Is It Time To Wake Up And Tighten Military Censorship?

[PanzerJaeger]

Do we not owe it to our soldiers in the field to do everything we can to ensure their success?

The recent Newsweek disaster was only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to our(american) own news sources printing negative stories about the military that relied on shoddy sources or allegations by people with a vested interest in attacking America. Does anybody want to hazard a guess at how many front pages Abu Garib got in the NYTimes? The vast majority of the media has shown a clear anti-military attitude.

Now of course the liberals would call this responsible journalism, but they have wanted Iraq to be a failure from the beginning so their opinion is somewhat negligible. Any objective analysis of warfare, especially the type we are currently in will yield that in an army of hundreds of thousands of men there will be a certain amount of unsavory behavior that the military must correct. The media has shown itself unable to put this into perspective, and just last weekend it cost lives.

This thread was prompted by my friend who just emailed me from Iraq. He says that things arent half as bad as the media portrays them to be. I see this as a direct negative influence on our soldier's moral.

America has had a long and successful relationship with media censorship during a time of war. This censorship seems to have lessened dramatically in recent times and we have felt the effects already once(vietnam).

I see no reason whatsoever to allow a hostile media as much access to Iraq and our soldiers when it has been shown to cause losses in moral and more trouble for our troops. Any news about the military should be checked by the military before being shown to the fickle public. There are many lessons that must be re-learnt from WW2 it seems.

Its a sad state of affairs when American lives are at stake and the media feel it is their job to kick around the military. At a certain point we need to put our soldiers lives and our countries success in iraq on the balance with the media's "right" to know everything and see which one weighs more. Especially as the media has shown itself to be so hostile.

Ernie Pyle would be rolling in his grave if he saw some of the crap reported on today and how it affected our troops. :no:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I agree. Some of the stuff that the NYT and other media giants reports is just plain stupid. They don't report the rebuilding, all the new hospitals and schools, the people who have running water for the first times in their life, or any good things. Just "Marine kills Insurgent" and "Prisoners Tortured." It's a disgrace, and it makes me ashamed to be an American, not because of the actions of our soldiers, but because of the actions of our media.

[Templar Knight]

People do have a right to know but if what is being published is affecting the troops on the ground doing their job properly or in the worst cases as we saw recently - claiming lives - then yes, there has to be stricter censorship.

[BDC]

No. If it's not open you get real messes, think Boer War and stuff. The media could report slightly more solidly and with regard to the bigger picture though. Having said that, they are quite good about it here now. Reports are basically "lots of people die as insurgence blow themselves up again" (couldn't really censor that anyway) and "MoD network crashes as fake music video is emailed too much".

[Steppe Merc]

We need to keep the government and all of their wings, including the military on their toes by exposing their corruption.
If we allow the government to control the media as you suggest, this would be disastrous.
I fail to see why someone would be against a big government, and yet for the government controlling the media and telling the people more lies than they natrually do.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Time to send the thought police after steppe! ~D jk man.

I think we should let the government control the media. At least we'd stop hearing bad things.

[Blodrast]

Well, it would be best to have "responsible" journalism. Media repeatedly flashing things that could be considered "anti-nationalistic" into the public's face just to up their ratings/sales is not very responsible at all. However, if the published things are true, and expose government corruption, etc, it is actually a good thing. But please note the distinction between the two cases, especially the motivation (and the truthfulness of the issues).

However, censorship can rarely lead to something good. And once started on that path, it's hard to stop. Very hard. You know that power corrupts, and all those cliches, but they are true. 1984, anyone ? And please don't tell me you think that was "fiction".
:bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

I think we should distinguish between the war and the other government responsibilities.

Im all for some investigative journalism into congress or the executive, but I cannot stand the media's intense interest in scandalizing the military during a wartimes situation.

I feel the military is capable of governing itself, as it was in WW2. There was plenty of censorship in that war yet america didnt become more authoritarian - unless you consider FDR's big government a step in that direction, but that has nothing to do with censorship. ~;)

It is very difficult if not impossible to win wars with a hostile media, therefore i feel something must be done. Far too many lives are at stake for anyone to be concerned about the LATimes circulation rates.

[Blodrast]

I think I agree with you as far as the problem is concerned, but not too sure if gov't control is the right solution.
I can't really say which is the case with this war-related news coverage, i.e. whether it's a lot of truth, or very little or no truth wrapped up under big flashy headlines just to sell more / increase ratings. I can't say anything about that because I have no idea what the truth is, if their sources are valid or they take them as such, or if they don't really care to verify and just publish it away if it sounds "hot".
However, my personal feelings and beliefs tend more towards sensationalism rather than truth and "keeping the public informed". And of course, you're right, just throwing dirt isn't gonna help anybody anytime. ~:cheers:

[Steppe Merc]

Time to send the thought police after steppe! ~D jk man.
~D

I'd be interested in hering Gawain, Red's and Dave's, and other ex military types opinons on this. Because I think that by hiding the amount of people dying, it would be doing an insult to those that lost their lives on both sides.

[Redleg]

There should not be censorship on any governmental activity in regards to the news. However that does require the journalism profession to stick to a code of professional ethics and be responsible for what they report.

When in doubt about the story - it should not be reported until it has been adequately checked out and verified.

The journalist can not always predict accurately how the audience will react - but attention to detail and accuracy in the reporting insure that the journalist is telling the truth.

Journalism needs to be balanced - not only reporting the bad news - but reporting all the news of the day. Modern Journalists often focus more on negative news - then telling all the news. Journalists are being to free with the story telling and editorializing (SP) of the news - and not reporting the facts of the events.

[Steppe Merc]

Well I agree with you there. The media has to be fair, and only report on accurate, proven facts, and not on what they want to hear. And I'd say their is far to much editorilizing on both sides of the political specrtum with their respective media supporters.
While the media is often unfair, shutting them out from such an important part of our government and that has major impact on people's lives is not the proper way to fix the problem, IMHO.

