Discussion Locked

Time TO Pay The Piper

0 helpful

163 replies

by mallardtooxx Mar 25, 2003 last reply Apr 6, 2003

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Okay folks, as usual the duck is going to skew the forum and step out of the bounds of IT for a second. Well not totally I guess. I have a little issue I would like your input on. As I get home at night flip on the war effort and watch as we blowmore and more of Iraq up; I have begun to wonder. Why is it, seemingly all of a sudden, the rest of the world is changing its mind about this war? Here is the IT part, do you think it is possible that the Embedded Reporting is making a difference in people's opinions? Is the Use of Technology in this war to bring instant news from the front line a good thing? Finally what is going to happen when we see people killed in real time and how will that effect the war effort? Drop em kids I wannasee what you are thinking on this issue, it is something that we are going to have to get used to I am sure of that. So lets hear it.

-duck

163 replies

by road-dog Mar 25, 2003

Hi Duck,

I'd be more than happy to chime in. Personally, I'm a little worried about the American people losing nerve as casualties mount. I think that they have gotten a little complacent about casualties because of the astounding success in the liberation of Kuwait.

I look at the situation as a different mission entirely. It is a lot easier to remove a couple of divisions of troops from a country the size of New Jersey than it is to chase a couple of divisions of troops around a countrythe size of California. When one considers that a huge portion of the warplan was upset by the denial of the northern fron thanks to Turkey, things are going well.

On D-day, we lost 4,000+ troops in the first 5 MILES of the advance. Invasion is an ugly and costly business. I think that things will begin moving in our favor in a big way very soon. In the last few hours, the civilians in Basra began openly fighting the Iraqi army. This will deny them safe havens within the civilian population and severely limit their ability to attack our rear echelon.

If this insurrection reaches critical mass and spreads within the Baghdad city limits, I feel sorry for the Baath Party and Republican Guard(not really). There are over a million civilians with a vendetta against Saddam and his cronies living in Baghdad. Saddam (if he's still alive), Tariq Aziz et al will wish that they had taken North korea up on their offer of exile.

by road-dog Mar 25, 2003

I'm all for it. I has to roll my eyes when the Fox news guy mentioned how it was taking so long to take out that pocket of resistance this week-end. It was an opportunity to show the world our restraint.

The next time the Iraqis pull the bait-and-switch white flag tactic, I hope that it's on tape. That way, when the French and the peaceniks decide to call for a "war crimes" trial for Bush, they will be shown to be the idiots they are.

Having the media "embedded" with the troops will change some minds in the media about the military's actions.

The fact that we've got them right where the action is shows the world we've got nothing to hide.

by mallardtooxx Mar 25, 2003

We really are showing tremendous restraint in this conflict. That to me is well illustrated by the, to use the venacular, m-beds. As for the bait and switch, my wife and I agree that the flag bearer and the guy next to him should be knee capped before we accept their surrender. "are you really, REALLY sure you give up?" that may take some of the guess work out of it. There is no doubt this will get far bloodier before it ends but I think Bush and the rest of the country will eventually be vindicated by the huge finds (WMD, Human Atrocities, etc.) they will make after saddam's ouster. Great post thanks

-duck

by generalist Mar 25, 2003

Having the 'embedded' media may be one of the better ideas of this war.

I suspect that British and American troops will do a fairly reasonable job of showing that they are concerned about minimizing civilian casualties.

I also suspect that theembedded media reports may prove invaluable should elements of the Iraqi military use chemical warfare. Real time images of such an attack would be as memorable as the Twin Towers being hit or certain images of Pearl Harbor.

I just hope and praythat such images are limited to the discovery of WMD and not their use.

by generalist Mar 25, 2003

Having the bait and switch white flag tactic on live video would definitely be something that would shift opinion.

So would having someone pull a machine gun out and firing while surrounded by women and children.

I suspect that the embedded reporters near the front lines are watching out for such things with a certain amount of ambivalency. Catching such a thing on video would almost guarantee that your name would be known world wide. Unfortunately, your name might also be on the casualty lists...

by tomsal Mar 25, 2003

This topic was on my mind this weekend (when the initial "shock and awe" bombing started).

I have mixed feelings about the embedded media teams with our soldiers. The more I think about it however, the more reasons I come up with for NOT liking it though.

The main good reason I can see with this is perhaps, just maybe there is the hope that since people see war in realtime it'll make it "more real" and this may cause wars to be more conservately fought. Case in point - when we, the public, didn't see the carnage its kind of out of sight out of mind. However now when we can see live humans dying, getting shot at, etc. etc.. maybe pressures will be placed on governments to be more careful of the risks they take - more politically correct with how prisoners are treated, etc. The end result, hopefully being slightly less pain inflicted -- less damage caused.

Now the reasons I don't like it. #1 - I think what I said in the beginning is a fairy tale. I don't think governments will care all that much about the carnage. #2 - How do you feel about this TV coverage if its your spouse, friend or sibling that is among those military personnel? At the least its unethical I believe to televise to the world what hell somoene's father/mother/brother/sister or friend is going through. Something sadistic to me about the image of people sitting on their couch with some popcorn and watching real live humans get shot at with real live bullets from people who really are earnestly trying to kill them. In short its a degradation of society and I think its only contributing to de-sensitizing the younger generation to violence. Making it in some ways more "acceptable", more "no big deal" to see someone killed for real.

Also there are lots of political ramifications with televising the war -- like what Iraq is doing now, twisting words of events -- distorting the truth.....

by jkaras Mar 25, 2003

The good to me out weights the bad. With the world opinion on the fence whether or not this war is justified merly shows our resolve during war. Our commitment regardless of the cost to the adherence to the Geneva Convention Act is demonstrated as we risk our troops to properly treat P.O.W.s shows in my opinion that we are not the evil that we get constantly painted at. Compared to the Iraqi human trap tactics that they have been engaging in. Dont get me wrong that I want war but the securing of the hidden 100 acre chemical factory that was hidden so well that was blabed by the captured P.O.W.s vindicates our purpose there. Stormin Norman said it best on CNN last night that any loss of life is never wanted in any war but compared to previous wars this is far better than any other. Real people die on both sides and the sacrifice that is given is truly understood by non-combatants. Also I saw on CNN last night a pollster that had highly educated Egyptians, 20 or so and asked them about their feelings towards America. They all agreed that it wasnt America that they had a problem with but our policies, namely Bush and his cronies. That opened the floodgate to point that this is about Israeli influence to erradicate them and that theyfear Israel, not Saddam cause they are a nuclear power. It's ok to have biological weapons of mass destruction and to inflict suffering on your own people if you oppose Israel cause they have the power to annihaliate arab nations. I sat there and said "whoa" worse than Keanu Reeves in every movie. Hatred is truly blind. I just dont get it.

by jkaras Mar 25, 2003

I remember seeing a Israeli/Palistinian youth retreat experiment a couple of years ago where the children after being removed from elders of both societies began to become friends and understand one another. They reinterviewed the same kids 2 years later and all said that they liked their counterparts but they were on the other side, black vs. white, the retreat wasnt reality merly a fake utopia that could never be. Will we ever understand one another, to quote Rage Against the Machine "hatred past on, past on."
On a side note in our local paper it listed the cost of wars in current 2002 dollars
War Total Direct cost % of Annual GDP
Revolutionary War (1775-83) $2.2billion 63
War of 1812 (1812-15) $1.1 billion 13
Mexican War (1846-48) $1.6 billion 3
Civil War (1861-65) $62 billion 104
Spanish-Amer .War (1898) $9.6 billion 3
WWI (1917-18) $190.6 billion 24
WWII (1941-45 $2,896.3 billion 130Korean War (1950-53) $335.9 billion 15
Vietnam War (1964-72) $494.3 billion 12
Persian Gulf (1991) $76.1 billion 1
hopefully this comes out right

by mallardtooxx Mar 25, 2003

I love the numbers! This is what I am talking about. Look at WWII We spent 130% of our GDP liberating Protecting Britian and liberating France. That means that we spent far more money than we had and did it gladly and today the only nation that truly respects us for it is Britian. Thank God for the UK if not for them we would truly be alone in this world. The french, well.... Great post though!! I think it is interesting to see what we will do to help the world out.

