matthews beat that dead horse. I thought it was wrong at the time and dumber now. So, if asked, yes I want victory. But do I think it's possible? No.

Looking back, there are a large amount of people that would have like to have seen OIF pre-planned differently. There were mistakes made 12 years back, and all the way up to now.

The invasion of Iraq was inevitable and has everything to do with the GWOT. It's not so much that Iraq is the major hub for terrorist activites, but it's an asymetrical approch to a long term goal of displacing root causes. This is a conversation that gets very long and involved. You have to have an understanding of terrorist cells and it's recruitment process. I'm not trying to insult you in any way, I just don't want to get more long winded than I already have been.

Some say that OIF was about oil, I will say now that it probably is a major part of it, and a rightous one at that.

I made a point earlier about WW2 and our first major interest being North Africa, (ME). Although it's tactical importance is of little relevance, stratigically it was a major turning point. Without control of the oil fields, the Nazi war machine ground to a halt. Cetainly there were other resources for Germany, but this was also a primary goal for the allies as well.

The control of our oil resources is of major national interest to the U.S., anyone who think otherwise is simply painfully naive. Untill there is a viable alternative source of energy and turn over into this new relm, we are dependant, mortaly dependant.

[cover2]

Matchanu,

Regarding Japan, you say we are still there today....As what, an occupying force? Hardly. Getting shot at, blown up? Enforcing the peace? Come on, it's silly to even mention it. We still have troops there, as I said, due to interests in the region (Korea, etc.), not b/c we are still fighting a war there or stabilizing the democracy in Japan. If we want to keep troops in the ME, we should do it in places that sort of invite us there, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia perhaps, etc. Not as an occupying force. It looks bad to those there and to people around the world, and it's getting people killed.

An assymetric approach to the war on terror? Yeah. Where'd you read that one? Iraq had little use for terrorists before we went in. Some, perhaps, but I think there were bigger fish to fry in the area of terrorists than Saddam Hussein. In fact, nearly every OTHER country in that area is a bigger supporter of terrorists than he ever was.

Stopping the root causes? How's that going, especially when OBL specifically said the USA would take over an Arab state and then not leave. Talk about handing him and his people propaganda on a platter! Wow. And each time we've blown up someone's house, killed someone's family, we've created a fresh assortment of future suicide bombers or other terrorists. So I really don't see how the involvement of the USA in Iraq is stomping out the root causes of terrorism. In fact, it's made it worse.

Oil is important? Sure. Doesn't have to be, but it is, and I'm not denying that.

I've never asked for a definite timetable on a pullout from Iraq. A vague idea might be nice, and a vague one more accurate than that provided by our VP in 03 (six months was, I think, his estimate!).

And finally, I don't see how you can say our track record with decisive victories is so much better now than it was then. Hmm. Let's see. In WW2 we had Guadalcanal, Midway, both of which turned the tide DECISIVELY in the Pacific. Against Hitler and Mussolini, we knocked them DECISIVELY out of N. Africa, then Sicily, the moved up Italy while DECISIVELY, if a bit slowly, in Normandy, then through to the end.

More recently. Hmm. Korea. Decisive? Hardly. Vietnam? No. Operation Anaconda? Ouch. Nope. OIF? Nope.

This is hardly a good track record since WW2. Take a look at your history books again.

[Baboonass]

Matchanu,

Regarding Japan, you say we are still there today....As what, an occupying force? Hardly. Getting shot at, blown up? Enforcing the peace? Come on, it's silly to even mention it. We still have troops there, as I said, due to interests in the region (Korea, etc.), not b/c we are still fighting a war there or stabilizing the democracy in Japan. If we want to keep troops in the ME, we should do it in places that sort of invite us there, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia perhaps, etc. Not as an occupying force. It looks bad to those there and to people around the world, and it's getting people killed.


Once again, you are missing the point.

Your just going to have to mull it over some more, else that or your never going to get as I've pretty much laid it all all out a few times now.

Moving on.


