A different voice on Iraq

A different voice on Iraq (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sternhand4 -> A different voice on Iraq (3/22/2007 8:41:53 PM)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=849_1174284011

caitlyn -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/22/2007 9:05:52 PM)
This report matches some of what the person I know that is actually over there, has to say.

domiguy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/22/2007 9:56:08 PM)
I don't know about the source of this...And I couldn't retrieve the info 'cause I'm not interested enough to pay for the transcripts of the interview from NPR....But there is a possiblity that she is just repeating the same old story....Just food for thought....But it does perhaps show a pattern in ones thinking. "August 31, 2005 Pamela Hess - Pentagon Correspondent for UPI I was listening to NPR on the way home this evening and listened to an interview with Pamela Hess from UPI. Hess is currently in Iraq traveling through all 18 provinces in order to assess if the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq and if and when the U.S. could pull out. She is focused on trying to bring a different perspective than what is seen daily in the news of more insurgent activity, suicide bombs, and general disorder. I thought it strange that the NPR interviewer introduced Hess as the Pentagon Correspondent - UPI. It made it sound to me like Hess worked for the Pentagon and not UPI. As Hess recounted her experiences in visiting 8 of the 18 provinces and in talking with the U.S. troops I realized it was like listening to expertly crafted propaganda. Hess did not have one negative thing to say about the war, the troops morale, the effect of swaying public support for the war, or the treatment of troops by the government. She made it sound like each soldier was excited to be in Iraq doing their part for protecting the U.S. way of life. Unfortunately, the cynic in me just thinks that Hess was granted access to be embeded with the troops only if she spun a positive story out of Iraq." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I don't have any idea what was said in the NPR interview but it is interesting that this is one person's perspective on that interview.... I personally like Pamela Hess...She asks tough questions and seems to have a "fairness" about her...However she has spent much time with the troops....

Sinergy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/22/2007 10:40:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn This report matches some of what the person I know that is actually over there, has to say. As Anthony Swofford pointed out in Jarhead, a soldier on active duty has signed a contract and is not at liberty to speak freely. It is pointed out to said soldier that failure to speak the line provided to them by their military commanders is technically an act of treason. This is a crime under the UCMJ that is punishable by death. Go ahead and believe what an embedded reporter and an active duty soldier say about the war. Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 6:26:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Go ahead and believe what an embedded reporter and an active duty soldier say about the war. Go ahead and disbelieve a person you don't even know. This isn't a movie, and he isn't a jarhead ... and you are basically calling him a liar.

topcat -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 6:55:13 AM)
Caitlyn- Anthony Swoffard is not a movie- he is a (former) Marine who wrote a book about his experiances in Operation Desert Storm, which was made into a movie. I cannot speak for the Soldiers and sailors out there at the moment, But as a former combat Marine, it was drilled into my head that any comments regarding the political situtation other than positive where punishible under the UCMJ, and that extended to ANY commentary, not just statements made to the press. Added to that, the only info you have any regular access to is the 'offical' story. When I came home from Beirut, I was shocked by the differance between I what I experianced and what was reported in the press, though in the field, the discrepancy between the 'offical' story and what I saw on patrol was sometimes hard to ignore. My troops were professionals, and while we all had an opinon on what was going on, we didn't share it with civilians. We were there to do a job, and we did it. Our unoffical motto was 'ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to shot the guy'. Despite any personal misgivings, it was part of our job to to keep them to ourselves and to speak the partyline to civilians. Stay warm, Lawrence

caitlyn -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 8:36:33 AM)
Perhaps the link isn't working correctly. I saw nothing in the link provided that made commentary one way or the other, concerning the rightness or wrongness of the war. All I saw, was a very nervous reporter, discussing what she had actually seen in Iraq. My commentary was that much of what she had to say, mirrored what I had heard from someone I know that is actually there. I try to understand these points, and try even harder to understand the point of view of people like Stern, Sanity and FirmKY, who clearly have views that are different from mine. Something that keeps coming to mind, is that they must see posts that say things like, "We know we have already lost in Iraq", "Our troops are nothing more than target practice", and posts discussing the use of children in bombing attacks, that turn into massive screeds about WMD's, faulty intelligence, and monkeys ... and how they must feel when these statements go completely unchallenged. They must feel that for certain elements, bullshit if fine, as long as it smells just like yours. Then balance this against what I see as a very objective report of happenings witnessed with actual eyes ... and yet, that has to be discounted. I don't agree with any of these three ... but do understand what makes them feel like they do. I see the hard anti-war movement as bullshit artists on the same level as the bullshit artist we have in the Whitehouse. They are just bullshit artists that have different political views.

