Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gyro/T69 on April 02, 2003, 11:59:13 PM
-
"Where do they get young men like this?”
Martin Savidge of CNN, embedded with the 1st Marine battalion, was talking with 4 young Marines near his foxhole this morning live on CNN. He had been telling the story of how well the Marines had been looking out for and taking care of him since the war started. He went on to tell about the many hardships the Marines had endured since the war began and how they all look after one another. He turned to the four and said he had cleared it with their commanders and they could use his video phone to call home.
The 19 year old Marine next to him asked Martin if he would allow his platoon sergeant to use his call to call his pregnant wife back home whom he had not been able to talk to in three months. A stunned Savidge who was visibly moved by the request shook his head and the young Marine ran off to get the sergeant. Savidge recovered after a few seconds and turned back to the three young Marines still sitting with him and asked which one of them would like to call home first, the Marine closest to him responded with out a moments hesitation “ Sir, if is all the same to you we would like to call the parents of a buddy of ours, Lance Cpl Brian Buesing of Cedar Key, Florida who was killed on 3-23-03 near Nasiriya to see how they are doing”. At that Martin Savidge totally broke down and was unable to speak. All he could get out before signing off was,
"Where do they get young men like this?”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003284
have way down the page for the story.
-
-
This is exactly why the embedded reporter idea is so clever. After several weeks an affinity develops between the reporter and the troops. From then on no external coercion or censorship is required because the reporter will naturally spew out “hearts and mind” wining propaganda.
-
blur, Ted Kennedy is waiting for his daily footrub, be on your way.
-
Blur,
You sound like you are dissappointed that we have men and women of integrity and a sense of caring in service of our country.
Cobra
-
You can't fool Blur, Cobra.
He knows Savidge made this all up.
The truth is when he asked if they wanted to make a call, one called a crack dealer in Detroit to line up a FedEx resupply, another called some hookers in New Orleans, one ordered a large pepperoni from Domino's in Kuwait City and the last told him to get bent.
This was just before the mass baby killing incident that Savidge decided not to report.
Of course, Savidge just spun it into this because he has been mesmerized and robbed of his ability to think independently.
Jeebus. Some people.
-
Originally posted by blur
This is exactly why the embedded reporter idea is so clever. After several weeks an affinity develops between the reporter and the troops. From then on no external coercion or censorship is required because the reporter will naturally spew out “hearts and mind” wining propaganda.
Yes we must remember our own troops are just as much the enemy as is the iraqi army...
Blur why dont you just end your misery of living in the usa, go buy a gun while its still legal in your state and do us all a favor and have a little accident... OK?
But here is the interesting thing with blur, anyone wanna take bets that if the reporters werent on the battlefield that blur would be complaining of censorship and that the truth was being hidden? I think blur would only be happy if all the US news service just broadcast iraqi state TV...
-
What are you talking about, Grunherz? Of course there is censorship on the battlefield. Like any other conflict, these embedded reporters cannot report anything they like.
-
Dowding, blur just can't stand it when media portrays coalition forces as "good guys". Well, he can probably tolerate the Brits or the Aussies shown that way to some extent... but not Americans.
Probably gives him acid stomach.
-
The army allowed these "embedded" reporters after the press complained of overly censored and restriced pool reporting during the first gulf war. I was merely poining out that its very likely (~100%) blur would complain about evil undue censorship if there werent these embedded reporthers just as he is now that there are. In other words the USA is evil to him no matter what we do or do not do.
-
I see.
Carry on!
-
Originally posted by blur
This is exactly why the embedded reporter idea is so clever. After several weeks an affinity develops between the reporter and the troops. From then on no external coercion or censorship is required because the reporter will naturally spew out “hearts and mind” wining propaganda.
Oh look... we have MJ and now his pet monkey...
-
once bullets start flyin.....the only 1 you count on is the 1 besides you.....
these boys have seen those bullets.....
excellent reporting....