An assymetric approach to the war on terror? Yeah. Where'd you read that one? Iraq had little use for terrorists before we went in. Some, perhaps, but I think there were bigger fish to fry in the area of terrorists than Saddam Hussein. In fact, nearly every OTHER country in that area is a bigger supporter of terrorists than he ever was.


Go back and take the time to read what I posted.

Think about it for a bit, if you still don't understand, I'll spell it out for you.



And finally, I don't see how you can say our track record with decisive victories is so much better now than it was then. Hmm. Let's see. In WW2 we had Guadalcanal, Midway, both of which turned the tide DECISIVELY in the Pacific. Against Hitler and Mussolini, we knocked them DECISIVELY out of N. Africa, then Sicily, the moved up Italy while DECISIVELY, if a bit slowly, in Normandy, then through to the end.

More recently. Hmm. Korea. Decisive? Hardly. Vietnam? No. Operation Anaconda? Ouch. Nope. OIF? Nope.

This is hardly a good track record since WW2. Take a look at your history books again.

Sigh...

I see my time has been completely wasted on you. I don't know what brand of reality you are smoking, but you are just out there.

Let's simply it and just say you are way, way off.

But I'm certain actuall events don't fit into your political agenda.

This is getting boring.

[XASA]

LOL!

You must work for CNN.

No, that is not what I'm saying, not at all. Liberal slant on a news story is in the content and tone of the report. If a partiuclar reporter or major news outlet has deciedly political views one way or the other, they are going to slant their story accordingly. Sometimes, this can manifest itself into outright lies and deception. After all, who going to rebute if they won't alow it?

There can be other publications that will counter their story, but whatever political ideology you happen to follow is going to determine who you choose to believe. Unless you are there and witness it first hand, all you have are the reporters version of events.

You don't have to believe me, simply watch a story unfold as reported by as many major news outlets as you can, you will get different versions of the same story. I know first hand how a reporter will slant, and outright make stuff up in a report to fit his political agenda.

The media is in the buisness to make money, accurate reporting is not always required or wanted. If it's flashy, it sells ad space. The more drama it creates, the more viewers to justify the cost of commerical air time.

Did I ever say the liberal media was "siding with the enemy"? Were in the hell did that come from? Anyway, they are certainly not helping, but I don't believe that they are consiensly aiding the enemy, but rather trying to elevate their own political agenda. Sometimes the two will coinside, but I think this is more out of a complete misunderstanding of the bigger picture.




O.k., how have you "been there, done that", in the world of propaganda?


Once again, you are attempting, (and failing) to put words in my mouth. Never once did I imply, or even hint that the "American people are gullible dupes who can't form an opinion on what is wrong in Iraq without the help of a "liberal" media conspiracy". These are your words, obviously this is something that hits home with you, so sorry.

If you choose to believe that I am part of a "dwinding minority", have at it, it certainly is not based in any factuality.

Thank you for clarifying your position on the media. I'm glad to see you agree that Americans are not "dupes;" however, how do you explain the conservative mantra that the "liberal" press is swaying popular opinon? (BTW, I put "liberal" in quotes because the word is used quite often by the Right to label anyone who disagrees with them.) You still claim that the media, by pushing their agenda, somehow aids the enemy. Again, your own words speaks volumes.

So far as my experience with propaganda is concerned, I've posted my military record on this forum at least a half dozen times over the years. Do a search or PM me and I'll gladly share it with you. I also studied journalism and worked as a published freelance writer and author for almost twenty years. One of my published works was a book on war films that included my thoughts on whether or not some of them were propaganda. Again, if you are interested, PM me; it's out of print but still available on the Internet.

I am fortunate enough to have a job that allows me to read a wide range of publications and web pages. I find that the reporting on Iraq has been "fair and balanced" by most aside from those that freely admit they have a conservative or liberal stance. If you review what was published in the march up to war in 2003, you'll easily see that most were in support of the Bush administration and praised the initial successful invasion (remember "Shock and Awe"). I also view various newscasts, including CNN (and Fox) at least three to six hours daily, more if there is an important breaking story (although the Anna Nicole Smith crap is weaning me off that habit this week).

