A New Way Forward In Iraq

[VooWho]

Oh Kurt what I ment by an Army can't fight a war when the enemy is hiding in civilian clothing, is that its harder to know who is enemy and who is not. I didn't mean to make it say we well lose the war because of this, I ment to say it well be harder to fight a war like this, but we still have a chance at winning even when the enemy hides under a different skin.

[Westy]

1 -  If the mainstream media has that much sway and power over the minds of the masses then how the devil did Bush get re-elected in 2004?  Other than FauxNews, Neocon-Radio and the "Swiftboat Vets for Rove" cronies the media was pretty much anti-Bush.


2 -  "Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20"  is rubbish.  There was no small minority of voices in 2002 and 2003 saying the Iraq invasion was wrong and based on shaky evidence and transparent reasoning.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Westy
1 -  If the mainstream media has that much sway and power over the minds of the masses then how the devil did Bush get re-elected in 2004?  Other than FauxNews, Neocon-Radio and the "Swiftboat Vets for Rove" cronies the media was pretty much anti-Bush.

In fact, how did the Democrats lose TWICE to Bush?

First, they ran candidates that were even more poor than Bush. Gore didn't even carry his home state; the first major party presidential candidate to have lost his home state since George McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972.

Second, Fox was the top rated news channel (most watched) during both of those elections. Still is.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by Westy
1 -  If the mainstream media has that much sway and power over the minds of the masses then how the devil did Bush get re-elected in 2004?  Other than FauxNews, Neocon-Radio and the "Swiftboat Vets for Rove" cronies the media was pretty much anti-Bush.

Well, lets not forget that the Dems but forward Frankenstein.  

But really, I think the media tried to go SO over the top anti-bush, and the Dems jumped right on the wagon with them, that it became a little offensive so the Dems lost votes.

Lately both parties are guilty of simply trying to scare the public away from the other.  The Republicans were basically saying in 2006 that if the Dems got control of Congress the whole damn world would end and dogs and cats would join together to rule us etc etc.   And on the flip side of the coin, you have the Dems trying so hard to villify the Repubs, just yesterday Pelosi was trying to ask Condi Rice a perfectly legit question of "What analysis has been done to lead the Administration to believe 20k more troops will help" -- But she got so damn tied up trying to be as anti-republican about the phrasing of the question that it basically became a personal tirade and an embarrasment.  Worse yet, it was so badly stated that Condi was able to side-step the question altogether and instead treat it as a personal insult (which in quite certain it was).

Both parties are trying so hard to get everyone to hate the other party that nothing is getting done anyhow.  Until someone in our government decides to govern, we're screwed no matter who is in the White House.

[Hazzer]

Bush can't win this war and he knows it!He's in a lose lose situation; if he pulls out their will be chaos and massive bloodshed for which he will justly be blamed,if he carrys on although he can't win,by the time he leaves office,he'll be able to spread the blame and leave  others to clean up his mess.

Bush has no qualms about the young americans he's sending out there,some of which will die.Lets face it.during the other US disaster Vietnam-which the british had the good sense to stay out of- Bush was defending the hostile skys over Texas,and Blairs only experience of war comes from hollywood and TV.

The only thing sadder than Bush Blair and their catastrophic war,are the fools who continue to support them.

God help us all.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Hazzer
Bush was defending the hostile skys over Texas,and Blairs only experience of war comes from hollywood and TV.

Another denigrator of the Air National Guard.

You're saying the Guard didn't have a necessary mission?

You're saying the 102 was a piece of cake to fly?

You're saying the 147th Fighter Group didn't serve?

You're saying Palace Alert was not really serving?

I guess you're saying any US soldier that didn't/doesn't carry a rifle in Vietnam/Iraq is not worthy of repect?

[Kurt]

Originally posted by Toad
Another denigrator of the Air National Guard.

You're saying the Guard didn't have a necessary mission?

You're saying the 102 was a piece of cake to fly?

You're saying the 147th Fighter Group didn't serve?

You're saying Palace Alert was not really serving?

I guess you're saying any US soldier that didn't/doesn't carry a rifle in Vietnam/Iraq is not worthy of repect?

Talk about reading into something... jeesh.  He said BUSH was in Texas..  He did not say the the ANG never did anything or that it was useless.

[oboe]

Originally posted by Toad
Hem-haw all you like Oboe.

The overwhelming vast majority of the people in the US form their opinions from what they read, hear and see from the print and electronic media.

People with first-hand knowledge are a tiny minority and usually their views are discarded if those views conflict with an opinion already formed from media information. For example, if I arranged an interview for you with a returning serviceman that said we're winning, I have no doubt you'd find a way to disregard his input.

People with second-hand knowledge (friends who have been there) are again a minority that may perhaps modify in some small degree the views they have already formed from/with media input. You are one example; I'm sure you accept the views of your friend that reinforce your already held opinion and discount the info he supplies that conflicts.

Like it or not, our nationally held views are in large part formed by the media. You're aware of McLuhan, right? He's generally acknowledged as the first guy to try to understand the effects of technology as it related to popular culture. One of his observations was "we become what we behold".

Think McLuan didn't have it right?

I don't understand the hem-haw reference, so I'll not address that.   You stated that without print and electronic media, people do not form opinions of far off events.   I addressed it with what I thought was a valid response and provided an example to back it up.