Sinergy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 6:40:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Go ahead and believe what an embedded reporter and an active duty soldier say about the war. Go ahead and disbelieve a person you don't even know. This isn't a movie, and he isn't a jarhead ... and you are basically calling him a liar. I am not. I am simply clarifying for you a law which members serving in the United States Military are required by the oath they willingly took to uphold. He is either legally required to lie to you or he is a treasonous criminal. Your call. Sinergy

Sanity -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 7:19:17 PM)
We don't always agree with each other, but it's good to know that there are some good, honest thinkers out there caitlyn. Thank you. My opinion about the video was that the reporter wasn't helping the Left or the Right politically, and she was in fact trying to cut through all of what she saw as the meaningless arguments to try and say something that she felt desperately needed to be said. My own perception of her was that she wasn't scared, but that she was emotional because of the things that she saw, and she wanted things there to change... she felt that her message was powerfully important, nd that was why she was visibly shaking that way, and moved to tears. quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Perhaps the link isn't working correctly. I saw nothing in the link provided that made commentary one way or the other, concerning the rightness or wrongness of the war. All I saw, was a very nervous reporter, discussing what she had actually seen in Iraq. My commentary was that much of what she had to say, mirrored what I had heard from someone I know that is actually there. I try to understand these points, and try even harder to understand the point of view of people like Stern, Sanity and FirmKY, who clearly have views that are different from mine. Something that keeps coming to mind, is that they must see posts that say things like, "We know we have already lost in Iraq", "Our troops are nothing more than target practice", and posts discussing the use of children in bombing attacks, that turn into massive screeds about WMD's, faulty intelligence, and monkeys ... and how they must feel when these statements go completely unchallenged. They must feel that for certain elements, bullshit if fine, as long as it smells just like yours. Then balance this against what I see as a very objective report of happenings witnessed with actual eyes ... and yet, that has to be discounted. I don't agree with any of these three ... but do understand what makes them feel like they do. I see the hard anti-war movement as bullshit artists on the same level as the bullshit artist we have in the Whitehouse. They are just bullshit artists that have different political views.

Sanity -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 7:26:24 PM)
While I think that propaganda is just another weapon of war and also that wars can be won or lost if information can't be controlled, I believe that you're wrong about Washington being smart enough or savvy enough to try to control what soldiers say of late in what is a mad attempt to be perfectly politically correct. In other words, I do believe that you're wrong, and that American soldiers can pretty much say whatever they please these days. I wish I had the time to look it up, but I know I've seen interviews with soldiers dissenting publicly... and so far as I'm aware they were never so much as even talked to about it. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I am not. I am simply clarifying for you a law which members serving in the United States Military are required by the oath they willingly took to uphold. He is either legally required to lie to you or he is a treasonous criminal. Your call. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 7:52:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I do believe that you're wrong, and that American soldiers can pretty much say whatever they please these days. The funny thing about believing something, Sanity, is that a person can believe something (like the earth is flat) even after Columbus discovers a new continent by heading west. I would suggest you peruse the following so that you might know more tomorrow than you know today. On the other hand, if you prefer to live in a world where reality bends to your beliefs, I imagine you would have much in common with fundamentalist muslims and no amount of evidence can say you from your beliefs. There is a book by a guy named Eric Hoffer entitled "The True Believer." If you would like to know about those who refuse to allow reality to sway their beliefs. Sinergy http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm 934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. This is probably the relevant article, since making any statement about the reality of the situation in Iraq, which does not reflect our actions in a positive light, and a shining and noble purpose for being there, could be considered in violation of this article. edited to add white space

Sanity -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 8:03:00 PM)
Even in the 1970's a young John Kerry openly bragged to Congress and the world about committing war crimes and other atrocities in Vietnam. He was never court marshaled...