Unless they are a commentator or columnist or write for the editorial page, reporters on most papers and newscasts-- especially the NY Times and Washington Post-- have strict guidelines that prevent them from letting their personal "agenda" see the light of day. Do they make mistakes and let some bullsh*t through on occasion? Of course they do due to the sheer volume of news that is covered, but when found out, they are quick to publish a retraction. Why? Because they wouldn't be able to attract advertising if they were not publishing the truth.

Back on topic: The most important poll was taken in November with the election. You know the results. Which is why I stand by my statement that those who think like you are a "dwindling" minority.

[cover2]

Matchanu,

You're the one not making any sense and getting boring....you compare the involvement of the USA in Iraq with our past involvement in Germany and Japan after WW2, but then, by your own admission, say that it's not a good comparison. So which is it? Are you comparing them or not? B/c if you are, you are wrong. They have little in common. And if you are not, then why mention them at all.

The one thing I'll admit I still get stuck on is that I'm still pissed we went into Iraq to begin with. So sometimes I have trouble seeing how staying there is good. To be honest, I think the best plan might be to leave, let them decide for themselves what is best/kill many of each other, etc. Then, when a predomintantly Shia gov't takes over led by Ayotollah Hussein or whatever, and they do something objectionable, go in again. To me, that's better in terms of financially and in terms of lives than doing what we are doing now. But that's just me.

Looking at my own posts, that's all I'm getting stuck on. You're the one coming up with comparisons to Japan, et al, and then telling me to ignore those comparisons.

I won't even touch your opinions about the press. Xasa seems to have them covered.

Sorry I'm so boring. Then again, maybe it's all the Depeche Mode and The Cure that's doing it to me.

[tipsovr]

I'm relatively new to the forum, but have been reading here for some time. Many of the Americans on this forum seem to be decidely right thinking. You two (Cover2 & Matchanu) seem to typify the American people as a whole today. The majority of our people are at opposite ends of the spectrum today in their beliefs in the war in Iraq. No amount of talking, yelling, name calling, etc. is going to change their respective minds.

My question to all is this... If the U.S. (and other coalition) forces simply up and pull out, what then? Who fills the power vaccum? I can think of one (cuts his eyes to Iraq's eastern neighbor) country who would love for us to leave the area. They have a little ax to grind with Iraq and would love to be able to march into a very vulnerable Iraq. This is my greatest fear. I am not a huge Bush fan right now (I will admit I voted for him 2X, but consider the choices we had), I think he needed to have a definable change of plan much sooner. But perhaps he realizes that it is better for us to have a beach head in our enemy's backyard that the other way around.

It is a bit niave of us to think that we can settle a diverse group of people who have enjoyed preying on each other so quickly. Perhaps we forgot how much infighting there could be in Iraq since under Saddam, he simply killed anyone who differed with him. Easy way to keep the peace when you don't need to be concerned with PC or what anyone else thinks of your actions.

[Firetxmi]

XASA, like they said- what would you know about the press. :D

Just joshin' with ya!

[budgie]

No it doesn't.

It certainly would be nice to have a nice clean plan of exactly how many days, how much money, how many causulties, etc..


The real world doesn't work that way.


Looking back, things certainly could have be planed better, but again, this is hind sight. Anytime you enter armed combat, there is a massive gamble. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

I'm all for a new plan of action, one that is a lot more aggressive both on assault and reaction, but this is an entirely different topic.

The Right does not have a monopoly on 'the real world'.


Naw, just making a point about seeing the glass as half empty, the sky is falling, etc....

"We're all doomed, let's slit our wrists".

I don't see it that way, and thank God prievious administrations didn't either.

How abouut instead of "we're all doomed, let's slit our wrists", we try, "The plan is doomed, the occupation is doomed, let's go home and salvage what we can."

Or does 'the real world' not work that way either?