[Proletariat]

What kind of punitive measures could you place on the media outlets to ensure tougher accountability? I like the idea of one year's worth of profit from The Sun and Newsweek going to an Iraqi orphanage, myself.

[Steppe Merc]

I would support that. Oh, and all those stupid tabloids get orphanages they pay for too...

[Tribesman]

Censorship , No .
Responsible accurate reporting of news , Yes .

One has to wonder , if the torture and murder of prisoners in Afghanistan had been fully and accurately reported at the time , then just maybe the torture and murders in Iraq would not have happened .
If you don't want people to read about torture and murder then the thing to do is not commit those acts , not tell the press to remain silent about it .

They don't report the rebuilding, all the new hospitals and schools,
Maybe they will when it happens Kapo ~;) Though a while ago there was a thread that started with an article from a US officer saying that the only media outlet that regularly reported the positive things happening in Iraq was Al-Jazeera ~D ~D ~D

[Leet Eriksson]

Ironically the american funded al Hurra did not report it ~;p

On another note Al Jazeera is still a decent news source, but most people watch Al Arabiya now.

[Tribesman]

On another note Al Jazeera is still a decent news source,
No , it a Muslim fundamentalist anti-American propoganda machine ....which is why they cover the positive stories that emerge from the ongoing mess that is Iraq ~;)

What kind of punitive measures could you place on the media outlets to ensure tougher accountability?
Set an example . Shoot Rupert Murdoch ~:cheers:

[Lemur]

Journalism needs to be balanced - not only reporting the bad news - but reporting all the news of the day. Modern Journalists often focus more on negative news - then telling all the news.Journalists also need to get paid, and their employers need to sell magazines, newspapers, click-throughs, whatever. And the public has never shown much interest in how many trucks on the highway didn't explode, nor in how many fathers didn't come home and slaughter their entire families.

Demanding that the newsies report all the good news to counterbalance the bad is against human nature. People want to hear about the gory stuff. Admittedly, they also want to hear about Brad and Jennifer ... oh, wait, I suppose that counts as gory stuff too ...

[Devastatin Dave]

~D

I'd be interested in hering Gawain, Red's and Dave's, and other ex military types opinons on this. Because I think that by hiding the amount of people dying, it would be doing an insult to those that lost their lives on both sides.

Well, its a fine balance. i believe that the media as well as the military have certain standards that BOTH must maintain to be the most effective. I find the recent Saddam incident highly irrisponsible and I hope that whoever leaked the photos should be exposed and punished. The biggest problem as, and at the same time, the greatest thing to have happened to the media and reporting is the 24 hour news outlet. The biggest problem is irrisponsible reporting, such as Geraldo on Fox news drawing out a map of wear the position of him and the troops he was embedded with were at. The problem I have with the media is when stories are overplayed or the editors inject their biases on a "news" story. Much like Abu Grabe. yes, it was wrong what the troops did, but it was not necessary to report it as extensively and over and over again. It simply aided the enemy (yes, the people that wanted myself, at the time, and my fellow troopers, dead are the enemy... a hard thing for the left to understand I know) and stroked the coals of hatred. Like Newsweek printing up a bunch of hearsay that got people killed. It was irrisponsible....
Along thos lines.... Could you imagine is Christians went nuts like the Muslims do everytime something is done or said against our Bible!?!?!? You liberals should be happy we are so nice!!!

Anyway, back to my point about the media. I've never been in favor of the embedded reporters. Look, war is the most evil thing on this earth (besides liberals ~D ) and I would not consider it censorship if we did not embed the reporters. Does that mean i don't want the press to report abuses or corruption... HELL NO!!! The press does serve its purpose, but I want it to be fair and accurate and not just thrown out there so it can beat the compitition for the first headlines. But much like war and the autrocities that occur during conflict, I don't see a change anytime soon.

[BDC]

I wait hopefully for the first blog by a soldier, updated live from the front...

Could be very interesting.

[Adrian II]

Well, its a fine balance. i believe that the media as well as the military have certain standards that BOTH must maintain to be the most effective. I find the recent Saddam incident highly irrisponsible and I hope that whoever leaked the photos should be exposed and punished. The biggest problem as, and at the same time, the greatest thing to have happened to the media and reporting is the 24 hour news outlet. The biggest problem is irrisponsible reporting, such as Geraldo on Fox news drawing out a map of wear the position of him and the troops he was embedded with were at. The problem I have with the media is when stories are overplayed or the editors inject their biases on a "news" story. Much like Abu Grabe. yes, it was wrong what the troops did, but it was not necessary to report it as extensively and over and over again. It simply aided the enemy (yes, the people that wanted myself, at the time, and my fellow troopers, dead are the enemy... a hard thing for the left to understand I know) and stroked the coals of hatred. Like Newsweek printing up a bunch of hearsay that got people killed. It was irrisponsible....
Along thos lines.... Could you imagine is Christians went nuts like the Muslims do everytime something is done or said against our Bible!?!?!? You liberals should be happy we are so nice!!!

Anyway, back to my point about the media. I've never been in favor of the embedded reporters. Look, war is the most evil thing on this earth (besides liberals ~D ) and I would not consider it censorship if we did not embed the reporters. Does that mean i don't want the press to report abuses or corruption... HELL NO!!! The press does serve its purpose, but I want it to be fair and accurate and not just thrown out there so it can beat the compitition for the first headlines. But much like war and the autrocities that occur during conflict, I don't see a change anytime soon.I have read this post twice and I have to say it's actually a reasonable, even a sensible view, Dave.

Bummer... ~D

[Ronin]

the media should be prohibited from publishing operational details that might put lives in danger obviously......

but when an army's action's are clearly against the very principles that it claims to stand for then it's hipocrisy should be denounced.

[Devastatin Dave]

I have read this post twice and I have to say it's actually a reasonable, even a sensible view, Dave.

