A New Way Forward In Iraq

[BluKitty]

Originally posted by Toad

Oh yeah... question.

If the Supreme Court had decided for Gore, would you then say Gore was "questionably elected"?

Yes ...and certainly if he had been stupid enough to drag us into this foolish war.    I don't buy into this whole 'left' 'right' thing unlike many folks.  I actually listen to what each person says, then call them morons
'
    quote: Originally posted by BluKitty
    "My Plan" was never go into Iraq in the frist place

Originally posted by Hap
This would have been my plan, had I the intel that there were no WMD.

Well if you were paying attention in 2002 there was pleanty of proof that Bush was full of 'it'.  I didn't belive him then, and I wouldn't belive anything of the sort now.

[VermGhost]

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20.

[oboe]

Originally posted by Toad
I do disagree.

I'd say it is nonsense to say the media doesn't shape opinion. How do people form their opinions? The only information is from the media. You can't just sit and ponder Iraq with no input, no facts, no discussion.

People react to what they see, read and hear from the media. How else can it be? Seems self-evident.

Coupla things about this.   First, I think you're discounting personal experience.   Viet Nam cost us over 350,000 killed, wounded and missing.   A number that large touches a lot of people throughout the nation.   Second, nobody likes a protracted war.    Popular support is bound to drop over time.

Finally, if negative facts are reported by the media, and public opinion shifts negative - the I'd say it's the facts themselves and not the media that are influencing opinion (I'm thinking here of Abu Ghraib, Haditha, etc.)   If you think the media's proper role is to suppress those facts, then we have a disagreement about the role of the media in a democracy.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by oboe
Viet Nam cost us over 350,000 killed, wounded and missing.

The total U.S. deaths in Vietnam were about 21,000.  Wounded counts are a huge percentage of your number.  And not all wounds are grevious...

Chucking big numbers around without explaining them is the same way the media manipulates people's opinions.

[Rolex]

21,000? No way. US deaths were almost 58,000.

Chucking wrong numbers around is the way people try to manipulate other people's opinions.

[Rolex]

Okay, let's chuck some numbers around...

There are only 26 milllion Iraqis and the average yearly income is now less than $100 per year. So far, the direct cost has been about $376 billion. The extended total cost is more than double that. That's about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in Iraq.

We've spent $120,000 for a family of four in Iraq and they're still making less than $100 per year with less water and electricity then they had before the war. Things aren't getting better and Americans and Iraqis continue to be killed and wounded. I don't know about you, but this seems like a bad deal to me.

I say we offer them $25,000 per person (I get to keep $5,000 per person because it's my idea) and withdraw the troops if they promise not to do again whatever it was they did in the first place.

We set up Walmarts, car dealerships, KFC and KrispyKreme donut places across Iraq so they have somewhere to spend the money. They'll become happy, well-fed consumers who will kick the living crap out any insurgents, politicians or dictator who tries to upset their golden apple cart.

You may think I'm being silly, but I think my plan has a better chance of success (however that's being defined this week) than the "New Way Forward in Iraq." Spilling more blood and money into the sands of Iraq is not a "New Way Forward."

[lukster]

Originally posted by Rolex
21,000? No way. US deaths were almost 58,000.

Chucking wrong numbers around is the way people try to manipulate other people's opinions.

Kurt was a lot closer than oboe. The wounded included those like John Kerry.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by Rolex
21,000? No way. US deaths were almost 58,000.

Chucking wrong numbers around is the way people try to manipulate other people's opinions.

58,226 - now who is throwing bad numbers around?  

Yeah, sorry that was a partial number from earlier in the conflict, I was reading fast and grabbed a bad number... My bad, thanks for spotting it.

[Kurt]

Going back to the remark earlier by VooHoo

You are fighting an enemy hiding in civilian clothing. Theres no way an army can fight that.

I still agree with this remark... And there is a great precedent... There was this big war once where one team wasn't really fond of wearing uniforms, and the other side wore bright red ones.

One team would hide in trees and in bell towers in civilian clothing and snipe those guys in the Red Coats.

It was the American Revolution, and the guys in the uniforms lost.

A war is won by the side that is willing to get the bloodiest... ALWAYS.  America simply doesn't do that anymore.   We could have, but Bush got distracted after Baghdad... Got over confident and foolishly believed that all the people in Iraq thought he was a great guy for blowing everything up...

Turns out he was mistaken.  And now we are paying.

[oboe]

Here's where I got my Viet Nam  numbers .    Yes, the wounded total was much more than KIA, and I probably should've broken that down.

After some more research, I do agree with Toad that the media can influence public opinion.   The story on the Wm R Hearst's manipulation of public opinion prior to the Spanish-American War is  documented.  There are other more recent examples, too.   My apologies, Toad.  

I wouldn't go as far to say the press lost Viet Nam - not until I could refute the findings of the 3 studies I cited earlier.    And I still hold that the media is only one of several factors that can influence public opinion.