-duck

by cactus pete Mar 26, 2003

I'd love to see the source for the numbers. [I'm an econ guy...]

I think the writer may have done some bad crunching and taken the adjusted dollars spent as a percentage of the non-adjusted gdp. If my calculations from census data serve, the cost of the non-adjusted dollars, etc etc, [for WWII] comes to less than 90%.

Still, that's huge.

by jellimonsta Mar 25, 2003

I too have been glued to the TV at every opportunity to watch the progression of this situation. I am opposed to war but alike much of the American public did not know of another way to 'fix' the problem in Iraq (and Hussein is truly a problem).
While it is intriguing to see how things pan out in times of conflict, I think the torture it must be on the family members of the almost 300,000 troops is not worth satisfying my inquiring mind.
I do not feel a reporter and camera person has any place in a war.
The use of technology in times of war is otherwise a very viable solution. If it can be used to reduce collateral damage and save lives it should be embraced with open arms.

by mallardtooxx Mar 25, 2003

Jelli, do you feel that there is no place at all for media coverage or just not on the front lines? I am just curious because to a certain degree I agree.

-duck

by jellimonsta Mar 25, 2003

I do not feel there is need for media coverage in the front lines. I feel some media coverage on the current situation is apt, but the amount of media coverage practiced is beyond the necessary level in my opinion (and only an opinion it is).
while no one likes to be in the dark in this matter, the constant barrage of alerts and programming interupts is out of control. I cannot even imagine what the spouse or parent of a military personnel is thinking everytime there is a 'breaking news' update on the situation.
I am sure a lot of family members are biting their nails, waiting for word that Hussein has used chemical warfare on advancing troops.
I do not envy the poor family members of our troops at all.

by road-dog Mar 25, 2003

My brother's guard unit got called up but the order was rescinded. I know that I would be watching the news with different eyes if he had gone "over there".

This is no doubt VERY small consolation, but the wall to wall coverage is showing the good side of this mess. FOX News showed a bunch of Iraqi children (particularly a shy little girl)getting candy from a British Royal Marine and another BRM getting swarmed by another bunch of kids taking turns looking through his binoculars.

If this coverage weren't going on those godless bastards at aljazeera news would be happy to show the world all of the Osama and Saddam propaganda the want without any refutation. The atrocities involving our KIA and POWs would have been made public even if our media weren't in theatre. If an American is killed in the liberation of Iraq, not having it shown to the world doesn't lessen their family's loss.

It is important to show the world what's going on and why we're there. When it's over and the holocaust is revealed to the world, let's all make sure that Chirac and Martin Sheen et al know how wrong they were.

Evil prevails when good men do nothing....

by jkaras Mar 25, 2003

Yes, I agree thta it must be heart wrenching to see any friend or family member in harms way. I got 2 cousins(101 airbourne, navy) and a friend (airforce) out there somewhere and it would kill me to see them taking fire, I cant imagine if they were my kid or parent. However this conflict needs understanding for a fear of a Vietnam situation as these coalition soldiers exhibit "courage under fire". I honestly dont have a problem with protestors, they have the right to feel the way they do and atthe same time they have the chance to witness and understand the sacrific the individuals are doing. The only thing that I have seen that was a problem in reporting was my friend told me about a journalist near Basra with British troops broke the story of the Iraqi uprising which endangered those rebels cause the Iraqi forces heard about it and immediately began to kill the rebels further complicating the issue. This caused the British troops a major disadvantage to assist the rebels as the fighting got chaotic for them to distinguish friend or foe. The commander there chastized the reporter that the report costed lives as well as compromised lives. I also saw a reporter interview a soldier that was maintaining security on P.O.W.s while trying to do his job distracting him. He kept his focus on his prisoners like a good soldier only to be informed that Iraqis were faking surrendering. He was absolutly confused cause he never heard of that situation and he became very upset. I want coverage, proof, etc... but not at the cost of morale that could compromise all lives of our troops, British, and Austrialian. This just in... Heraldo has landed in Bagdad!! Were saved now, he'll challenge Saddam to a boxing match. How sad that he got there before the soldiers.

by longwalls Mar 25, 2003

I am totally in agreeance that we should all sit on the fence and consume beverages whilst conversing about the finer points on chess and sumo wrestling

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

Make Sad Man Who Sucks an offer he can't refuse an all expence paid holiday at teh Hyant Regency at Collum like most forien visitors we could tell him to go swinging on the unpatrolled private beach at night and watch the bastard drown just like so many other forein tourists. It would be a lot cheeper as well.

by gilvoice Mar 25, 2003

I believe most people will look at it as a TV program devoid of reality. Will it change opinion? I don't think so. we are hardened to TV death. My fear is people seeing thier son killed. What then will that person do for the rest of thier lives.
?

by jkaras Mar 26, 2003

Despite the "moron majority" most people can definetly distinguish the difference between movie and live footage. I dont think were are that de-sensitized as most people claim just all not that well educated. Most of America whether for or against are tuning in to the news and not the typical reality tv crap. The ratings clearly show this regarless the amount of protestors. Yes, I agree the thought of seeing someone I know over there taking fire would upset me massively. I do have a problem with the news hounds who are safe and sound over hear interviewing the families of captured or killed soldiers, this isnt journalism, it's parasitic and distasteful. Of course they're upset, leave them alone. These family members pouring out their hearts showing that their child or loved one was/is a great/caring person isn't going to sway the politician's to act further to save them. I admit it's important to put a face on a soldier to remind us that they are real people and not just a number, butthere is a line. I actually saw on the news last night about one of the captured soldier's wife that the military put a gag order on her when they found out that she was going to tell something about the situation her husband was in. The only excuseI could accept is if it would compromise his safety, but it sure sounded fishy.

by jellimonsta Mar 26, 2003

I can understand the fact that the military put a gag order on the spouse of a captured troop if that troop is a POW. We are still very early in the stages of this war (despite what everyone is hoping and praying for), so for someone to compromise possible military tactics or secrets is definitely something that should be abated. Regardless of freedom of speech.

by road-dog Mar 26, 2003

in an instance where a spouse or family member is a POW. DOD routinely passes along classified information to close family members to inform them as to the status of their loved one. This is justifiable, as the family has "need to know". However, the CNN reporter camped out on their front lawn and cramming a microphone in their face whenever they go outside to go to the grocery store does not have "need to know".

Having the crying family members on TV worldwide does nothing for the POW, but does give the enemy a propaganda victory.

Just once, I'd like to see a person faced with a very recent tragedy who is asked that ridiculous "how do your feel?" queston by a reporter deliver a solid punch to the face of said reporter and reply, "about like that".

There is a line between informing the public and exploiting misery. Reporters cross that line all the time. When they exploit misery, provide propaganda for the enemy, and undercut the morale of the people, they deserve a black eye at the very least.

by kethry127 Mar 26, 2003

I'm really on the fence on this issue. While I see the benefits of having media able to report at an instant, if we find chemical or biological weapons. I feel horrible for those military family that found out their loved ones where now POWs or possible dead, via the tv, before the DOD had a chance to inform them personally. Nor do I see the point of constantly having tv journalists asking them repeatedly how this impacts them or their POW loved one. Does CNN or ABC,NBC, CBS really think that Iraq will compassionate to them?

by admin Mar 25, 2003

I personally do think it's a very complicated issue. On the one hand in a perfect world I believe you would not cover it thoroughly, but wait until it was over. Especially seeing people killed in real time, what a can of worms that is. It is definately something I would prefer young children to not have to see yet, much less hear of how "cool" or "rich" it was that someone or some building exploded and guts flew all over the screen last night from school kids.

The reality is though, that coverage and the instant nature of modern communication has changed things. Blogging is even changing things. Having the reporters live, breathe and eat with the troops is a great way to really give the news in a palatable truthful way, which would justbe given from another slant if it didn't exist here.