Bummer... ~D

Oh, I forgot to put in the original post that any reporter, in particular liberal reporters, should be thrown into a wood chipper if they report something inacurately!!!! There, now thats better... ~D

[Kraxis]

The problem with airing the positive news is this:

"Breaking news! School is rebuilt and village gets water!"
People wouldn't even notice if it was all over the first page, and would move on to the next paper that said something horrible. You know, we are, as a species, masochists. We like to read about horrible stuff and get horrified. I wonder why... ~:confused:
When something spectacularly positive happens then we will see the press all over it. Say a spontanious positive demonstration for US forces in Iraq by Iraqis in Iraq. That would be something... To bad we won't see it.

But at least some have a sense of selfcensorship. I think I saw a clip of 60 Minutes where they talked to soldiers after they had shot a guy lying on the ground (apparently wounded and unarmed) from a distance. If that had been aired you can bet a storm would have risen in the rest of the world.

[Adrian II]

Oh, I forgot to put in the original post that any reporter, in particular liberal reporters, should be thrown into a wood chipper if they report something inacurately!!!! There, now thats better... ~Dhttp://www.world-of-smilies.com/html/images/smilies/engel/biggrinangelA.gif

[Idomeneas]

I think is time to wake up and tighten military interventions in the other edge of the world. As long as there will be atrocities and war crimes (that includes polluting the earth for the next 1000 years with shity clever bombs) there will be need for those to be heard and let the people that in their name those actions are done to be aware of them.

PJ just question and if you dont want dont answer. Whats this mania for justification of US army no matter what? I mean youre not even american. Why do you care so much about army being exposed for its mistakes?

[Papewaio]

Censorship of military actions (as in numbers deployed, where, what they are doing) should not occur until after the conclusion of the current campaign or when deemed safe to do so by the commanders (it may be safer to report that you have a million troops ready to go then pretend otherwise).

Censorship of military crimes should never be censored in a democracy. It makes it difficult to claim that you operate in a democracy at the same time as running a 'military are above the law ethos'. Military law should be clearcut, transparent and swift. It should if anything set the standard above that of civilian law.

Reporters should be held responsible for misleading reports. They should be charged with the appropriate crime. I would suggest if found guilty that they get the upper quartile of sentences when it involves the military or police if they have purposely/negligently reported untruths.

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ just question and if you dont want dont answer. Whats this mania for justification of US army no matter what? I mean youre not even american. Why do you care so much about army being exposed for its mistakes?

Ive been American for a few years now.

I speak up for the American military because they are good people doing the best they can for their country and the world.

In America there are all kinds of opportunities for young people willing to learn and work as hard as our soldiers do - but they chose to put their lives on the line for the rest of us.

Yet we have a hostile media and the leftists who only 30 years ago spit on them - and im sure wouldn't mind doing it again.

Theyre on the front doing the work most americans couldnt, and since i cant be with them Im going to damn well defend their honor from the liberals and america-bashers.

[Devastatin Dave]

Thanks PJ... ~:)

[Franconicus]

Censorship of military actions (as in numbers deployed, where, what they are doing) should not occur until after the conclusion of the current campaign or when deemed safe to do so by the commanders (it may be safer to report that you have a million troops ready to go then pretend otherwise).

Censorship of military crimes should never be censored in a democracy. It makes it difficult to claim that you operate in a democracy at the same time as running a 'military are above the law ethos'. Military law should be clearcut, transparent and swift. It should if anything set the standard above that of civilian law..
I totally agree with Papewaio. The Amerocan soldiers are fighting for Democracy and a free world. Do you think they would want to want censorship.


Reporters should be held responsible for misleading reports. They should be charged with the appropriate crime. I would suggest if found guilty that they get the upper quartile of sentences when it involves the military or police if they have purposely/negligently reported untruths.
I think punishment of wrong articles is the same as censorship. Thgis is a very sensitive topic.
Two additional comments:
- Who believes everything that is written in the papers? We expect nothing but lies. We only believe the things we wish (wow, I think this is a Cesar quote ~;) )
- The US government and the military leaders do their best to manipulate the medias, themselves.

[Papewaio]

I think punishment of wrong articles is the same as censorship. Thgis is a very sensitive topic.


I see a difference between a mistake, sloppy work and willfully lying.

[Franconicus]

I see a difference between a mistake, sloppy work and willfully lying.
I am sure you do. But punishment of wrong articles opens the door to censorship.

In Germany there was an affair in the 70ies. A newspaper wrote an article that a politician took many to buy planes of a certain company (Starfighters). The politician made the police search the offices of the newspaper and accused them for trading military secrets. This was a big scandal and in the end the politician had to go.

[Phatose]

Do we not owe it to our soldiers in the field to do everything we can to ensure their success?

No. Just plain no. We owe them a lot, we owe them tons. We don't owe them everything. And I, for one, am patriotic enough to think that we don't owe them selling out the freedoms they're over their defending for the benefit of their morale. I'd certainly like to think that most american soldiers would rather not have america selling out it's basic values for their morale.


The recent Newsweek disaster was only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to our(american) own news sources printing negative stories about the military that relied on shoddy sources or allegations by people with a vested interest in attacking America. Does anybody want to hazard a guess at how many front pages Abu Garib got in the NYTimes? The vast majority of the media has shown a clear anti-military attitude.

American soldiers occasionally misbehave. It happens. Happened in Abu Gharib. The media reports it heavily - as they should when protectors of western civilization cease to be civilized. Claiming media bias is just an old conservative trick, and you know it.[/quote]


Now of course the liberals would call this responsible journalism, but they have wanted Iraq to be a failure from the beginning so their opinion is somewhat negligible.

Ah....a psychic conservative who reads the minds of every liberal on the planet and uses it to devalute their opinions when it conflicts with your own. Madame Cleo, watch out.


Any objective analysis of warfare, especially the type we are currently in will yield that in an army of hundreds of thousands of men there will be a certain amount of unsavory behavior that the military must correct. The media has shown itself unable to put this into perspective, and just last weekend it cost lives.