I agree that we all have a tendency to accept information which reinforces our opinions and discount that which conflicts.   Some more than others.   But you are wrong that I would 'discard' it.   It hangs around and if I eventually collect enough contrary evidence my opinion will change (as it did in this very thread in my argument with you about the influence of the press on pubic opinion).   I try to be skeptical but not close-minded.

I'm not very familiar with McLuhan, but I don't disagree in general with the principle 'we become what we behold'.    I won't say more until I've had a chance to become more familiar with him.

[Westy]

"how did the Democrats lose TWICE to Bush?..."

 I agree the Democrats put up candidates that were no better than what the Republicans had to offer. IMO the Republicans were worse given the track record of the prior four years.  The Swiftvet puppets and Rove's "Fear, Smear & Anti-queer" campaign was as ugly as Kerry and his record were.
 However IMO it was Rove and his campaign style that won the elections for Bush (all the way back to being governer in Texas).  IMO it had little to nothing to do with Fox News. For if they are indeed numero uno and a counter-poise  to the liberal MSM (every time I've watched Fox they've consistently come off as Republican Party mouthpiece)  how could the Democrats capture control of Congress and the "war" be losing support?  

 IMO the "MSM" (liberal or conservative aligned) does not hold as much sway over the outcome of things such as elections, legislature or if there is popular backing of a war as some would like to try and make it seem.   I think people will choose the path of least resistance.  They do not think too deep, fail to ask many "why" questions however when they get bitten they'll retaliate and try to "edumicate" themselves on the candidates, issues and just what the truth is - or enough to cast doubt on statements and inuendo being slung about. .   IMO we'll see smarter elections for a while and then the majority will go back to being sheep.    rinse, repeat..... ad nauseum
 


"both parties are guilty of simply trying to scare the public away from the other."

 Well. That's gone on since the 1780's in US politics.  However IMO the level of despicable methods reached a new high-water mark over the last 16-20 years.  That and much more of course is why I have not voted for either a Rep or Dem party candidate in the last three presidential elections.


(p.s. Off to Lowe's.  Good luck trying to change each others minds... )

[Hazzer]

Most other soldiers don't start wars based on Lies,nor are they profligate with their comrades lives.This was not an attack on the ANG.It WAS an attack on your and my glorious Leaders.

 Britain has been fighting Terrorist/freedon fighters in a  conflict of it's own making for over thirty years!!!we never won!!and the peace agreement would not have been helped by sending in more troops!

But that parochial little affair does not have the dire global consequences of,Bush and Blairs little jolly in Iraq.

Apologies to anyone who served in the ANG this most certainly was not aimed at you.

Nor is it an attack on the American people,whom I have always found most warm and generous,as these boards often show.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Kurt


Talk about reading into something... jeesh.  He said BUSH was in Texas..  He did not say the the ANG never did anything or that it was useless.

No, what he said was

was defending the hostile skys over Texas,

What implication do you take from the totally unnecessary addition of "hostile"?

[Toad]

Originally posted by oboe
I don't understand the hem-haw reference, so I'll not address that.   You stated that without print and electronic media, people do not form opinions of far off events.   I addressed it with what I thought was a valid response and provided an example to back it up.

 

Would you form an opinion on Iraq based soley on the comments of returning soldiers that you personally know?

I don't think so; you're main input is the media and I think you realize it is your primary reference for forming an opinion. That opinion may or may not be modified by returning soldiers you personally know, but the media is your primary source of information.

There was a time when news reporters strove to be impartial; they had poker faces when delivering the best or worst news. That time ended with Walter Cronkite's 1968 comment that the US was losing in VietNam. It was a slow deterioration but I doubt anyone really thinks impartiality is a primary goal in any network newsroom. ANY newsroom.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Westy
 how could the Democrats capture control of Congress and the "war" be losing support?

Fox hasn't been too supportive of Bush or the Republican Congress over the last two years. They've been critical of them both. Not as critical as the other media but they have pointed out mistakes and errors.  

And it isn't so much about changing minds; it's pointing out that there are other interpretations.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by john9001
yes they are,how else would they know if they are "winning" the war, and don't call me Shirley.

Watching CNN requires some sort form of electricity, a commodity in increasingly short supply since the golden age of the US occupation began. One Iraqi from Najaf was saying this week how he'd had no electricity for the last four days, so no CNN for him -- I doubt they're going to waste what little TV time they have on a pro-US propaganda-riddled foreign-language news channel. They'll be watching Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya if they're watching at all, or maybe Al Hurrah if they want a good laugh.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Hazzer
Most other soldiers don't start wars based on Lies,nor are they profligate with their comrades lives.This was not an attack on the ANG.It WAS an attack on your and my glorious Leaders.

[/b]

Do you have a single shred of proof that they lied? Remember that the intelligence services of most other interested countries said they had WMD.

Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years.

Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France's President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, "There is a problem�the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ... in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

So was it "lies"? Or just bad intel from the US, Germany, Israel, Russia, Britain, China and France?

Britain has been fighting Terrorist/freedon fighters in a  conflict of it's own making for over thirty years!!!we never won!!and the peace agreement would not have been helped by sending in more troops!

Don't take this as an attack on the British or Great Britain but your problems with Irish terrorists had the same root cause as the trouble in Iraq. The easiest solution to all is probably to reset the national boundaries as close as possible to where they were before colonialism and let things work themselves out. Wonder why you didn't take that course in Ireland? If you had, we could probably use it in Iraq.