Basically, I read blogs and news articles from around the world online and watch CNN, MSNBC, PTV, and NWCN etc. and look for the patterns in information that appear throughout, kind of like the historic search for Troy. The truth is in there, you just have to consider the sources and their bias and sift to the kernals of truth. The thing is, we have to be part of that process with as much free, fair, and unbiased reporting as we can or a big part will just be left out. America loses a lot of support both here and abroad when her truthful coverage is absent. IMO the American people are both smarter and fairer overall than we get credit for. One thing that this style of news is doing is showing that we can not only handle, but appreciate knowing what is really going on in real time.

by jardinier Mar 25, 2003

I am very disappointed that none of the postings have so far mentioned Australia which, despite public opinion against the war, has been America's unwavering ally in this campaign.
And I hear that our troops are playing a much more significant role than was initially anticipated.

I think you all know by now that I am a journalist which perhaps gives me a better insight into how the media works.

Those people who, like myself, have never seen action, have watched probably hundreds of movies about various wars, from the comfort and safety of our lounge chairs. Even the more realistic approach of recent movies still result in presenting war as an entertainment.

So for myself, seeing real time coverage of real action gives me at least a vicarious awareness of the horror of it all. I am all for live covereage from the front line, the back line, the sides and the top, because only by seeing all aspects can we hope to gain a balanced perspective.

by vawns Mar 25, 2003

I'm all for showing the horrors of war but what if it was you and it was your brother / best friend dieng out there? On the other hand if we don't show war for what it is, how do we stop the whole thing starting again in 10 years time? It really is a living nightmare. Sorry for sitting on the fence but I just don't know.

by road-dog Mar 26, 2003

Everybody sing along in the Key of C

Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in Nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history's page, let every stage
Advance Australia fair!
In joyful strains then let us sing,
"Advance Australia fair!"

To omit the contribution of a valued ally spilling the same blood in the same mud is truly bad form.

Jul, we are quick to stand up for our homeland, and I'm glad to see you sticking up for yours.

Now let's all get on with the business of rooting for our troops and praying for their safe and victorious return.

by admin Mar 26, 2003

With my comment on Americans I didn't mean to be exclusive in any way, only commenting on from my perspective! I am truly glad your and everyone elses perspective worldwide is here. Thank you!

And I also thank the Aussie troops :)

~Apologies!~

by tomsal Mar 26, 2003

I'm not sure where you got the feeling of no respect being given to Australia, I didn't read all the posts though so maybe someone blasted em.

I give kudos to all our allies for helping us, they are all brave men and women. I think Australia probably does get "glanced over" by some Brits and Americans, however, because they make up such a small number of troops comparatively speaking. I believe at the onset of the war less than 2500 australian service men and women were actively involved inthe coalition effort. Also, I don't think most of your continent (by your post I'm assuming you are Austrailian) think highly of its role -- an MSNBC poll released late last week say more than 70% of all australian citizens are staunchly opposed to Bush's war plans. 70%!!

To me though, I'm grateful to Australia , just as every other man and women fighting to "hopefully" make the world a better place -- which I do honestly believe the world will be safer with Saddam no longer in it, and especially with his regime no longer in power.

I still don't feel 100% comfortable with the live coverage though. I think we are making the current generation of kids, VERY VERY de-sensitized to violence. I just don't see how anything good comes out ofkids getting "used" to see people shot, dead, or beating the heck out of each other.

by jardinier Mar 26, 2003

Thank you all for your courteous responses to my posting. I don't know what you are seeing on American television, but I think that what we are seeing is both objective and fair, with almost no TV images of injured or killed military personnel, or any blood of any kind for that matter. I hope you have been informed that the first journalist to be killed in the action was an Australian cameraman who died when he stood beside a suicide car explosion.

We receive brief interviews from US, UK and Australian officers in Iraq, a very minimal viewing of actual damage, and non-televised interviews with journalists on the ground. There is absolutely no comment on the rights or wrongs of the war, but merely descriptions of what is actually happening.

I hope you are getting some news about the contributions of Australian troops which is quite phenomenal when you consider the relatively small numbers. They are doing things like clearing the Gulf of mines, with the aid of specially trained porpoises, so that supply ships can get through.

by mallardtooxx Mar 26, 2003

Whilst I will not apologize I will say good form. You're right Jujs, it is more than just america in this frey. I never meant to exclude any of our allies in this post. As a matter of fact I was hoping you would weigh in on this. If I had followed my original career path I could very well be there right now. I am proud of every soldier that is in the gulf, whether they be American, Austrailian, British, Spanish, and yes even Polish! It takes Doo-Dads to stand up and face men with guns shooting at you. It also takes a type of resolve that many people do not have, nor could ever hope to muster.
That being said, I am also proud of the people here and anywhere else that will stand up for the troops over there. When popular opinion says this is an unjust war it is hard to step back and say I disagree.
So yes Jules you are right, Australia is there and it is good that you support them as we do. Thank you for continuing to contribute to these discussions.

-duck

by generalist Mar 26, 2003

A punch to the face or the gut of a media maniac would definitely be satisfying.

Barring that, I've often thought that one thing the world needs is a media group who interviews the media and asks questions like "How do you feel about hounding that poor person to tears?"

Such a 'counter media' person might make the 'real media' think twice about what they do. And best of all, it would be perfectly legal and relatively easy to accomplish. (Yeah Internet and digital cameras!)

Of course,if the 'real media' tries to hide behind 'no comment' and freedom of the press, then they are themselves restricting freedom of the press.

Over time there would probably be a 'counter counter media' group to watch the 'counter media' group. ButI think it would work.

by road-dog Mar 26, 2003

at CNN. Her show went the way of Donahue on zippo point nada notice.

I can't say that I'm not pleased. I still remember when she asked Newt Gingrich's mother a question that she knew the answer would be controversial. When his mom hesitated to answer she tod her that the question was "off the record". Of course the question and answer went on the air. That duplucitous wench then tried the "it's news" defense.

One by one these unprincipled a$$holes are being shown as what they are. Their free ride is over thanks to the likes of Matt Drudge and FOX News.

Dan Rather would have gotten away with that propaganda shot and edited by Saddam's cronies if it weren't for the neomedia watchdogs.

With a little luck, Katie Couric will be inthe next wave of old media to be publicly revealed as the America hating liberals they are.

by jkaras Mar 26, 2003

I know this is rather a wrong question to ask, but since we are on the topic of the media....sigh...what do you think about not showing the executed P.O.W.s? I know it's so horrible to image as I know none of the poor soldiers that didnt get an honorable death that they deserved while in wartime. I honestly cant imagine if I knew any of them whether friend or family member. Everytime I think about this attrocity and see Saddam's right hand man (forget his name)say that their tactics are justified because they were invaded by a superior military force I walk out to my garage and pummel my heavybag. Is it necessary for understanding so the world to fully understand the evil that we are dealing with or is the price for horrific media coveragetoo much? I have seen many upon many pictures, footage of starved and murdered Jewish innocents let alone many executions from 3rd world countries that remind us of how some people treat others believing that they are God to toy with people as they feel. These horrible depictions are shown to remind us of why we must fight where diplomacy cant fix. Would people want to see this to feed their need for gore or for true understanding? Lastly will that piece of crap turncoat who naded his own regiment get the firing squad or hung if convicted? I never served but I believe he gets the squad, anyone know? I want him to get the worst execution possible for what he did. Sorry if this offends, but I had to ask for understanding.

by jardinier Mar 26, 2003

Fortunately for the sake of my conscience I never worked as a TV reporter. But I still cringe everytime I hear that "How do you feel?" thing. And if I was the bereaved person to whom the question was addressed, I'd probably do more than just punch the reporter in the face. He'd probably have to seek a new career as a Castrato singer.

Even as a newspaper journalist it was hard enough to be asked to ring some prominent person at some inconvenient time to ask them some ridiculous question whichyou knew would never be published anyway.

by jkaras Mar 26, 2003

It was in our local paper the Orlando Sentinel. I'm not sure if it is on their website or not but I have a xerox copy of the article if you want it. I could either fax it to ya or mail it. It astonded me as well, but trust it was quite accurate. Hitme with an email if desire.

by cactus pete Mar 26, 2003

They're owned by the same company as my paper {Chi Trib], so I'll look through what I've got again. Did they quote a source for the info, though?