[Baboonass]

Thank you for clarifying your position on the media. I'm glad to see you agree that Americans are not "dupes;" however, how do you explain the conservative mantra that the "liberal" press is swaying popular opinon? (BTW, I put "liberal" in quotes because the word is used quite often by the Right to label anyone who disagrees with them.) You still claim that the media, by pushing their agenda, somehow aids the enemy. Again, your own words speaks volumes.

For starters, I'm not a conservative by any stretch. I lean right, but I certainly do not follow the Republican handbook. How do I expalin conservative mantra? I don't, I'm mearly speaking from my own perspective, view points, and of collective opinion by others in my proffession.

Does a left wing, (liberal) slant on war coverage aid in the enemy? Absolutly, but I nary think it all intenetional.

That is not to say I believe the media to be censored, but perhaps some perspective on exactly how a story is percieved and recieved by those who we are attempting to help, and those who would do us harm.


So far as my experience with propaganda is concerned, I've posted my military record on this forum at least a half dozen times over the years. Do a search or PM me and I'll gladly share it with you. I also studied journalism and worked as a published freelance writer and author for almost twenty years. One of my published works was a book on war films that included my thoughts on whether or not some of them were propaganda. Again, if you are interested, PM me; it's out of print but still available on the Internet.


I've never seen or heard of you before now, this is why I asked.

On SOCNET, everyone posts their creds, (within OPSEC and PERSEC guidlines) so we all know who we are talking to to avoid this kind of quesitoning. All creds are verified through official means.

In any case, I would like to see what you have in PM.




I am fortunate enough to have a job that allows me to read a wide range of publications and web pages. I find that the reporting on Iraq has been "fair and balanced" by most aside from those that freely admit they have a conservative or liberal stance. If you review what was published in the march up to war in 2003, you'll easily see that most were in support of the Bush administration and praised the initial successful invasion (remember "Shock and Awe"). I also view various newscasts, including CNN (and Fox) at least three to six hours daily, more if there is an important breaking story (although the Anna Nicole Smith crap is weaning me off that habit this week).

Although I have no experience in journaism, (other than having reporters completely falsify stories that I have been personnaly involved in), my experience and relationships with my brotheren has given me access to insider knowledge I would not have in the civilian world. Most of which I can't or will not talk about for various reasons.

The stories that come from the media and general tone are typcially a complete contridiction from the first hand accounts from boots on the ground in Iraq.

So am I to assume that they are all wrong in saying the media is left leaning, getting the story completely wrong, or other aspects that I have mentioned before?

I tend to go with what I trust, as they have no monentary motive for their viewpoint or report.

I really could go on and on with this, but I figure you are dead set in your viewpoint, and there is really little I going to say or do to convince you otherwise, so I'll save the bandwith.


Why? Because they wouldn't be able to attract advertising if they were not publishing the truth.

This is one of the funniest sentaces I've read in a long time. Seriously, I'm crying here.

Who's truth is that anyway?

Please, more zingers like this, it brightens my day.


Back on topic: The most important poll was taken in November with the election. You know the results. Which is why I stand by my statement that those who think like you are a "dwindling" minority.


So because a poll was done there are "dwindling" numbers that believe that mass media tends to have a liberal slant on the war coverage?

Let me clear this up for you then.

Although some people have changed their view of OIF, there has been no change (in my limited world of personal knowlege) of the opionion of the media and it's bias.

Here is something to mull over;

How many MOH, Navy crosses, Silver Stars, or other medals of valor have been awarded? How much media coverage has been showcased on this?

What is the approximate ratio of stories of valor to the latest celebrety coverage equate to?

How many retractions of false or fabrications of reports from Iraq been covered?

[Baboonass]

The Right does not have a monopoly on 'the real world'.

Never said it did.

I said the real world doesn't work that way.

Try a little reading comprehension.




How abouut instead of "we're all doomed, let's slit our wrists", we try, "The plan is doomed, the occupation is doomed, let's go home and salvage what we can."

Or does 'the real world' not work that way either?


Well, because the plan isn't doomed, (the over all plan, not specific statigies), the occupation, like all occupations are doomed, and eventually we all will go home, after we have completed our mission. This occupation was never ment to be permenent.