The original question was whether our press influences the enemy's morale and emboldens him, and I still haven't found any evidence that supports that case.

I still think its important in a democracy for the media to report the facts objectively without suppression or censorship, and if those facts cause a drop in public opinion I do not blame the media.

Very interesting number-chucking, Rolex.  

all.

[cpxxx]

Originally posted by Toad
I don't see anyone can think that the enemy/insurgents are not emboldened and encouraged by the way the media portrays the daily happenings in Iraq.

I'm not quite sure why so many of you believe that the way the American media portray the situation in Iraq has some kind of influence on the average terrorist or insurgent. They don't sit at home watching ABC or NBC or even CNN and read the Washington Post or the New York Times.  The average Iraqi certainly doesn't. Most don't even speak English. They have their own media and their sources of information, usually biased and unreliable. Iraqis sees the situation for themselve on the streets around them. I imagine for the average Iraqi knew things were bad when Saddam was around. Then the Americans came and it got worse. They don't need to watch TV to see that.

The US media rightly or wrongly mostly effects the opinions of the American public. Even Fox News has trouble making the situation in Iraq look good these days.

I supported the original reasons for the war and even held to that opinion for a long time. Eventually I wavered and now feel that the whole bloody thing was badly mishandled by GWB and his pals.

I don't think sending more troops will solve the problem. You can send every US servicemand to Iraq and place them on every street corner and you won't solve the problem. But I do agree with one contributor. This will be an ongoing mess for at least the next ten years with or without American troops on the ground.

I wouldn't even presume to suggest a way forward. I suspect no one really knows what to do anymore.

[Toad]

OK, take away print and electronic media.

Then tell me how you or anyone else forms an opinion on events at a distant locale.

They don't.

So, from the inevitable acknowledgement that media does play a primary role in forming public opinion, can we agree that slanted news..either way... has a major effect on public opinion?

Also, I find it interesting that people point out that we've had troops in Germany and Japan for over 60 years and then point out that we've been in Iraq longer than we were involved in WW2 as if that is somehow a relevant or significant statistic. It totally is not.

Compare the length of involvement in WW2 where absolutely no holds were barred and nuclear weapons were used to force the surrender of the Japanese to a situation where almost every use of overwhelming force is proscribed. Remember, for a while our troops couldn't shoot at a mosque even when they were taking fire from said mosque. In WW2, that mosque would have been a pile of rubble ASAP. And any crowd rioting against the troops that did that would have become targets themselves. It was total war. TOTAL war. Iraq is not remotely a total war.

I think the difference was that post war Germany and Japan were countries that had been reduced to nothingness; their societies had been destroyed. On top of that there were troops on every street corner and they'd obliterate any sign of opposition without having to call higher HQ and ask "Mother, may I?".


Beyond that, if you're going to use the "60 years" comparison...we have a long time to go in Iraq then don't we?

It's is so different that it's beyond "apples and oranges". Maybe more like "apples and extraterrestial life forms".

Rolex, you've just recycled the Marshall plan. You don't get a 50% commission on a recycled idea. You'll have to settle for maybe 10% and of course Marshall's heirs should get a cut too.

[Sparks]

All this talk of you being at war .... who with specifically ??

We are NOT in a war and comparison with Vietnam are largely irrelavent.  I Vietnam you had pert of the population with you and part against and to some extent a drawn fighting front with enemy territory and freindly territory.

We are in the middle of a civil war trying to act as referee.  A civil war we created by entering into a conflict with no clear exit strategy.  This has nothing, zero, nahdah to do with the war on terror - that is going on in Afghanistan.  This is all about strategic power and influence.

Toad is right about the media and it's influence - look at this thread and see how many people are still buying into the crap about fighting terrorist insurgents - as if Al-Queda is the main enemy force.  The Sunni factions and Shia factions BOTH want the US and UK out of the way so they can take the fight to their main rivals - each other.  THAT is why our troops are getting killed.  GWB hoped that democratic elections would stabilise the country; they didn't and never will in our lifetimes - no majority Islamic country is democratic.  Now the realisation is we must pick a side and GWB has done that by siding with the Shia side of the government.

[oboe]

Sure they can still form opinions, Toad.   Apart from media, word of mouth from friends, relatives who come back or write letters certainly have an impact.

I know a guy who served early on in Iraq, as part of the 3rd Division, which was the tip of the spear into Baghdad.   He tells everyone he talks to about his experiences there, and they aren't happy stories.   He talks about how creepy special forces guys were; how the regular guys tend to steer clear of them; they are pretty much operate independently.   He told me about an Iraqi bus they (the SF) had gunned down and how they stood around laughing and taking pictures of the carnage and corpses.    His opinion of the war, and the stories he related influenced my opinion.   When I tell people I know about him, it may influence their opinion too.  

Completely apart from the media.

I think its possible for the media to have a major impact on public opinion by slanting the news reported, but I think its temporary and the truth eventually will come out.    As someone noted previously, even Fox is having trouble making the War sound good nowadays.

[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?