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

But my official line is NO COMENT as I'm sick and tired of upsetting Americians and getting called names although I believe that you in the USA arn't getting the whole story as there have been news reports over here about what is happeneing to capured Americians and we are being told that these are not being broadcast in the US.

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

Where's Maxwell Edison he seems to know everything about everything. He hasn't made any commnets here yet I wonder why?

by road-dog Mar 27, 2003

Why is it that you post that you're sick of getting bashed, then in the VERY NEXT POST you see fit to "call out" another TR member.

I suspect that you're trying and failing to meet some pathological need for conflict.

Get a life, would you?

by jardinier Mar 27, 2003

Yep, my cobber Colin even had a go at me because I apparently made an error about who was using dolphins (porpoises) to detect mines. My last posting was sent incomplete as I accidentally pressed some key. To complete my sentence, I have also seen footage of RAN divers risking their lives locating mines WITHOUT the help of mammals.

But let's face it: it is a very emotional situation for everyone and the occasional slip-up should not be judged too harshly. Colin has added some valuable input to this discussion.

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

Max always claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about even when I say "I DON"T KNOW" he always tells people to ignore my comments. I was only comenting on the absence of any postings from him on this issue.

by hal 9000 Mar 29, 2003

Be aware of the history between Max and myself so don't poke your nose where its not needed you know full well Max takes every chance to deride me so don't complain when I return the favour you of all people should know better!

by kethry127 Mar 27, 2003

sorry to hear that you can't express your opinions to or about Americans without getting insulted. As an American I find it scary that my fellow citizens get so hypercritical when they hear something they don't personally agree with. but you're right we aren't getting the whole story here. As much as we like to talk about freedom of the press, that has often meant, news that is slanted or other wise controlled. non news being made into the next big headline to avoid looking into issues.

by generalist Mar 27, 2003

In order to get the whole story, from as many viewpoints as possible, one would have to spend at least twelve hours a day checking news from various sources around the world. And even then you would have to verify that the source of that news didn't come from the same sources.

To make things even harder, you would have to think about the bias represented by each news source. That bias filtering would add more time to your news watching.

When you get right down to it, very few if any people are getting the whole story.

by tomsal Mar 28, 2003

I agree with generalist...if you want the "whole story" --- throw on some BDUs, grab and rifle and hop on a plane to Iraq.

Otherwise, don't assume that ANY (INCLUDING FORIEGN NEWS!!!) is the "WHOLE STORY" and btw, millions of Americans have access to many of the channels other countries do - its called satellite TV. DirectTV alone offers like 500 channels.

I heard 100,000 more troops are headed over.... hmmm.. this is getting massive...

Bush -- prepare the nukes!!

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

The porpoises bit Julian, your wrong its the Americians who are using the dolphins not the Australians it was Major Peter Cosgrove that said the only mamals being put in danger from mines where human ones and Australian one at that. True the Americians are locating some mines with dolphins but its the Australian Navy divers who are clearing up the mess in waters that you can't see your hand held in front of your face at 3 inches.

At least get the facts right!

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

Is the footage will end up in the next version of Doom or Quake or something similar just to make it more realistic. These games aimed at children are far too graphic and currently this action is only giving the writers of these so called games better methoids of showing the destruction of people again to children. Is it any wonder that these kids find it hard to tell the differnce from fact and fiction?

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

Try out a game called Krush Kill & Destroy it was impressive when the player tore off aan opponents head that the spine came out as well with all the blood and gore into the bargin. It appaled me as a parent and my kids and now in their mid 20's just think what it's doing to our young when things like this are put out as play toys. It would be safer giving them an M16 set to Auto with a full clip. At least then when they killed someone they would not only see what they where actually doing but also smell death it's not that plesant.

by jkaras Mar 28, 2003

As an adult I am suprised to think that you as well as other people believe that these types of games will cause a child to kill. Never has there been a situation where a gory game influenced a child to have a desire to murder. Give children a little respect that they can tell the difference. These games as well as gory movies are merly a fun outlet, fantasy. As long as you communicate that the content is fictional to your children. It is your responsibility and your descretion as a parent whatyou will or will not allow in your household and I wouldnt think less of you. I do think that trying to shield or protect your children from certain things handicaps them to determine for themselves what's right or wrong to formulate their own opinions vs. listening to the crowd. Whether you allow it or not they will see it or play it somewhere without you knowing. There is a difference however that a child who stumbles across daddy's gun and believes it to be a toy not understanding the danger. Those incidents are absolutly horrible and extremly unfortunate. I didnt mean to stray from the thread nor insinuate the quality parent that I suspect that you are, merly pointing out a silly misconseption on gore for fun. P.S. on CNN I saw a breakdown of all special forces for all coalition forces, I must say I was impressed by both British as well as Aussie troops, talk about badasses!!!

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

Might be small they are also the most specalied troops available and most of them are SAS {Special Air Services} that means they opperate in small groups behind enemy lines passing back information their role is not to get directly involved if possible but to pass back data which can be acted upon as well as paint targets for Air Raids ect. These are our most specalised troops and are the best of the best. The same can be said of the Navy divers who are clearing the mines while they may be small in number they are efficent and the most highly trained people in the world.

So while the Australian troops may not number that many they do perform a task that no other country can with the same number of people on the ground, and they are often the subject of Friendly Fire because of where they are.

There was once a very old saying that went something like "Never Piss Off The Australians" they then take it personally and get mad and you can't deal with MAD MEN as they don't do what is expected. It still holds true today. The Japs learnt this in Papua before the Americians became involved in WW11 it just not a good idea of being on the recieving end of a "PISSED OFF" Australian.

by jardinier Mar 27, 2003

Sorry about the mix-up regarding the dolphins (whose side are you on anyway?).
Please note that I was the first Australian to post to this discussion, so there's no need to get personal.

I have also seen footage of the Australian divers riskingtheir lives removing mines WITHOUT

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

I didn't intend to get personal in my coments and it was not my intention to either but I do understand you error as I think I saw the same braodcast as you did where they showed dolphins locating mines then cut to the Aussie divers removing them itwas a bit confussing but then isn't it the press motto "Never Let The Truth Get In The Way Of A Good Story"? It was latter that Peter Cosgrove came on on a different channel I think and claimed that us Aussies where only putting Human life in dangersearching for these mines.

Congrats on being the first Aussie to plant a posting on this contriversial subject you are far braver than me as I don't want to look as if I'm bashing the Americians in any way because I agree with the idea although maybe not the methoid. But that being said its happening now and we could see it coming for a long time with the buildup of troops in the area we have to get on and live with whats happening and make the best of it. My only hope is that it doesn't start a general revolt in the Middle East with all the Arabs taking it into their heads that we {the aggressors for the very first time} are out to destroy Islam as is being portrayed by various media and start WW3 in the process. If you listen to the broadcasts from the Arab areas they are against the Invaders {us westeners}as they see us as invading a Soverin State even though their Governments don't see it that way but this beliefe is being fulled by the WACKO MINORITY RELIGIOUS LEADERS who takeevery chance to bash the West.

I was particuarly disturbed when I saw fottage of Indonseions standing in line to signup to fight the Americians in Iraq. This really has the makings of a mess that will be almost impossible to get out of if the need arises.

by tomsal Mar 27, 2003

If you could of seen my face reading your post you would of seen a huge smirk on my face the whole time. I salute your pride in your country! But I must respectfully be stubborn and say Marine Force Recon and Navy Seals kick arse!!! (I have friends in both) Army Airborne rule as well (I don't know the guy personally, but a friend of a friend is army airborne).