So you are going to be condesending, that is fine. Then alow me to retort. My statement on "the real world" isn't based on some MTV program. It's from years of working in military mission planning and war fighting. Going to war or planning for operations in a hostile environment never goes exactly as planned. You research, study, formulate, seek advice, and produce a plan that best encompasses every possible contingency and unforseeable events. It all comes down to chance and sometimes luck.

A large scale plan like OIF is no different. You can plan for years and hope it all works out to what is written on paper, but it rarely, if ever, goes exactly as planned. When things go to crap, hopefully you already have contingencies in place or are able to react in a manner that is consistant with your overall stratigy.

So tell me, what is your version of "the real world"?

[XASA]

For starters, I'm not a conservative by any stretch. I lean right, but I certainly do not follow the Republican handbook. How do I expalin conservative mantra? I don't, I'm mearly speaking from my own perspective, view points, and of collective opinion by others in my proffession.

Does a left wing, (liberal) slant on war coverage aid in the enemy? Absolutly, but I nary think it all intenetional.

That is not to say I believe the media to be censored, but perhaps some perspective on exactly how a story is percieved and recieved by those who we are attempting to help, and those who would do us harm.




I've never seen or heard of you before now, this is why I asked.

On SOCNET, everyone posts their creds, (within OPSEC and PERSEC guidlines) so we all know who we are talking to to avoid this kind of quesitoning. All creds are verified through official means.

In any case, I would like to see what you have in PM.

Anyway, my creds have been posted here a few times, but I'll make it short.

USN 88-01
SEAL Team 5 90-01
SEAL Team 1 NR 01-03

My current job is best left off the open boards.



Although I have no experience in journaism, (other than having reporters completely falsify stories that I have been personnaly involved in), my experience and relationships with my brotheren has given me access to insider knowledge I would not have in the civilian world. Most of which I can't or will not talk about for various reasons.

The stories that come from the media and general tone are typcially a complete contridiction from the first hand accounts from boots on the ground in Iraq.

So am I to assume that they are all wrong in saying the media is left leaning, getting the story completely wrong, or other aspects that I have mentioned before?

I tend to go with what I trust, as they have no monentary motive for their viewpoint or report.

I really could go on and on with this, but I figure you are dead set in your viewpoint, and there is really little I going to say or do to convince you otherwise, so I'll save the bandwith.



This is one of the funniest sentaces I've read in a long time. Seriously, I'm crying here.

Who's truth is that anyway?

Please, more zingers like this, it brightens my day.




So because a poll was done there are "dwindling" numbers that believe that mass media tends to have a liberal slant on the war coverage?

Let me clear this up for you then.

Although some people have changed their view of OIF, there has been no change (in my limited world of personal knowlege) of the opionion of the media and it's bias.

Here is something to mull over;

How many MOH, Navy crosses, Silver Stars, or other medals of valor have been awarded? How much media coverage has been showcased on this?

What is the approximate ratio of stories of valor to the latest celebrety coverage equate to?

How many retractions of false or fabrications of reports from Iraq been covered?

You and I are obviously have a different opinion of the press and its role so far as the current clusterfcuk in Iraq is concerned. We agree to disagree.

Perhaps you haven't heard of me because there are times I go for as long as a year without posting on MP.net because I've got to earn a living. Even when I do post, I try to ignore the bullsh*t that gets so deep you need hip boots to wade through it; however, sometimes I can't help but respond to some of the more outrageous comments from the Right. In fact, what got me started on this thread was a comment by Jobu about the "liberal" press, but since you responded, I thought it would be enlightening to have a discussion about the important and historic role of the press in the U.S., something our forefathers thought was important enough that they wrote it in the First Amendment-- Freedom of the Press.