And as the military in America is totally subservient to the civilian, civilian awareness of military misbehavior is reasonable civic duty. If by perspective, you mean we should accept a certain amount of barbaric behavior out of men defending goodness and righteousness....well, I disagree. If not, what do you mean?


This thread was prompted by my friend who just emailed me from Iraq. He says that things arent half as bad as the media portrays them to be. I see this as a direct negative influence on our soldier's moral.

If your friend, as a defender of freedom, isn't pleased by freedom, why, exactly, is he defending it?


America has had a long and successful relationship with media censorship during a time of war. This censorship seems to have lessened dramatically in recent times and we have felt the effects already once(vietnam).

America had long and successful relationships with many unsavory things. I think starting to live up to the promises we make our citizens it only a good thing. And if that means the media reporting war is hell.....well, I daresay that's a problem with war, not the media.


I see no reason whatsoever to allow a hostile media as much access to Iraq and our soldiers when it has been shown to cause losses in moral and more trouble for our troops. Any news about the military should be checked by the military before being shown to the fickle public. There are many lessons that must be re-learnt from WW2 it seems.

Hostile media? Exactly what version of freedom are these troops defending?


Its a sad state of affairs when American lives are at stake and the media feel it is their job to kick around the military. At a certain point we need to put our soldiers lives and our countries success in iraq on the balance with the media's "right" to know everything and see which one weighs more. Especially as the media has shown itself to be so hostile.

Media hostility. Conservative trickery. Soldier lives spend defending freedom vs. the freedom they're defending. Is this a hard question for you?


Ernie Pyle would be rolling in his grave if he saw some of the crap reported on today and how it affected our troops. :no:

True American Patriotism. Defending freedom right until it makes us look bad.

[Kraxis]

Phatose, you have to admit that if the media blows the bad stuff out of proportion and almost completely leaves out of the good stuff going on, then there is a problem. Not only for the soldiers' morale but also in terms of actually creating more enemies.

Can you agree to that? Or is that just freedom?

[bmolsson]

Freedom of speech is a bitch.....

Today we can't afford freedom of speech anywhere in the world. The ideal thing would of course be to have freedom of speech and everyone used that with responsibility, but unfortunately it doesn't work. The responsibility just isn't there.......

[Idomeneas]

Ive been American for a few years now.

I speak up for the American military because they are good people doing the best they can for their country and the world.

In America there are all kinds of opportunities for young people willing to learn and work as hard as our soldiers do - but they chose to put their lives on the line for the rest of us.

Yet we have a hostile media and the leftists who only 30 years ago spit on them - and im sure wouldn't mind doing it again.

Theyre on the front doing the work most americans couldnt, and since i cant be with them Im going to damn well defend their honor from the liberals and america-bashers.

oh boy. Somebody has the need to belong..

And in many cases my friend those people in the fron are not there for the rest of you but because they didnt had an opportunity in the land of opportunity. Do you really believe that those soldiers (not career officers) would be there if they had an other option?
You know there is a saying. Where logic ends army starts. I cant figure who would be happy to be ordered around and spend time in deserts while being shot.
Maybe if you support so much the ideology behind those new style wars you should join the army. There are many posts where somebody can serve no need to be RamboVIII

Oh and in my opinion. You just live in america. Since you dont come from american parents or live decades there you are just a german living and working in america.
My man you are more royalist than the king himself

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Do you really believe that those soldiers (not career officers) would be there if they had an other option?

Not all but many would without a doubt be there. Many wounded soldiers cant wait to go back over there and rejoin their units. Your cluless as far as the military here goes it seems. Trying to portray these people as only interested in furthing their education at the expense of the government or that they were duped into joining insults not only our military but them personaly. AS an aold saying goes "Tell it to the Marines" that is if you have the nerve and can run real fast.

[Redleg]

oh boy. Somebody has the need to belong..

Yep - you sure do.


And in many cases my friend those people in the fron are not there for the rest of you but because they didnt had an opportunity in the land of opportunity. Do you really believe that those soldiers (not career officers) would be there if they had an other option?

How many American Servicemen and women do you know - this statement sounds like an uneducated individual trying to sound self-important about something they know nothing about. You might want to research a little more before jumping to the conclusion that the American servicemember fits into this generalized ideological postion. My little brother still serves - and he has numerous opporunities elsewhere. I served and I went in both as enlisted and then as an officer - with other options that I could of took. I served with a bunch of soldiers who served for numerous reasons - some to see the world, some to gain some maturity, some to escape the conditions of their home - be it rural or intercity, some to earn money to futher their education, some because they wanted to join and make a career. Some who initially only wanted the initial enlistment - stay because they enjoy the commrades that they served with.



You know there is a saying. Where logic ends army starts. I cant figure who would be happy to be ordered around and spend time in deserts while being shot.

Then show a little logic on your part - because even with this little saying you are showing how illogical your ideological values are.



Maybe if you support so much the ideology behind those new style wars you should join the army. There are many posts where somebody can serve no need to be RamboVIII

Maybe you should also - so you get an idea of what the Military of the United States is about - no I am not talking about joining the military of your country - but the United States Army. Maybe being exposed to some professional NCO's would do you some good. I know it would of done some soldiers in the United States Army some good - but its a large organization with the social and society mix as diversed as the United States is itself.


Oh and in my opinion. You just live in america. Since you dont come from american parents or live decades there you are just a german living and working in america.
My man you are more royalist than the king himself

That is for PJ to address - but it seems to me - that instead of attempting to slam someone with different beliefs maybe you need to take a different approach. Your generalization of the vast number of men and women who have served in the military is nothing but an ill-informed rant based upon your own narrow world view. How ideological and idealistic of you.