The finest trained soldiers in the world wear the red white and blue. ;)

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

Don't get any coverage in any way except maybe a death notice a long time after the event. Our SA persoanl can't be photograghed or reported on as to what they do, it would breach their security. Can you say the same about the units you mentioned? Just for the record a very dear freind of mine was in Vetinam and he continually told stories of the US troops going into combat areas with a can of coke in one hand their M16 slung over their sholder and a trani blasting its heart out No wonder they got the sh ! t shot out of them. And I won't mention what went on at the US Controlled Air Bases. But I must mention one incident that brought a great deal of pleasure to Tim an Americian GI insulted a Gurka {not a wise move at the best of times} so to get even the Gurkers used to sneek up to the Base guards and tie their shoe laces together and then sneak away once they where a safe distance away in their eyes they would throw a stone as far as they could only to watch the sentry fire at the sound then go arse over tit when they tried to step forward. The guy that insulted the Gurka who was incidently an Army Ranger didn't wake up next morning as he had, had his throat slit.

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

The problem started in Vetianam the troops where blamed for their political masters wishes and this is wrong any person MUST ALWAYS SUPPORT their countries troops even if they do not believe that they should be there. No matter what it is the Political Masters who should take the blame for a countries actions not the troops and what worries me in all the protests that I have seen it is the troops being malined and never the pollies. There has been talk of blocking supplies for the troops, this is unaceptable in any form and for any reason but in all the protests that I have heard there has never been any conent that the pollies should be blocked in their supplies and needs. It seems to me that it is always the troops who wear the blame forthe bad judgment of their political masters and the people never blame the pollies just the troops. And Remember it is your current Government as well as ours that still claim there is no Gulf Way Syndrome or any adverse affecte from Agent Orange. Its always our troops who put their lives on the line and they never get the respect that they deserve from either their conutrymen or thier Governments who sent them there in the first place.

Governments want these troops but in reality they are considered as disposable by the Governemnts while in action and are never given another thought after the event as it just might cost the Governments in Question some money to fix the problem that they started in the first place.

Don't get me wrongI am not against what happening at the moment, I just believe that the troops deserve a better deal than what they will end up getting.

by gseery Mar 27, 2003

I see the use of embedded reporters as being a risky proposition, for the public and for the administration. The administration basically loves it because it keeps the vast majority of the reporters tied down and accounted for. I read something in this weeks "US News and World Report" where the (off-leash) journalist was being threatened by US troops to be sent back to Kuwait, because he was operating free of the 'embedded journalist' restrictions, and was going to where he thought he might find a story. This is the risk to the public, that their news will be heavily slanted. The risk to the administration is that should the people begin to get a feel for how ugly war is, pressure will mount to do something about it. Vietnam became a majorproblem for the American public when we started seeing the coffins unloaded from the transports on the 6 o'clock news as we ate dinner. If we see that start to happen again, support for the administration could quickly begin to dwindle.

by road-dog Mar 27, 2003

was grabbed for pinpointing the location of our forces as "100 miles down XX Highway"

The embedded reporters are given full- realtime access to events as they unfold. The limits placed on them are operational security concerns, such as:
Troop location / strength / armament
Tactical / strategic goals and plans
Inter unit communications

The firefights have been televised.

As for the actual video of those most disturbing events, those are available. The major networks here in the US made the decision to televise them. Freedom of the press includes the right of the press to make editorial decisions.

FOX news (and other networks)deciding not to air footage is not censorship. The networks know that it is ultimately self destructive to air the most brutal images, as the news won't get ratings with an X rating.

You might want to think thigs through before lambasting the US and the media. You can bet that Saddam Hussein is not giving aljazeera full access to his troop locations and his weapons, in spite of the fact that they are firmly in support of him.

by admin Mar 27, 2003

In many Countries we may say the news is biased in some way, but the freedom of the internet is not restricted in most places.

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticleMore2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID
=329007&Page=1&ReturnUrl=NewsFrontMore.aspx

http://www.microdocs-news.info/blogger/2003/03/20.html#a396

http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/002246.html

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewNote3.cfm?REF=97

http://www.motherjones.com/news/warwatch/2003/13/we_335_02.html

http://www.europemedia.net/shownews.asp?ArticleID=15556

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,971037,00.asp

http://www.microdocs-news.info/2003/03/25.html#a422

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,971126,00.asp

http://technology.nzoom.com/technology_detail/0,1608,177928-113-380,00.html

http://www.lostremote.com/#iraq

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080389/

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200303/kt2003032117433111980.htm

http://www.microdocs-news.info/2003/03/21.html#a405

http://www.forbes.com/home/2003/03/20/cx_ah_0320warblogs.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080389/

To name but a few quite varied resources from different angles. Much of the world actually is free to check out many news sources right now, probably more so than any other time IMO and yet we rely mainly on the tele in our country of origin. Why? Especially in this field?

by jardinier Mar 27, 2003

Heavy stuff, admin.

A useful website is www.globalpolicy.org

For those who can't handle the truth, but want a news source that is generallly more objective than any local source, I strongly recommend the Christian Science Monitor. csmonitor.com

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

Spoiling for a fight arn't you I've looked at that site and I'm sure it will upset quite a few people who don't want to take in any information not broadcast by CCN, ABC, NBC or one of the other big Americian Broadcasters. I am reminded of a line ina spoof by Yrwho Serious who was playing the part of good old Uncle Albert and he said words to the effect after giving his Government the formular E=MC2 "If you can't trust the Government who can you trust". That was realistic at the time in the early to mid 40's but its a bit different nowdays after all we've had Watergate and so many other xxxxxxgates since then haven't we? And our Australian Government is no better so nobody think that I'm only bashing the US Government they are all tared with the same brush and are only interested in power for the sake of power and very rearly in whats needed for the country they susposelly represent!

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

The alledged Americian Missile/bomb that landed in a market place in Northern Bagdad yesterday did very little damage as from the rest of the televised reports cruise missiles demolish buildings and the like but this susposed bomb/missle did very little damage other than a bloody great hole in the ground and a fairly substantial blast area that killed a number of civilians the numbers vary from each account so I won't quote any here as there is no confirmation of exact casulities and did only minor damage to other areas like the surrounding buildings.

What do you lot think happened there?

by mallardtooxx Mar 27, 2003

First of all Colin I must commend you for sticking to topic this time. Good job.

It is my opinion that the so called errant missle was not the case. I too have seen the destruction caused by our cruise missles and I have to think the hole in the ground, I have a hard time calling that a crater, was not from a tomahawk. Judging by the depth and location of the crater I think it was a car bomb or an RPG that caused the blast, not a missle.
However, our weapons are not infalible, nor is any weapon 100% accurate. If you look at the location of the market you will see it is in close proximity to an oil trench that is burning. It is possible, even if unlikely, that some of our ordinance fell in that location. I just have a hard time thinking it was an intentional act by the COW. Look up the historical pictures of places like Dresden, or even London, those cities were burned out hulks by the end of WWII. I think the COW has shown Massive restraint by not just wiping Baghdad offthe map and opening up a Plate Glass Factory.

-duck

by jellimonsta Mar 27, 2003

I agree with you duck, I doubt anyone would be surprised if it was in fact a ploy by Saddam to try and jade the efforts of the coalition in the eyes of the UN. Just think though, if they did level Baghdad and open a plate glass factory, there would be a hell of a lot of windex on hand. :)

by road-dog Mar 27, 2003

and concluded that it was an antiaircraft missile. The hole in the ground was elongated and not terribly large, indicating a relatively small explosive charge and shallow impact angle.

The ordnance we're using is much larger, a small bomb is 250pounds. These bombs create a crater 10 meters in diameter and 2 meters deep. A larger bomb creates a larger impact and crater. Were even a small bomb the culprit, the surrounding buildings would have been burned and the concrete shattered by the shockwave. The M.O. simply doesn't fit.

The Tomohawk missile might have created such a crater and shrapnel were it damaged and exploded on impact. I doubt it, because there would be additional wreckage that would be waved on the news were it to exist. If the tomohawk were to have impacted and exploded as intended, just mistargeted or misguided, the large charge would have created a larger crater and greater casualties.

The surrounding buildings were peppered with shrapnel at a distance of 100meters in all directions. This is a signature of an antiaircraft missile that (contrary to the movies) actually explodes in close proximity to an aircraft and shreds it. It is designed to fragment and spread a dense sphere of shrapnel. I suspect that this is our bad guy.