-
Originally posted by blur
...nothing worthwhile...
Blur, you are one pathetic, sad clown.
That is about the best I can say about you out of respect to HT.
What exactly do you have against the military? Couldn't get in? Get kicked out?
-Smut
-
Skuzzy,
blur is an embarrassment to this bbs. Practically every post is offensive and this last one is only a mild example. Do we really need him?????
-
You could say that about many people, Maverick.
I see uniformity of opinion as leading to a very boring forum.
He questioned the motives of the 'embedding' concept. Big deal. Notice he didn't doubt the veracity of what the reporter described.
-
Yes he did dowding, thats the clear implication of what blur is saying now and has been saying for a long time about the war and america in general. He is a tool and a degenerate with no ideas or visions of his own, he simply spews hate an anything the USA actually does. Notice he never offers even the slightest, most speculative sugestion or alternative to anything, he only squats in the dark waiting for any opportuinity to spring forth and spew his drivel at any american course of action. You might have point about uniformity of opinions on the BBS if by any chance he actually had or presnted an opinion, but he does not and so you do not.
-
Originally posted by blur
This is exactly why the embedded reporter idea is so clever. After several weeks an affinity develops between the reporter and the troops. From then on no external coercion or censorship is required because the reporter will naturally spew out “hearts and mind” wining propaganda.
I know Smithers... We'll just place the reporters right with the troops. (rubs hands together) Then they'll develop this... this.. affinity..YES! This may be my most brilliant plan Smithers!
-
wonder what blur thinks about the iraq govt kicking al jezzera out of bagdad ( the iraq govt would have kicked them out of iraq but iraq govt no longer has control over any thing but bagdad)
-
Take a look around Grunherz. How many threads start with some quote from a paper or some transcript of a speech, followed, in effect, with the words "What he said." If you're going to start banning people for 'not forming their own opinion', you're going to have a dead forum in short order. Jesus, Ripsnort would be screwed! ;) (j/k)
So, providing Blur abides by the rules, he can be as cynical as he likes. We all have the ignore function if it really bothers you.
-
Dowding the problem is he seemingly never offeres any sort of opinion, his own or others. He just jumps in shouting his general disguist with anything america does like some filthy drunken vagrant harrasing passers by on the street.
-
By doing that he is expressing an opinion. I'm sorry if you find the content disagreeable, but that is completely irrelevant to your point. You are wrong, in this case.
-
Let him post.
Ideas that deserve ridicule should always see the light of day.
-
There is no opinion in anything he says, its more of an automatic response stemming out of his many mental disorders. :)
MT Im all for letting him post... We need the comedy now that weazel has departed and boroda is off in iraq shooting down F18s. :D
-
These young men, and women (certainly one fine young PFC) are our finest.
As for the media, it's a double-edged sword. Sure, the Pentagon saw some solid opportunities with the process. However, the nature of the war so far has not allowed for too many "celebration in Paris" moments or piles of unused gas shells.
The journalists were more than happy to report the impressions of the combat leaders around them that the resistance was tougher than expected and the war is "different" than expected; that perhaps we could have used more forces on the ground; that warning shots might not have been fired in the checkpoint incident; that not all Iraqis are welcoming coalition forces as liberators, etc. Obviously, blur just takes from the coverage that which reinforces his preconceived positions, choosing to see what is a half full/half-empty glass as completely empty. Just another chirping bird, of which many can be found on both sides of the war debate.
In fact, should we take heavy casualties in the fight for Baghdad (and hopefully we won't), you can expect the embedding process to highlight the true cost of war to many American's who have never served in the military, or who do not have immediate family and friends serving in the military. In this case embedding would not likely be seen as a positive choice.
As a side note, one good thing in general is that pampered Ivy League broadcast journalists (and some similar print journalists)are learning what the military is all about. Hopefully this will translate into better coverage down the road with fewer ingrained stereotypes underlying the tone of the reporting.
Charon