[Steppe Merc]

Censorship of military crimes should never be censored in a democracy. It makes it difficult to claim that you operate in a democracy at the same time as running a 'military are above the law ethos'. Military law should be clearcut, transparent and swift. It should if anything set the standard above that of civilian law.
Exactly. The military is not America, and frankly I don't believe the government is even America, but that's me. The American people are America, and the people have the right to know what their government and military is doing in their name.

To place this much power in the hands of the military and the government... PJ, wouldn't that be the ultimate "big government"? Isn't that what conservatices are against? Or am I (which I very likely am), misinterpreting what big government means and what conservatives stand for?

[Redleg]

Exactly. The military is not America, and frankly I don't believe the government is even America, but that's me. The American people are America, and the people have the right to know what their government and military is doing in their name.

This I believe is absolutely correct, also.



To place this much power in the hands of the military and the government... PJ, wouldn't that be the ultimate "big government"? Isn't that what conservatices are against? Or am I (which I very likely am), misinterpreting what big government means and what conservatives stand for?

Censorship is just one of many steps that lead to the "big" government or in more realistic terms in my opinion, active censorship is one of the first steps in governmental control of the citizens lives.

[Tribesman]

Exactly. The military is not America, and frankly I don't believe the government is even America, but that's me.
Thats sounds very like Karzais speech in Washington today .

[Devastatin Dave]

Thats sounds very like Karzais speech in Washington today .


That was some speach, you could almost not see the strings moving him. ~D

[Tribesman]

That was some speach, you could almost not see the strings moving him.
Yeah , what a silly bugger , imagine wanting control of coilition forces , notification of operations and jurisdiction over prisoners , who does he think he is , the leader of a country or something ? ~D

[Idomeneas]

Yep - you sure do.

Im not pretending something im not. I dont have identity crisis. Im ΕΛΛΗΝΑΣ (greek) and i ll always be even if i live in antarctica.

How many American Servicemen and women do you know - this statement sounds like an uneducated individual trying to sound self-important about something they know nothing about. You might want to research a little more before jumping to the conclusion that the American servicemember fits into this generalized ideological postion.

Ok by your experience lower class is not the major part of US army as in any part in the world, but successfull men and women dumping their lives and run to enlist as mere soldiers.

My little brother still serves - and he has numerous opporunities elsewhere. I served and I went in both as enlisted and then as an officer - with other options that I could of took.

Sure there are people who really like the army. I dont exclude that. Maybe you are one of them. Maybe on the other hand you preffered the stedy job that military offers over the unstable free market.

I served with a bunch of soldiers who served for numerous reasons - some to see the world, some to gain some maturity, some to escape the conditions of their home - be it rural or intercity, some to earn money to futher their education, some because they wanted to join and make a career. Some who initially only wanted the initial enlistment - stay because they enjoy the commrades that they served with.

Most of the cases you reffer sounds like having no other option. And also i think that the right to education is fundamental. Its highly immoral IMO for any gov to bait kids in military service in exchange for education.


Then show a little logic on your part - because even with this little saying you are showing how illogical your ideological values are.
I didnt saw you proving any of my points illogical and my -and others- experience in the army made that saying.



Maybe you should also - so you get an idea of what the Military of the United States is about - no I am not talking about joining the military of your country - but the United States Army. Maybe being exposed to some professional NCO's would do you some good. I know it would of done some soldiers in the United States Army some good - but its a large organization with the social and society mix as diversed as the United States is itself.

2 years in the army were enough for me. I prefer being an artist. Im certainly not the ''yes sir'' kind. I dont think US army has something more or special besides the best possible equipment there is. The social and sociaty mix there is also in Greek army since its mandatory to serve. So you can have a lawyer and a farmer doing the same stuff.

[B]That is for PJ to address - but it seems to me - that instead of attempting to slam someone with different beliefs maybe you need to take a different approach. Your generalization of the vast number of men and women who have served in the military is nothing but an ill-informed rant based upon your own narrow world view. How ideological and idealistic of you
Im not attemting to slam anybody. I was impressed by the heat of PJ's points when he is not even american. Maybe you have a wider view about army and what it stands for as an officer that invested his life in it. I wonder evertbody who served thinks the same?

[Redleg]

Yep - you sure do.

Im not pretending something im not. I dont have identity crisis. Im ΕΛΛΗΝΑΣ (greek) and i ll always be even if i live in antarctica.

Good for you - And I am American and Have served in the military - and worked with over 1000 soldiers from all aspects of the American Military.



How many American Servicemen and women do you know - this statement sounds like an uneducated individual trying to sound self-important about something they know nothing about. You might want to research a little more before jumping to the conclusion that the American servicemember fits into this generalized ideological postion.

Ok by your experience lower class is not the major part of US army as in any part in the world, but successfull men and women dumping their lives and run to enlist as mere soldiers.

Again with the crappy language for a system you have no knowledge about - nor do you know the quality of individuals that serve. The military of the United States comes from all aspects of our society. From the wealthy to the poor. Yes sussessful men and women do join the military for the aspect of serving their country - some enlist for a very short time - some make it a career. Should I start trashing greek citizens from the little I know of greeks - like you are attempting to do to the citizens that serve in the United States military.


My little brother still serves - and he has numerous opporunities elsewhere. I served and I went in both as enlisted and then as an officer - with other options that I could of took.

Sure there are people who really like the army. I dont exclude that. Maybe you are one of them. Maybe on the other hand you preffered the stedy job that military offers over the unstable free market.


Got a steady job in the Free Market in a declining industry - again making comparision based upon your own baised views. Really sad. I could make some generalizations about Greece from the langauge and statements you
have made - and I would be just as wrong as you are now.


I served with a bunch of soldiers who served for numerous reasons - some to see the world, some to gain some maturity, some to escape the conditions of their home - be it rural or intercity, some to earn money to futher their education, some because they wanted to join and make a career. Some who initially only wanted the initial enlistment - stay because they enjoy the commrades that they served with.