The US is aware of the existance of the market, and nearly all (all in use in civilian areas) are precision weapons. The iron (dumb) bombs are used on area targets where civilian casualties are not a factor. Such a munitionwould not be deployed on a specific target close to civilians, in light of the propaganda victory that such an event would provide the enemy.

by road-dog Mar 27, 2003

The Iraqis are placing AA missile sites all over the city and are firing them indiscriminately in all directions. It stands to reason what goes up must come down. Since NO allied aircraft has been hit, one can conclude that many (if not all) AA missiles fired will fall within the city limits.

There is also the possibility that a missile fired from an AA battery very near the market (protected by the civilians in the market) failed very early in flight and did not reach the high speed and upward trajectory that they desired.

Such an early failure would account for the small, elongated crater.

by tomsal Mar 27, 2003

...where did everyone get the notion this was going to be a one week war?

That totally goes right over my head, I must admit. It makes no logical sense to me to assume that a war in which the plan is to unseat the political and military power of an entire nation, which in turn involves invading the capital city of the nation, is going to be a cakewalk.

What's more amazing is on the news they are reporting "surprisingly tougher resistance" -- um...DUH!

In the Gulf War the mission was completely different, so was the motive. So if people were making assumptions based on that war - with how fast this one would be over, that is in all accounts comparing apples to oranges.

The citizenry of Iraq is scared to death of betraying Saddam-- with great reason, he kills his own people with ease. On top of that the Iraq controlled news, radio and TV channels - you think they have a propaganda machine?

This is a no brainer to me.

by jellimonsta Mar 27, 2003

Couldn't agree with you more Tom. It is a lot easier for an Iraqi militia man to surrender hundreds or thousands or miles from home. But in his home city with an Iraqi elite guard's rifle trained on his spouse and children he has more of a motive tofight.

by bleh Mar 27, 2003

Imagine the willfullness of someone defending their country against a foreign invader!

Some people never learn that the U.S. of A is there to liberate them. I hope we can educate the arabs soon!

by road-dog Mar 28, 2003

Is a very prevalent misconception brought about by the perceived ease and low casualties of Gulf War I. This has been reinforced by the former generals and armchair strategists on the major news networks. The problem is exacerbated by the unrealistic expectations of tidy quick, and final resolution of problems by exposure to our entertainment media.

The President (it's SO nice to be able to capitalize that word again) has never said that he expected a speedy resolution, and has even made statements warning us that the war on terror and the liberation of Iraq would be messy and prolonged.

I have NEVER seen a member of this administration publish a detailed plan, schedule, or anything that can be perceived as a timeline. The media's coverage that we are "bogging down" is statement of violation of THEIR expectations. The coverage would include side by side comparison of stated objectives VS. actual events if there were a published plan and schedule.

The speed of this advance isabsolutely unprecedented in the history of warfare. The context is very nearly totally absent from our coverage. I cannot help but cringe when the media calls a dozen or so enemy "troops" firing at our men from a hospital "stiff resistance". This isharassment of supply lines. The logistics train has been slowed but not cut.

I don't say this to belittle the very real and devastating losses of our KIA's families, but the casualties we've suffered are exceedingly light. In historical contrast, many battles in our history cost much larger losses per acre of territory taken.

The coverage needs true historical contrast and the introduction of context as relates to the overall strategy. I'd like a news anchor to ask one of these armchair generals or pundits who say this is not going according to plan, "exactly what plan are you referring to?".

by tomsal Mar 28, 2003

I can't agree more!

Do they (the media) know anything about our nation's military history I wonder?

I believe that one life is one too many to lose, its just how I was brought up to value life. At the same time -- people this is WAR. In WAR people die. The count so far is remarkably low for the amount of lives lost -- and like road-dog states..by no mean do I infer making light of those lives that were lost. I have friends in the military, I have family history in WW I, WW II and Korea -- so I do respect military, believe me.

I just hope, that our intended goal when this thing is all done with -- is the realized goal as well. Read international news sites, papers and look at foreign news channels (if you have satellite tv) -- We Americans are truly hated right now all over the world.

I just hope this doesn't come back to bite us.

by hal 9000 Mar 27, 2003

At least 2 of you got the message I was trying to get across the level of damage was inconsistinant with any of the muninitions used by the Allies. I could not see this as being anything else than an anti-aircraft missle impacting on or in close proxcimity to the ground. There simply wasn't enough damage, and even if something like a cruse missle went astray there should have been much more damage and casulities as well not just the few that where reported. The explosive force shows a small yeld device that is inconsistant with any Allied Munitions except the Helo carried Air to Surface missiles which wern't in the area because of the weather conditions.

Not a bad responce for a few hours thought!

by generalist Mar 27, 2003

I sometimes wonder how many Iraqi civilian injuries are caused by falling munitions. If you put enough metal into the air in all directions you will eventually hit people who have to be out for jobs or food.

And for that matter, unless everybodyhas armored roofs, walls and windows, you will eventually have cases where small arms fire will create holes and result in injuries.

by mallardtooxx Mar 28, 2003

I don't think I could live with myself if that were the case, I'd be taking weekly trips to "Glassdad" for life!!!! WINDEX FOR EVERYONE!

by jkaras Mar 28, 2003

..I was watching CNN where they showed just about every country's news cast concerning their view point and footage. Almost all bagged on the U.S.'s unfortunate friendly fire incident that the marines faced during a sandstorm. These reports from Russia, China, etc.. were all negitive hinting at despite the great technology we posses we are so feverent to battle that we will target anything. As far as I'm aware of, every war in history deals with the unfortunate reality of friendly fire. They even went so far as to borrow CNN footage and attempted to place their station identification over CNN's. What put a smile on my face was Al Jeezera showing the same helicopter that was shot down the other day claiming it was another copter. I know I eagerly await news to find out what's happening but everytime I tune in there are conflicting reports constantly, even on our side. Lastly did anyone see the report concerning the oil fund that the U.N. is in control of as part of the war reparation from Desert Storm? This fund was a percentage of all oil sold by Iraq to fund rebuilding of Iraq. Supposedly this fund has grown in the billions and the status of what and where it's gone has raised many eyebrows and who will control after this conflict. Can anyone explain the situation? This suprised me and could explain U.N. reluctance in this conflict due to who's been playing with that fund.

by mallardtooxx Mar 28, 2003

I would bet you a dime to a bottle of windex it would be the French.

-duck

by tomsal Mar 28, 2003

The French....hmmm....nope, don't have anything useful to say about them.

Um...well French fries are good?

by tomsal Mar 28, 2003

There are plenty of special forces units in the US military that go by the same rules you mention -- they can't be photographed and their involvment in any conflict is never made known to the public. They have all kinds of names for this teams, as co-incidence would have it (we outsource for IT security infrastructure) I had a meeting with the president of our IT security firm today, he is ex-military. Some of his friends are in what is only known to the public as "Black OPS". Even in just casual conversation he can't really say anything about those guys, "I see them for a while then they disappear, apparently on assignment somewhere, hopefully they re-appear months later and then we go out for a beer". That what he tells me.

Also Delta Force isn't allowed to divulge to the public either.

As for Vietnam in general -- I LOATHE our (US) president for sending our boys over there from day one.

US had no business at ALL being in 'nam.

by jellimonsta Mar 28, 2003

I have a good used french rifle for sale, only been dropped once.

by road-dog Mar 28, 2003

Is that there are rumblings of the Turks, Iranians, and Syrians possibly sending in troops. If they smell weakness on our part, they might attempt to take advantage of the current situation by settling old scores and seizing territory.

If this happens, we will have to protect Iraq from outside aggression while we complete regime change.

Let me put on my armchair general hat here. If Iran or Syria send in large numbers of troops en masse, we should utterly destroy them. Make the highway of death look like a minor traffic accident.

It is in the Arab mindset to confuse kindness for weakness. We cannot allow any ambiguity on the situation. We must put these nations on notice that they will not be allowed to further destabilize the region and take advantage of the power vacuum. If it takes fuel-air bombing a column of troops, then so be it.