One of the reasons I hesitate posting my military record is because I like to have debates without getting into who has a bigger **** contest. Some of the mods, California Joe, James and Argyll in particular, can vouched for me from previous conversations and PMs, but it's not necessary to pull them into our debate. So, just for you:

U.S. Army 1965 to 1971:

Army Security Agency - German Voice Interceptor, Field Station Berlin
National Security Agency- Intelligence Analyst, Ft. Meade, MD
Army Security Agency - Intelligence Analyst, Field Station Phu Bai
92nd PSYOPS Co. (TAC) - Operations/Intelligence NCOIC, Ft. Bragg, NC

I enlisted five days after my 18th birthday and made Specialist 6th Class (E6) at 21. I also did double duty in Berlin as a platoon leader (ASA didn't have too many officers aside from those in administration and a few in operations). When I enlisted, it was a highly professional and motivated Army, by the time I was discharged it was broken on the wheel of Vietnam. To say I am concerned that the Army might suffer the same fate again because of an ill-planned and failed policy is an understatement.

During those six years, I've trained, lived, partied and worked with Special Forces-- two different language schools, Det A in Berlin and, of course, at Bragg on Smoke Bomb Hill. I also had the country's highest security clearance, so excuse me if I don't stand up and salute when you claim OPSEC. I find it humorous (to say the least) that you have some "insider" knowledge that we poor peons don't have access to. If you do have access to special intelligence, even if it is low-level, the last thing you are supposed to do is allude to it in any discussion let alone on a public forum. Do not confirm or deny, dude. But if you want to impress the teenagers and twenty-somethings on the board, have at it.

[Jobu]

The press is overwhelmingly liberal. I don't see how anyone can deny that. A small handful of conservative outlets does not balance it out.

Freedom of the press means they are free to promote their own agendas without fear of prosecution under the guise of "journalism".

[Hollis]

During those six years, I've trained, lived, partied and worked with Special Forces-- two different language schools, Det A in Berlin and, of course, at Bragg on Smoke Bomb Hill. I also had the country's highest security clearance, so excuse me if I don't stand up and salute when you claim OPSEC. I find it humorous (to say the least) that you have some "insider" knowledge that we poor peons don't have access to. If you do have access to special intelligence, even if it is low-level, the last thing you are supposed to do is allude to it in any discussion let alone on a public forum. Do not confirm or deny, dude. But if you want to impress the teenagers and twenty-somethings on the board, have at it.



And?.................................. 1971 was a long time ago. The media, well say, the Commies where at least honest about the role of the media in society. The media is not Free, it is owned by some one or share holders, it sells time. Politics is a big aspect of our environment, from just personal BS to partisan BS.

I have a friend who was ASA, took a ak round under the chin, exited at the top of his head, he recently moved back to the Philippians. I don't think he would agree with you either. What ever your intel was back in 1971.. your out of the loop now too. BTW how big is the intel loop, not very big, people never like sharing anything. The other guy is always the talker. I seriously doubt a E-6 would, regardless of how high of a security clearance would have full access. It is all limited.

A lot of people have itches that they need to scratch, this one seems to be yours. You can trust the media?... I think we can trust the media to be what it is. It serves it's own interests. I also doubt that if the media actually when beyond the pablum that it serves the public to day and publish the information need to make the decisions that few would actually read it or understand it.

Even General's arm chair quaterback............ each other, so what else is new.

[Baboonass]

During those six years, I've trained, lived, partied and worked with Special Forces-- two different language schools, Det A in Berlin and, of course, at Bragg on Smoke Bomb Hill. I also had the country's highest security clearance, so excuse me if I don't stand up and salute when you claim OPSEC. I find it humorous (to say the least) that you have some "insider" knowledge that we poor peons don't have access to. If you do have access to special intelligence, even if it is low-level, the last thing you are supposed to do is allude to it in any discussion let alone on a public forum. Do not confirm or deny, dude. But if you want to impress the teenagers and twenty-somethings on the board, have at it.



LOL!!!

Carry on there stud.

[XASA]

And?.................................. 1971 was a long time ago. The media, well say, the Commies where at least honest about the role of the media in society. The media is not Free, it is owned by some one or share holders, it sells time. Politics is a big aspect of our environment, from just personal BS to partisan BS.