Most of the cases you reffer sounds like having no other option. And also i think that the right to education is fundamental. Its highly immoral IMO for any gov to bait kids in military service in exchange for education.

LOL - again showing your own baised and lack of knowledge about the United States - one can go to college for free without joining the military. Its really rather simple - did it myself 20 years ago. Whats sad is again you are speaking based upon your own baised and un-informed views without bothering to actually discover the truth on your own. THe United States Military is not the Military of Greece.



Then show a little logic on your part - because even with this little saying you are showing how illogical your ideological values are.
I didnt saw you proving any of my points illogical and my -and others- experience in the army made that saying.


Again when you are making your opinion based upon other viewpoints - you get stuck with their baised views. You challeged Panzer to join the military - well the same applies to you - your making a baised judgement based upon little to no information - from what I gather is only negative sources and most likely very limited. A logical fallacy on your part - the sample size must be large enough and diverse enough to carry the full spectrum of the society, in this case the military, to make value judgements. The United States military runs studies with the RAND Corporation and others that would show you exactly how flawed you are in your logic - but it would mean that you would actually want to educate yourself on something verus having a pre-concieved baised viewpoint. Something that I am willing to bet you will not do. Because its easier to just trash something that you don't understand then it is to discover what all the issues that are involved.



Maybe you should also - so you get an idea of what the Military of the United States is about - no I am not talking about joining the military of your country - but the United States Army. Maybe being exposed to some professional NCO's would do you some good. I know it would of done some soldiers in the United States Army some good - but its a large organization with the social and society mix as diversed as the United States is itself.

2 years in the army were enough for me. I prefer being an artist. Im certainly not the ''yes sir'' kind. I dont think US army has something more or special besides the best possible equipment there is. The social and sociaty mix there is also in Greek army since its mandatory to serve. So you can have a lawyer and a farmer doing the same stuff.


Not even close - its completely volunteer - no forced service unless you are caught in a stop loss. Big difference between the two armies.



[B]That is for PJ to address - but it seems to me - that instead of attempting to slam someone with different beliefs maybe you need to take a different approach. Your generalization of the vast number of men and women who have served in the military is nothing but an ill-informed rant based upon your own narrow world view. How ideological and idealistic of you
Im not attemting to slam anybody. I was impressed by the heat of PJ's points when he is not even american. Maybe you have a wider view about army and what it stands for as an officer that invested his life in it. I wonder evertbody who served thinks the same?

You can ask any individual that has served - and you will get the full spectrum of opinions - willing to bet Gaiwan's and Dave's experience and opinion about the military are similiar to mine - both served as enlisted. Others will share different opinions for instance Kafir has a negative opinion of the military because of his experiences in it. However you are making generalized comments about a military that you have no experience nor do you have knowledge of - and comparing it to your military experience. For instance I have trained with a few other nations military - when I was still in - their customs and values are completely different then the United States. And I would not make the same generalization about a whole group of people that you have made - with the limited knowledge that I do have of the people and armies of Germany, France, Canada, Britian, Syrian, Egyptian, and a few others.

[Idomeneas]

Good for you - And I am American and Have served in the military - and worked with over 1000 soldiers from all aspects of the American Military.



Again with the crappy language for a system you have no knowledge about - nor do you know the quality of individuals that serve. The military of the United States comes from all aspects of our society. From the wealthy to the poor. Yes sussessful men and women do join the military for the aspect of serving their country - some enlist for a very short time - some make it a career. Should I start trashing greek citizens from the little I know of greeks - like you are attempting to do to the citizens that serve in the United States military.


Got a steady job in the Free Market in a declining industry - again making comparision based upon your own baised views. Really sad. I could make some generalizations about Greece from the langauge and statements you
have made - and I would be just as wrong as you are now.

LOL - again showing your own baised and lack of knowledge about the United States - one can go to college for free without joining the military. Its really rather simple - did it myself 20 years ago. Whats sad is again you are speaking based upon your own baised and un-informed views without bothering to actually discover the truth on your own. THe United States Military is not the Military of Greece.



Again when you are making your opinion based upon other viewpoints - you get stuck with their baised views. You challeged Panzer to join the military - well the same applies to you - your making a baised judgement based upon little to no information - from what I gather is only negative sources and most likely very limited. A logical fallacy on your part - the sample size must be large enough and diverse enough to carry the full spectrum of the society, in this case the military, to make value judgements. The United States military runs studies with the RAND Corporation and others that would show you exactly how flawed you are in your logic - but it would mean that you would actually want to educate yourself on something verus having a pre-concieved baised viewpoint. Something that I am willing to bet you will not do. Because its easier to just trash something that you don't understand then it is to discover what all the issues that are involved.


Not even close - its completely volunteer - no forced service unless you are caught in a stop loss. Big difference between the two armies.



You can ask any individual that has served - and you will get the full spectrum of opinions - willing to bet Gaiwan's and Dave's experience and opinion about the military are similiar to mine - both served as enlisted. Others will share different opinions for instance Kafir has a negative opinion of the military because of his experiences in it. However you are making generalized comments about a military that you have no experience nor do you have knowledge of - and comparing it to your military experience. For instance I have trained with a few other nations military - when I was still in - their customs and values are completely different then the United States. And I would not make the same generalization about a whole group of people that you have made - with the limited knowledge that I do have of the people and armies of Germany, France, Canada, Britian, Syrian, Egyptian, and a few others.

well it seems that you didnt understood my point at all. Firstly i wasnt speaking of carrier officers or even junior officers. I was talking about the mere soldiers. Excuse me if i cannot be convinced that the soldiers that assemble the army basis are in their major percentage intellectuals or scientists that left their lives for the army. At least the interviews i ve watched and few -i admit- people i talked didnt give that impression. This is my opinion and i dont have to serve 20 years in US army or make a statistic in over 10000000 sample to get it.

Im know that you have the ''i served you didnt'' card in your sleeve but i just cant believe so easy that US army is so angelic and out of the worldwide standards (not just greek).