As for the Turks, they must be told that their NATO membership is on the line and that the billions in foreign aid they receive will dry up overnight if their troops move more than 5 miles into Iraq. A small incursion is acceptable as the need to prevent Kurdish aggression in the chaos.

by road-dog Mar 28, 2003

The Iranians are in deep kous-kous right now and their Islamic government is in danger of full scale revolution. We must make it plain that we will actively assist in this revolution if they attempt to export their fundamantalist Islamic theocracy to Iraq.

As for Syria, I suspect that if the entire mideast blows up, they will have the Israelis to deal with. They have supported Islamic fundamentalist terrorism entirely too long. It is in the Israeli's best interest to have a moderate Arab government established to counter Syria and Iran.

We need to get a grip on Iraq within a month or so or these events may come to pass. Otherwise we will be in the middle of about 6 factions duking it out.

The Turkish denial on the northern frontput a wrench in the plans, but I think those troops will be where they have to be very soon. We must not show weakness or lack of resolve.

As for the home front, those organizations staging protests should be charged for permits for their demonstrations and pay for insurance for damages. No permit/insurance, then they are trespassing and all persons arrested should be fined a couple of thousand dollars for the police action. If need be, seize their bail money to defray costs.

The anti-wartypes are entitled to their opinion but their right to disrupt entire cities cannot be tolerated. They are siphoning off resources better spent on homeland security to the tune of millions per day. The costs of police and other direct costs are excessive, the indirect costs in lost work hours and loss of business should come out of the protest organizers. if it requires seizure and forfeiture of their office equipment, then fine.
I'd love for these Hollywood types to get sued for millions of dollars by XYZ corporation for actual and punitive damages.

by hal 9000 Mar 28, 2003

But wonder why where the anti war protests against our involvement in Nam acceptable and the current crop of anti war deminstrations unacaptable? I don't agree whith these people but I must defend their right to their opinion however much I dislike it.

However I believe your are right about this thing in Iraq having to be over in a very short time as I also believe that all hell will break loose in the Middle East very soon if things arn't brought to a close quickly. I also know that the Arabs want the oil reserves that are in Iraq as it is their only real weapon against the West they not only want to control it but to also set its output to gain maxinum profit for themselves while at the same time crippling our economies. What I am worried about is will the Arab World accept a Democratic Government in the Middle East or will they try to invade and take over once we have removed the bulk of out troops? This is something to think about and I would like to hear your coments about this!

by jardinier Mar 28, 2003

How many stars did you say you have on your lapel, General Ackler?

Yes, it's all very well to plan political and military strategy from the safety of your armchair, where your opinions and suggestions are not putting lives at risk.

I suggest you leave these type of decisions to the people who ARE responsible for the lives of both soldiers and civilians.

Anyway, who needs a war in Iraq, when we've got such a fine one running here at techrepublic: and it's guaranteed safe and casualty free! Well, ahem, except for the truth which gets a pretty hefty pounding at times.

by road-dog Mar 29, 2003

Yoday's headlines - 302903
Times Online - UK
US turns sights on Syria and Iran
http://tinyurl.com/8exs

by road-dog Mar 29, 2003

Absolutely, these discussions are purely opinion, subjective observation, and academic in nature. The true consequences are borne by the men who have been placed in harm's way executing our foreign policy. I have no illusions that my postings in anyway influence our national policy.

The justification for this war, the endless analysis of it's progress and projections of its outcome will not affect that outcome in any way.

I'm hoping that your comment was sarcastic. My postings are my musings and observations about the war. I think that this venue for discussion is many times more effective and cathartic than the bullhorn demagoguery occuring on the streets of the world. At least opposing viewpoints are given the podium with the click of the submit button.

Feel free to disagree, that's what we're all here for; to become gladiators in the arena of ideas.

I feel strongly about this war and its importance to the stability of the middle east and the world in general. I maintain high hopes for its success, and feel compelled to point out things that would be detrimental to that success.

We are defined by our enemies as well as our allies. This being the case, I am convinced of the rightness of our actions. The cowardly actions of our enemies define them as well. As the news reports come in to confirm the alqaeda link with Iraq, the primary question of the war's legitimacy willbe laid to rest. That is except in the minds of those who will never be convinced regardless of evidence.

by hal 9000 Mar 28, 2003

With you about the best are fighting under the Red White and Blue however you must understand that those are the colours of the British, Americian and Australian Flags. If you wanted to say the best came from the US then you should have refered to them as fighting under the Stars & Stripes. However I must agree that the best do actually fight under the Red, White and Blue the pitty is that they are treated so shamefully after their use is finished, for this we should all hang our heads in shameand loby our Governemnts to treat these ex solders in a far better more humane manner than they are currently treated. Whats your take on this one Tom?

by hal 9000 Mar 28, 2003

Now and are realitively well adjusted if I say so myself. However I do have a problem with my son's atitude to computers as he treats them as nothing more that big powerfull play toys and he actually caused a Police Alert one night by playing one ofthe shoot-em-up games as he has one of my computers connected to his stero and it makes quite a bit of noise so early 1 morning when he was playing the thing he noticed some Police outside running around with weapond drawn. He naturally went outsideto find out what was happening and was told that there had been multipal gunshots reported and that this particular Police Officer had heard over 100 Shots fired. My son laughed at this and explained that he was just playing whatever game and this was where the shots where coming from, anyway after much discussion with this officer he eventually had about 20 Police Officers in his house playing the game and they all conceded that it was not too loud but that it must have been the sound reflecting off the neibourghing houses that made it sound so loud. However the gunshots did sound realistic and all the Police Officers spent a very long time playing the game and having fun as well they eventually got to the stage where they where playing with each other to see who was the better shot.

by hal 9000 Mar 28, 2003

But I would like to get a ballanced view point from as many sources as possible without spending all my waking hours having nothing but whats going on in Iraq or worse still sickly Americian Soaps as thats about all were seeing at present even the War in the Middle East can't compete with the Blue Rinse Sets Soaps the TV Stations would have a riot on their hands if they where to stop broadcasting these trashy shows. So Tom for a real scare just stop the Soaps and then be in the front lines trying to explain to some demented people just why their favourite shows arn't being Broadcast. I agree its good to lose yourself in fanatisy some times but this lot believe that these shows represent real life and that is the scary bit.

Anyway I'm a bit concerned that we haven't learnt the lessons of Hitler when he tried to invade Russia as his supply lines where over stretched and subject to ambush so his front line troops couldn't get the supplies that they required. This also happened in ocupied France durring WW11 and the resistance fighters where held up as heros so exactly why are you upset when the same thing is happening to our troops in Iraq? This has been part of every war for at the very least the last century. Cut the supply lines and the front line troops will simply run out of whats required I don't like it but its the only way that the current Iraq Government has a chance of stopping the invading force so it only stands to reason that this is how they should proceed. I noticed that the Americian General who is leading this force has reportedely called a halt for between 4 - 6 day so his troops can be resupplied this tends to point to me that our supply lines are over streatched at the momanet and we arn't that closeto Bagdad yet so things will only get worse and as Bagdad is approched there will be a need for more supplies than what is currently being supplied.

by hal 9000 Mar 28, 2003

Don't get me wrong I want this to finish as soon as possible with as few casulities as possible but I am concerned that the lessons of previous wars arn't being lernt and our troops will pay the price with their lives. The worst thing that could happen is that we are defeted or can not finish the job that was started if that was to happen we would then be in a real mess and be subject to any attack from any tin pot dicitator as they would believe that with the forces that where arraded against Iraq and we still couldn't win then they could do as they please without any interference or threat of reprisals from the free world. I have also noticed that Sira and Iran are now being drawn into this thing going on in Iraq if this continues we will end up with a total mess fighting almost all the arab countries in the Middle East and this will only help to confirm that we are attempting to wipe out Islam which could bring more of the Islamic countries into the conflict.