I have a friend who was ASA, took a ak round under the chin, exited at the top of his head, he recently moved back to the Philippians. I don't think he would agree with you either. What ever your intel was back in 1971.. your out of the loop now too. BTW how big is the intel loop, not very big, people never like sharing anything. The other guy is always the talker. I seriously doubt a E-6 would, regardless of how high of a security clearance would have full access. It is all limited.

A lot of people have itches that they need to scratch, this one seems to be yours. You can trust the media?... I think we can trust the media to be what it is. It serves it's own interests. I also doubt that if the media actually when beyond the pablum that it serves the public to day and publish the information need to make the decisions that few would actually read it or understand it.

Even General's arm chair quaterback............ each other, so what else is new.

At reunions, get togethers and visits, no one discusses what they did in the Agency even among former friends-- even if it was forty years ago-- so I doubt your ASA buddy is talking about the mission. If he is, I would be very surprised. Also, I did not allude to what intelligence I was privy to, and won't, unlike others on this board...wouldn't be prudent.

And who said anything about being out of the loop?

What I do and who I do it for certainly won't be posted on MP.net to impress a few right wing conservatives. Let's just say I don't hide behind my record or job history. I am quite comfortable sourcing what I write with what's in the public domain whether you choose to agree with it or not.

The press has a long, proud history in this country, something conservatives have the tendency to forget when it doesn't like what it reads and sees.

Like I said, posting one's record and credentials can quickly turn into a **** swinging contest. So swing away lads!

[Hollis]

The press has a long, proud history in this country, something conservatives have the tendency to forget when it doesn't like what it reads and sees.

Like I said, posting one's record and credentials can quickly turn into a **** swinging contest. So swing away lads!

I am not against the media per se, But look at liberals, they whine about Fox news, Conservatives whine about CNN, CBS... I really don't know what would replace the media, but any one accepting the media as not being bias and 100%... I worry about. If they are selling what I like obviously, I will like them.. maybe.

Someone was bemoaning the fact the sense fedora wearing smoking new commentator left the news, the news went down hill. They went on to say, that regular programing paid for the new room, but that changed. The news had to pay for itself. When that happened... things are no longer straight forward.


Everything people do is biased. I was chuckling at the thread, the intel was manipulated............ Shyte, everything is manipulated especially any and all reports. That is human nature. Intel is no different from basic field reports all the way up to ....... reports are combined with other reposts to add overview. Nothing has to be dishonest, it just that more things are noticed and put into perspective with other things.

No different than the skuttlebut for the grunt, as information wanders through the chain of command up or down.

You might have missed out, when Saddam was selling he had WMDs big time. Or that some Generals of Saddam were talking to the US about deals. I believe the current administration and Military thoroughly felt that Saddam had WMDs from all the information they were getting out side of actually touching them.

Saddam's Generals were interrogated after being captured they all stated that Saddam said he had them, but they personally did not know where.


BTW, did you notice Saddam did not have much of a defence? He did put up a lot bigger fight in Kuwait, so why?

Saddam had his plan but backfired. Part of that plan was selling WMDs, to delay any invasion. I'll let you figure out why.


OK Iraq is a cluster..... Media hammers that the US is loosing, loosing what? what is ours to gain? The conflict is a Iraqi conflict, victory is only for the Iraqi, the solution will be Iraqi.

I like to keep in mind the first casualty of any battle is the battle plan. Those opposing the MNF is doing everything in their ability to muck it up.

The Oscars, the media, is all political, --- almost what is not. even the Chamber of Commerces has political goals. The media is no sacred cow, no more noble than the National enquire, no more non-political as even the DNC or RNC............. As I mentioned earlier, at least when I was in the Soviet Union, the Soviets knew their news was biased........... I wish Americans would figure that one out too.

[XASA]

I am not against the media per se, But look at liberals, they whine about Fox news, Conservatives whine about CNN, CBS... I really don't know what would replace the media, but any one accepting the media as not being bias and 100%... I worry about. If they are selling what I like obviously, I will like them.. maybe.