As for the invitation to PJ to serve, i think its the best for him to join what he believes so much in. Dont you?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

just to throw in my opinion.
I'm a Welshman studying for an MSc in the U.S.A.

Anyway, one of my good friends was in the marine corps since he left school. He was in the forefront of the initial fighting in Iraq. He has now completed his time in the Marine Corps (active duty and reserve:6 years in total). He has an excellent job working for MacKintosh. He has just signed up for extra time in the Marine Corps reserve and is thinking about re-enlisting as active duty.

Anyway, he loves the Corps, its values and his brother marines.

His decision was in no way based on him having no other alternative as he is rolling in cash from his current job.

[mercian billman]

well it seems that you didnt understood my point at all. Firstly i wasnt speaking of carrier officers or even junior officers. I was talking about the mere soldiers. Excuse me if i cannot be convinced that the soldiers that assemble the army basis are in their major percentage intellectuals or scientists that left their lives for the army. At least the interviews i ve watched and few -i admit- people i talked didnt give that impression. This is my opinion and i dont have to serve 20 years in US army or make a statistic in over 10000000 sample to get it.

Im know that you have the ''i served you didnt'' card in your sleeve but i just cant believe so easy that US army is so angelic and out of the worldwide standards (not just greek).

As for the invitation to PJ to serve, i think its the best for him to join what he believes so much in. Dont you?

The people who join the US military are not the losers you portray them to be; over 95% have high school diplomas (higher than our civilian population) and come from families that earn a median wage.

People living in "lower class" conditions do not make up the majority of the military, because they don't have access to education, and the "upper classes" are underrepresented as well. The problem here is that you don't understand that education is very accessible to middle/working class students. Even students that earned poor grade in High School can attend University and loans/grants are available for those that need them.

[Redleg]

well it seems that you didnt understood my point at all. Firstly i wasnt speaking of carrier officers or even junior officers. I was talking about the mere soldiers. Excuse me if i cannot be convinced that the soldiers that assemble the army basis are in their major percentage intellectuals or scientists that left their lives for the army. At least the interviews i ve watched and few -i admit- people i talked didnt give that impression. This is my opinion and i dont have to serve 20 years in US army or make a statistic in over 10000000 sample to get it.

Oh I understand it very well - its a baised and un-iformed opinion on the United States Military. Nor did I say that enlisted soldiers are scientists - however there are intellectuals in the military - some officers - some are enlisted. Again you have formulated a hostile negative opinion based upon your own baised views, your limited experience in your army and lack of knowledge about the citizens who join the United States Military. With the logic you are displaying I could say all Greeks are anti-american - and I would be just as wrong as you again. I could say some other hateful things also - and once again I would be just as wrong with that type of generalization as you are of the individual that serve in the United States Military. Try explaining why a professional football player gave up a promising career to join the United States Army? I even know of others - but that one made the paper.



Im know that you have the ''i served you didnt'' card in your sleeve but i just cant believe so easy that US army is so angelic and out of the worldwide standards (not just greek).


Did I say the United States military was angelic - nope. What I said is that its not full of the lower income - proverty stricken, no hope of outside employment - that you are alledging the United States Military is. That might be what enlists in the Greek Army because of your country's standards and conditions - but that is not an accurate generalization for the United States Military. The accurate generalization for the United States Military is that its officer and enlist corps consists of a majority of the Middle-Class, with the other economic classes represented in roughly the same precentage as the general ratio for the Nation. Futhermore the ethnic mixture is also generally in line with the ethnic makeup of the nation. Several sites can be searched for to reference the actual data - if one is so inclined to make an informed opinion - verus the one you currently have.



As for the invitation to PJ to serve, i think its the best for him to join what he believes so much in. Dont you?

And he has already stated several times that for medical reasons he can not serve. However that does not prevent you from joining the United States Military and discovering first hand about how mis-informed you truely are. Nor did it prevent you from ignoring other threads where he has stated this.

[PanzerJaeger]

And in many cases my friend those people in the fron are not there for the rest of you but because they didnt had an opportunity in the land of opportunity.

Have you ever been to America? Do you know whats required of a modern soldier? The days of throwing a gun at them and sending them in the field is over. These guys have to learn very advanced and technical skills in the military - no wonder so many technical jobs will only hire ex-military. You obviously have no idea of the class makeup of the military - people come from all groups and backgrounds.


Do you really believe that those soldiers (not career officers) would be there if they had an other option?

Yes, thats why they volunteered. Yet again you show a distinct misunderstanding of America. There are plenty of jobs here for people smart enough and willing to work as hard as soldiers do.


You know there is a saying. Where logic ends army starts. I cant figure who would be happy to be ordered around and spend time in deserts while being shot.

Patriots..


Maybe if you support so much the ideology behind those new style wars you should join the army. There are many posts where somebody can serve no need to be RamboVIII

I went to the Marines first and then the Army - both turned me down.

And why should someone have to be in the military to support the troops? what a strange country Greece is. :dizzy2:




Oh and in my opinion. You just live in america. Since you dont come from american parents or live decades there you are just a german living and working in america.

Lol - theyre sure happy to accept my tax payments.

Im proud of being of German ethnicity and Im proud of being an American citizen - so define me however you like.



My man you are more royalist than the king himself

Yet again you show a lack of understanding about what it means to be American. ~:rolleyes:


Comments like yours are exactly why I stand up for the US military. Its obvious from your statements that you have been misled about America and its military.

You really should meet a few US soldiers of any branch before you call them low-class, suicidal, idiots. They are the best America has to offer and they deserve 100% better than what they get. The way the media exploits them to make political attacks against President Bush is disgusting, even more disgusting than your apparent apathy in actually thinking farther than what youre told in greek newspapers about the US. (The Regime of the Colonels has been over for decades now, of course the greek press will never forgive it.)

[KafirChobee]

Do we not owe it to our soldiers in the field to do everything we can to ensure their success?