This thing must befinished as fast as possible without putting our troops in any more danger than required but we have to put an end to it quickly before it blows up in our faces. And then there was the false expetation that all we would have to do is stroll in and Sad Man Who Sucks would politely put up his hands and say I surrender. This is the media fault as they where reporting that this would be finished in about 1 week and none of our Governments did anything to prevent this from happening the longer it drags on the more people will become disenchanted with whats happening as they where lead to believe it would be over quickly with few if any casulities. I know its stupid but public opinion is fickle and we have to work within its confines.

by hal 9000 Mar 28, 2003

Is this not to drag on for too much longer as already Iran & Sira are being warned to stop supplying munitions and materials to Iraq. If this is to continue for a protracted period of time we will end up fighting almost all the Middle East and this we can not do as we lack the resources to win this type of conflict. If it was to happen there would also be other Islamic countries trying to get in on the act to teach the decedant Westeners {us} a lesson. We are already being portrayed as trying to wipe out Islam by the more conservitive clericks so the longer that this continues the worse it will get and even though most of the Arab Gogernments are accepting what is happening in Iraq their citizens arn't and we could find that these poeple take it into their own hands to help protect Iraq if this was to happen I don't even want to think about the results as it would be a Bloody Mess that we would have to retreat from if only to survive and then we could never again set foot in that areain any form. I agree the media is at fault and are projecting unrealistic advances but we also have to act as fast as possible if only to save our troops from extincition when the unwashed masses rise up to throw us out like they did in Iran years ago.

by hal 9000 Mar 29, 2003

I guess that exactly why Micky Mouse was banned in Europe durring a mouse plauge, Noddy was removed from our childrens reading material because he was obviously a Homosexual {after all he lived with Big Ears didn't he}? I could go on and on but its so far away from the original posting as to be inmaterial. All I'm saying is that if these really ineffective charaters must be removed from our childrens view then what exactly are these so called games doing to our children. I think I can remember something about Superman as well being bad for children as they tried to jump off roofs in an attempt to fly so it just might not be so cut and dried as you seem to think!

Personally it dosn't worry me as my children are now adults by any standrads so I'm unconcerned for them its just all the other children that I see being desentisied to violence that are growing up accepting it as normal. Just go back 30 years and find out how many kids tooks firearms to school and shot the SH 1 T out of everyone in their vicinity. It happens far more often now thought doesn't it?

I'll stick to my original posting. My only hope is that this footage doesn't end up in some computer game to make it more realistic.

Our troops are treated appalingly at the best of times we don't need to use their suffering to enterain others!

by hal 9000 Mar 29, 2003

And we've just started WW3 isn't that a nice thought to go to bed with to night?

by road-dog Mar 29, 2003

cannot be overreacted to....

Even if the events I have hypothesized DO come to pass, it does not constitute WWIII. When Israel was established, some 20 Arab states immediately declared war and were soundly trounced.

Several nations were forced to cede territory and eventually Egypr and a few others were forced to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

The scenario I've posed is not as great in scope as historic precedent, as several Arab nations are totally against Iraq or are against Iraq in principle, with varying degrees of official and unofficial support.

Even a 3 to 5 way war (counting the COW as a single entity) does not a world war make.

by mallardtooxx Mar 29, 2003

The COW as the moniker for our forces... Kinda Ironic isn't it? Maybe we will be the sacred COW before too long.

-duck

by hal 9000 Mar 30, 2003

Which has the biggest Islamic population in the World and currently some of them are standing in line to sign up to defend Iraq or at least thats what been reported with tape of the lines and people signing up, naturally I can't vouch for the accuracy of this report but by the same token I can't discount it out of hand either.

There are now numerious moderate Islamic celericks who are coming out claiming that We and I'm not only refering to the US here but to Britian/Australia and the US aswell as any other countries who are providing troops that we are in actuall fact involved in an attempt to destroy Islam. Now you and I know thats not correct but 500,000 mad Islamic people descending on the area would make a bit of a mess of the current situation wouldn't they?

by jardinier Mar 29, 2003

That is to signify a dog (on my behalf) pulling your leg. And naturally I know where the stars are positioned. The trouble with the "Submit" button is that it shows no mercy. Once you have pressed it, your statement is committed for eternity to the techrepublic server. How many times I have wished that I could recall my posting and edit it!

And yes I fully agree: these discussions are cathartic as well as informative.

by road-dog Mar 29, 2003

as have I. There is a gulf of difference between questioning your veracity & qualification and derision.

As I recall, Max's biggest personal affront to you has been to question your purported expertise on the subject of atomic weapons.

I agree with him that the quality of your posts casts serious doubts on your claims to have a degree in physics or the quality of the institution that granted it.

As for "poking my nose where it isn't needed", well I have every intention of continuing to post here on any and every subject I feel is worth my time. If I feel you are wrong, engaged in personal attacks, or are generally posting ill-conceived and unsubstantiated opinion as fact, I will point out your postings as such.

Deal with it.

by hal 9000 Mar 30, 2003

Now would you like to discuss the relative merits of Fastbreeder reactors built by the Frenck Vs The Russians Vs The USA?

Sorry Max has never crushed me but only attempoted a few swipes so you can't complain too much when I return the Favour!

by hal 9000 Mar 30, 2003

Sorry old boy but unfortantly over here we don't buy our degrees like you do in America we have to earn them so we don't pay our monies and get our degree like many institutions in the good old USA do. But just because I have the piece of paper in no way inplies that I have unlimited knolledge on all subjects let alone Nucular Weapons which I personally hate. My only coment about nukes where that they are more effective as airburst weapons which he seemed to take afront to but as he dosn't knowwhat he's talking about there there no big deal anyway. However my offer still stands I will train you in aspects od U reactor Design as from your postings its too dangerious letting you know how a fast breeder reactor actually works. And from my less than perfect memory I think it was you who suggested that all nuke power stations where deep underground with only the cooling towers above ground so they where safe from attack. I suspose thats why the French and most of the Europeans moved anti-aircraft missle batteries into place after Sept 11? I believe you have the knolledge to sheed some light on just why this would be the case!

by jardinier Mar 29, 2003

This discussion started off with a serious concern regarding the appropriateness of graphic visual images from the battlefront.

However there has been a lot of general "media bashing" as the discussion has progressed. One might even get the impression that "blaming the media" has become as popular a pastime as "blaming America."

Now I think it should be pretty obvious if there were no media personnel in Iraq the general public would have NO IDEA of the details of the war, except I suppose that the Government might tell the public what it suited them to reveal.

And I might point out that the journalists are not just reporting from the front line, they have been INSIDE the front line all along. At the last report I heard there were150 media people from around the world camped in a hotel right in Baghdad.

Now of course Hussein will leave them undisturbed as long as they serve HIS purpose. But every one of them is putting their life on the line so that the world can at least get some idea of what is happening. They are totally vulnerable to the whims of Hussein, as well as being at risk of becoming victims of erroneous friendly fire.

by hal 9000 Mar 30, 2003

The new reports that we are recieveing are skewed to our advantage just as the news reports in Iraq are skewed to their advantage I consider all these so called news reports nothing more than a propergander attempt to keep the citizens in line on both sides. The Alqaeda reports are unconfirmed and even if true cant be taken at face value as from the reports these people are coming from outside Iraq so blaming Iraq for their presence is the same as blaming the US for what happened on Sept 11. Thats just riducallious even you have to agree with that. We can't stop people coming in to fight or do something and then blame the leadership of a country for their actions if we do that then we all would have to blame GWB for the events of Sept 11. A government is not responsible for outside forces coming in to do what ever they wish. Particuarly when they don't have control of the whole country as what currently happening in Iraq. Presently the members of adqeada already have a grudge against the US and this was long before what happened in Afaganistan which only made them more detirmined to inflict as much damage/injury to Americian interests as possible. Should e also consider Pakistan as an enemy because at the very least one of adqeada senior people was captured while in that country and its rummored that many of those that excaped Afaganstan are hiding out in the uncontrolled areas of Pakinstan?

163 replies

Trending Community archive posts

RE: LibreOffice vs WPS Office: Which Is Really Free and What Costs Extra

how can i save my gmail data as pdf for offline access

What makes a simple web tool actually useful

When Your Business Outgrows Its Server Room What Would You Do Next

Digital Tools for Workplace Safety and Compliance