Someone was bemoaning the fact the sense fedora wearing smoking new commentator left the news, the news went down hill. They went on to say, that regular programing paid for the new room, but that changed. The news had to pay for itself. When that happened... things are no longer straight forward.


Everything people do is biased. I was chuckling at the thread, the intel was manipulated............ Shyte, everything is manipulated especially any and all reports. That is human nature. Intel is no different from basic field reports all the way up to ....... reports are combined with other reposts to add overview. Nothing has to be dishonest, it just that more things are noticed and put into perspective with other things.

No different than the skuttlebut for the grunt, as information wanders through the chain of command up or down.

You might have missed out, when Saddam was selling he had WMDs big time. Or that some Generals of Saddam were talking to the US about deals. I believe the current administration and Military thoroughly felt that Saddam had WMDs from all the information they were getting out side of actually touching them.

Saddam's Generals were interrogated after being captured they all stated that Saddam said he had them, but they personally did not know where.


BTW, did you notice Saddam did not have much of a defence? He did put up a lot bigger fight in Kuwait, so why?

Saddam had his plan but backfired. Part of that plan was selling WMDs, to delay any invasion. I'll let you figure out why.


OK Iraq is a cluster..... Media hammers that the US is loosing, loosing what? what is ours to gain? The conflict is a Iraqi conflict, victory is only for the Iraqi, the solution will be Iraqi.

I like to keep in mind the first casualty of any battle is the battle plan. Those opposing the MNF is doing everything in their ability to muck it up.

The Oscars, the media, is all political, --- almost what is not. even the Chamber of Commerces has political goals. The media is no sacred cow, no more noble than the National enquire, no more non-political as even the DNC or RNC............. As I mentioned earlier, at least when I was in the Soviet Union, the Soviets knew their news was biased........... I wish Americans would figure that one out too.

Hollis, although I disagree with you, I appreciate you keeping the debate on a higher plane.

I respect your views and would even agree that no one should base their opinion on just a limited access to the media (and intel). If you read the New York Times, read the Washington Times as well. If you watch O'Reilly every night, try watching Olbermann once in a while to see what the other side is thinking. I am fortunate enough to be able to see French, German, and other daily International newscasts and all of them have a different lead story.

My point is why demonize the press just because you disagree with an article or an editorial opinion? Just because you don't like a story, how does that make it biased? Because you say so? The implication that the press has a hard on for conservatives just because they are right wing allows you to marginalize the real problems in Iraq instead of facing up to the reality that the Bush administration has seriously screwed the pooch.

At first, this disrespect for the First Amendment was harmless, but as we go deeper into the rat hole that is Iraq, it is vaguely reeking of a "Stab in the Back" mentality, as if it is the media's fault that the war isn't going the way we would like it to. To me, that is dangerous. The Constitution is full of checks and balances and that is why Freedom of the Press is protected.

If you don't like what you're reading or watching, don't read it or turn the channel! Or make a profit off of that discontent like Rupert Murdoch did with FOX.

A large percentage of Americans don't even give a flying fcuk about the press or its role in America's politics-- how many people didn't vote in 2006? I don't know the figure but wasn't there a report that there were more votes for the final "American Idol" than in the American Presidential election? More people know who Anna Nicole Smith was than who Nancy Pelosi is. That's America and CNN, FOX, the Times, Drudge, et. al, ain't going to change it.

"The first casualty of war is truth," Senator Hiram W. Johnson (R-CA), 1917.

[Firetxmi]

We have to realize that the media is there to play the "Fourth Estate." They are important to our political process here in the U.S.

Part of being the "Fourth Estate" is not towing the party line....

It is part of the checks and balances.....

[budgie]

Unfortunately the current administration can't stand the idea of its power being checked by anyone, much less the media. Fort this reason the media in America was too scared to dig deeper in the runup to war for fear of being labelled 'unpatriotic'. Now they've caught up and report on things as they are in Iraq, they get blamed for 'undermining The Mission (tm)' and 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy'.

America is having trouble handling its fourth estate.