Sinergy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 8:10:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Even in the 1970's a young John Kerry openly bragged to Congress and the world about committing war crimes and other atrocities in Vietnam. He was never court marshaled... Whats your point? Guilty people get off unpunished all the time. Are you suggesting they are not guilty of their crime? For example, a guy named O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder charges, but was found guilty of causing his ex-wife's and her boyfriend's deaths by a civil court who awarded damages. I look forward to your lucid clarification. Sinergy

Sanity -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 8:16:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Whats your point? What were we talking about. American soldiers clearly have the ability to speak out. Now it's my turn to ask you, what's your point about the following - it seems you'rte getting off topic. quote: Guilty people get off unpunished all the time. Are you suggesting they are not guilty of their crime? For example, a guy named O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder charges, but was found guilty of causing his ex-wife's and her boyfriend's deaths by a civil court who awarded damages. I look forward to your lucid clarification. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 8:32:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Whats your point? What were we talking about. American soldiers clearly have the ability to speak out. Clearly? Please enlighten us with an example, or should we just assume you consulted the Oracle of Delphi for The Facts. Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 9:14:12 PM)
You are a complete mystery to me Sinergy. You make posts that leave me saying, "Wow, that guy is fuckin' smart!", and then drop these bombs about people you have never met, and conversation you were not privy to ... or how about in another thread, where you insisted that the United States doesn't have the military to invade Iran. That statement has about as much merit as saying the Indianapolis Colts don't have a good enough team to beat Katy High School. I think julia is a very lucky women ... because you have to be one of the most interesting people on this site ... and most women really dig interesting men. [:D] (please don't read this as a snarky post ... it honestly isn't meant to be)

Sternhand4 -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 9:16:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Whats your point? What were we talking about. American soldiers clearly have the ability to speak out. Clearly? Please enlighten us with an example, or should we just assume you consulted the Oracle of Delphi for The Facts. Sinergy Soldiers have the right to speak out and dissent, just not in uniform.. None of the service personnel was in uniform, in accordance with federal law governing dissent by military members. He and others who spoke at the news conference said they have experienced no reprisals for their activities. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/17353

Sinergy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 9:27:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn You are a complete mystery to me Sinergy. You make posts that leave me saying, "Wow, that guy is fuckin' smart!", and then drop these bombs about people you have never met, and conversation you were not privy to ... or how about in another thread, where you insisted that the United States doesn't have the military to invade Iran. That statement has about as much merit as saying the Indianapolis Colts don't have a good enough team to beat Katy High School. I think julia is a very lucky women ... because you have to be one of the most interesting people on this site ... and most women really dig interesting men. [:D] (please don't read this as a snarky post ... it honestly isn't meant to be) I simply pointed out that soldiers who took an oath to uphold the US consitutation are subject to the UCMJ. Accordingly, they are not at liberty to speak freely about their situation. Journalists who allow themselves to be embedded sign documents, go through embedded journalist school, and are only allowed to embed if they agree to follow the party line. Accordingly, they are not at liberty to speak freely about the situation. While I am not saying that an Al Qaeda (interviewed in Rolling Stone) terrorist, a contract (interviewed in a different Rolling Stone) soldier, and a host of other people (including military figures who retired and have come out in opposition to the war in various periodicals including Discover, Time, etc) not under these restrictions are individually the most credible witnesses, when they all tend to say the same story, and when years go by and the situation in Iraq never changes according to almost every news and media source I have read, and this is at odds with people who are not at liberty to speak freely about their situation, I know who I tend to believe. I made the point that numerically speaking we are spread so thin in terms of the number of soldiers that we dont have enough of a military to invade Iran. I imagine I misspoke. We could probably invade Iran. Were we to invade Iran, we do not have enough ground soldiers to quell civil unrest. It would be the sequel to the debacle we are currently enmired in over in Iraq. Thank you for your compliments. Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 10:04:08 PM)
We have been studying this some, and you have to factor in three pretty important points: 1. Iran has virtually no modern air defense system, and lacks the logistical means to maneuver their few military formation. Iraq posed a much greater challenge in both these areas. 2. While the Army has suffered a good bit of wear and tear in Iraq, the Air Force and Naval air components have cleaned up nicely in the past two years. The force multiplier, is actually much stronger than it was in 2002. 3. You would have to imagine that if war with Iran came (perish the thought), there are powerful and fresh formations available in Germany, that would undoubtedly be used. I do agree with you, that Israel wouldn't join in. They were not ready for their last war, much less one as far away as Iran. I don't think we would want them there anyway ... but do think there is a good chance that Saudi Arabia might tag along, because of the potential for profit. Then again, all this war talk was silly before and is just as silly now. We could have spent one-hundreth the money, bought all these people off, and been Byzantine about sewing discontent between them as oil rivals.

juliaoceania -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/23/2007 10:10:34 PM)
If we go to war with Iran we will never ever recover from it. There will be a draft, perhaps nukes used, and most of the world may turn against us.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875