The recent Newsweek disaster was only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to our(american) own news sources printing negative stories. The vast majority of the media has shown a clear anti-military attitude.
SAY WHAT? [MAN THE MEDIA COULD NOT BE WAVING THE FLAG HIGHER IF THEY WERE IN A 15 MAN PYRAMID]

Now of course the liberals would call this responsible journalism, but they have wanted Iraq to be a failure from the beginning so their opinion is somewhat negligible. INTEPRETATION: SINCE WE WENT INTO AN ILLEGAL WAR ON LIES, WE SHOULD NOW ACCEPT THOSE LIES AND NOT CHALLENGE THE NEW REASONS FOR BEING THERE - IF YOU DO, YOU ARE A LIBERAL.

This thread was prompted by my friend who just emailed me from Iraq. He says that things arent half as bad as the media portrays them to be. I see this as a direct negative influence on our soldier's moral. [THE TRUTH DOES NOT DEMORALIZE, IT MAKES ONE WONDER WHAT THE f' ONE IS REALLY DOING THERE (somewhere). NOTHING MORE. IT CAN BE A RUDE AWAKENING COMING TO TERMS THAT MEN ONE LOVED, DIED FOR ANOTHER MANS OIL - RELIGION, POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, BUSINESS AGENDA, ETC. REALITY vs PATRIOTISM CAN REALLY SUCK AT TIMES - this maybe one of those times.}

America has had a long and successful relationship with media censorship during a time of war. This censorship seems to have lessened dramatically in recent times and we have felt the effects already once(vietnam). [ACTUALLY, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE TIME - GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE MEDIA ATTACKS ON fdr AFTER PEARL, and the disasters that followed (Anzio, the pass in NF, Casino, Italy - etc. etc etc - we won on sheer attrition principles, and the need to survive against pure evil). ]

I see no reason whatsoever to allow a hostile media as much access to Iraq and our soldiers when it has been shown to cause losses in moral and more trouble for our troops. Any news about the military should be checked by the military before being shown to the fickle public. There are many lessons that must be re-learnt from WW2 it seems.
[HMMMMMMMMMM, SEEMS THE BOY MAY HAVE SOMETHING HERE. LIKE WE BECOME THE NAZIS AND EVERYONE ELSE HAS A FREE PRESS. OR, THINKING THE PUBLIC IS BRILLIANT BY ELECTING a c student, and DUMB BY QUESTIONING HIS ATTEMPTS AT SUPPRESSING THE PEOPLE OF THE PRESS THAT BRING ISSUE TO THE MILITARYS' HANDLING OG IRAQ. YEP, PERFECT WORLD - PROPAGANDIZE THE CITIZENS AND THE SOLDIERS WON'T NO THE DIFFERENCE. bullshiite - soldiers know, some sooner than others - and some not at all, ever. It can be a hard thing to confess one's sins - especially to one's self.

Its a sad state of affairs when American lives are at stake and the media feel it is their job to kick around the military. ***WTF? please stop listening to Rush, and watching FOX news]*** At a certain point we need to put our soldiers lives and our countries success in iraq on the balance with the media's "right" to know everything and see which one weighs more. Especially as the media has shown itself to be so hostile.

**Hostile, in that if the truth affects the administration, its business interests, its political partners, it's GOP forever philosophy, it's we gotta justify this fubar anyway we can, its where we gonna attack next now that we own 60% of the press, 70% of the TV media, and have more convinced the solid righters we can return them to 1950 era justice, ethinic prejudice, and having found a new enemy (Moslims) we must be able to keep them that way as long as it is useful to the GOP - the party that needs an enemy.***

Ernie Pyle would be rolling in his grave if he saw some of the crap reported on today and how it affected our troops. :no:

Ernie, might very well be rolling in his grave. But, it would be because our sons are dying in Iraq (and the reasons that got them there) - and not for anything the "press' has said. Ernie, knew the troops - loved them, lived with them and abided by their rules. The "liberal" press types are the only ones following his example - in Iraq today. Maybe, that is why some think the info from troops coming out of there is "liberal" bs - vs the 6 or 7 o'clock news showing the last casualties and making them infamous by all saying "I died doing what I believed".

See a connection yet? Probably not, if your head is stuck squarely up your Republican dogma. Still, support the troops in an illegal war, at all costs? Almost sounds like an LBJ dogma. Guess it really does comes down to Americans grasping their political influence and dominance - over going along with the BS (regardless of party, religion, or ethnic persuasion).

Justification of an illegal war. Rings a familiar bell for me. Trying to justify the deaths of my brothers (friends) rings true. No one wants to confess, they lost someone they loved to a FUBAR - is why the WALL was built. And, now we have forgotten. 30 years, and a few still bitter vets have clouded the issues in Iraq.
Mores the pity. Mores the shame. Let's just move into this new concept of accepting the propaganda and less of listening to a formally independent press (well, not really, but more so than today).

[bmolsson]

Yes, thats why they volunteered. Yet again you show a distinct misunderstanding of America. There are plenty of jobs here for people smart enough and willing to work as hard as soldiers do.


I would disagree to that. It is inhuman to bring a young person to combat. Civilized humans are not prepared to kill other humans and for losy pay risk their lives. People in the army are victims, brutally used and seduced by politicians. Young peoples lust for adventure, need to quick fame and heroism are exploited and results in thousands of dead young people every year. You don't see any information on the risks in and ads to join and army or armed movement in the world. To be a soldier in combat is more risky than smoking or alcohol, still no warning labels are put on the ads.

Yes, this is sarcams, even if there is a serious underlaying message in to it.....

[Papewaio]

Actually the war is legal.

The tune it was drummed to may be suspect.

[Redleg]

Actually the war is legal.

The tune it was drummed to may be suspect.

Yes Papewaio is correct in my opinion - can one state that several politicans did not tell the truth on the matter.

hell where is Tribesman he does better on the sacrism directed at politicans then I.