Images

Just something interesting. Comment if you like, or just watch it.

Our troops.

Posted by Jack at January 9, 2006 12:15 PM
Comments
Comment #111376

Jack,

Someday, someone, will come up with an idea that will make all this unnescessary.

Posted by: Rocky at January 9, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #111380

Jack’s pro-Bush propaganda LOL. I have to admire the effort.

Posted by: Paleocon at January 9, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #111387

Jack:

Thank you. Thank you!

What a wonderful way to show the depth of courage and grace of our military men and women. It shows the comradery that leads to teamwork and success but also leads to the intense sorrow of loss that we should all feel for our fallen soldiers.

No politics, no negativity…just beautiful pictorial honoring our troops.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 9, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #111395

http://www.mondodisotto.it/imageiraq.htm

Posted by: tree hugger at January 9, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #111397

Jack,
Why is it that African Americans and Hispanics are under-represented in those shots?
What kind of racist point does this have?

Posted by: Schwamp at January 9, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #111407

Jack, thanks. It was a touching picture of the human element of this war. I appreciate it. Now, let’s get ‘em home to their loved ones.

Posted by: Dennis at January 9, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #111425

If it were NOT for the brainwashing of boot camp and AIT, and the ordering of our troops to enter places where groupthink, and esprit de corps, and reliance for life and limb upon each other were absolutely necessary, 90+ % of soldiers would take one look at the carnage of war, and pack up and leave. No sane, rational person under ordinary circumstances would choose to remain in the middle of the carnage of war.

It is the most damaging and horrendous job on earth our nation asks of our military, and that they volunteer to stand ready at the call should their nation have need of their training, is indeed deserving of the greatest respect, regardless of what other personal or selfish motives attach to their volunteering, and there are many.

But a nation is responsible for insuring that such sacrifice is at once, absolutely necessary, and unavoidable. No greater honor may a nation bestow upon its soldiers than the assurance that these soldier’s sacrifice’s will be justified by the absolute best preparations possible, quickest possible victory, and soonest possible exit the nation’s resources and circumstances will permit.

A responsibiity America has failed, as all nations have, on too many occasions.

It disgusts me to hear our military generals and Secretary of Defense defend this dishonor of our soldier’s sacrifice arguing that the best laid plans are useless after war begins. That is nothing more than a rhetorical defense for piss poor planning.

The U.S. could have delayed the invasion insuring that we first had an absolutely overwhelming force to invade, extremely well trained and equipped to lock down the borders, take control, leverage the local indigenous resources, and secure the nation of Iraq from infiltrators and insurgents.

Our military leaders however take their marching orders from the White House and Congress, and so, our military leadership bears less responsibility for the quagmire called Iraq than the civilian authorities who dictated their orders.

The war in Iraq, was not necessary, potentially avoidable, and its timetable was not set according to our military’s preparedness, but, according to civilian whims and fears. We did not muster the manpower, the equipment, and training necessary to accomplish victory and the quickest possible achievement of our goals. Instead, civilian authorities relied on being able to come up to speed as events played out. In this fashion, our civilian authorities have dishonored our fallen and maimed soldiers for the most expedient of political reasons, instead of reasons of need for the nation. Iraq is as large a shame upon American history as Viet Nam, for in the end, almost none of the objectives the Pres. stated as predicate for the invasion will have been achieved, save for two, Iraq has, if only temporarily, fairer and more democratic elections and Saddam Hussein was deposed.

But elections do not make a democracy, and Hussein was not a threat requiring such sacrifice by our military.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #111432

Jack

There are no words to add to that stream.

Posted by: tomh at January 9, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #111437

David said: But elections do not make a democracy, and Hussein was not a threat requiring such sacrifice by our military.

David - whatever you’re smokin’, I want some….

Not a threat?

Let’s go back to the first Gulf War. The one mistake the US made was to listen to the rest of the world and not take out Hussein.

So what did we do? We setup “No Fly” zones. How much did this cost the American taxpayer, year after year? We were spending millions of US dollars in these zones. So when is it enough for you?

I would like for you to go to Iraq and tell those people, particularly the women of Iraq, who were tortured and raped repeatedly, that Hussein didn’t need to be taken out. What about the Kurds? Go tell them…Maybe you should join the military and go serve in Iraq…You’ll change your tune quickly.

Sometimes it takes sacrifice to make the world a better place.

Posted by: Jim at January 9, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #111454

Jim,

I think you’re doing fine with the homemade crack you have. Bush senior’s plan, as has been well documented by now, did neutralize Sadaam as a threat at a fraction of the cost this war will incur.

I would like you to go to Iraq and talk with the people bombed and tortured by us how you have improved their situation, because a lot of them are not seeing it.

The genius of Reagan was winning the cold war without firing a shot. The genuis of Bush Sr. was putting us on the path to doing the same with Iraq with world support. The genuis of Bush Jr. is perverting the nationalism of dupes like you to win his political objectives.

I am as much a sucker for pictures like these as the next guy, but let’s not forget when we look at them to take them for what they are: propaganda. No one, I hope would argue that these pix represent the whole story in the same way no one, I hope, would say Abu Ghraib’s pix represent the whole story.

Posted by: Max at January 9, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #111457

Jim,

You stated then asked, “We were spending millions of US dollars in these zones. So when is it enough for you?”

Do you have any idea how much money we are spending now? Do you realize that a COMMUNIST country (China) is helping us fund this war?

Why doesn’t that bother conservatives?

Posted by: Vic at January 9, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #111460

Max, the “dupes like you” comment violates our policy. Please comply with our policy or lose your privlege to participate here.

Jim, same caution, saying folks are high on something for holding the views they do, is a critique of them, and not their message.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at January 9, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #111464

Jack,
I think you got to call a spade a spade, and what David said is true. We are not the world police and I feel sorry for oppressed countries and their citizens, but sending the young men and women of this great nation to fight in a politically voltile area is a waste of American goods and resources. I think we should of spent the money securing our boarders from the real terrorist crossing into the US instead of having the military play out some wierd video game with sidewalk bombs. The brave men and women deserve better and we are responsible, and as a veteran of the Viet Nam war, I salute them for following their orders to the letter.
Steve

Posted by: steve at January 9, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #111467

First, no soldier benefits from his superiors sending him into a poorly understood battlefield, for reasons that owe more to agenda than to derived conclusions coming from the most dependable data.

We can debate the conclusion endlessly, but the fact was that the Bush administration assumed they would find what they were looking for, and brought in the scariest pieces of information they could to back that. They believed that the worse that could happen was they found something not so scary, but something nonetheless.

What they didn’t figure on is that everybody did their job perfectly in the Clinton and previous Bush administration, either destroying the Weapons ourselves, or scaring him into doing so himself, albeit without Documentation. It won’t be the first time that this antipathy bites the administration in the butt.

Next, they went in low on soldiers. from the low level grunts, this would be the big complaint throughout the war, one officer even coming up to a senator or Rep. and telling him that despite what the brass said, we needed more soldiers. Rumsfeld, unfortunately, continuously shot down any plan that did not conform to his notion of how we should fight wars- mobile and light- and now, it may likely be too late to ask the public for more troops, without some flareup scaring the shit out of the public.

Then they made the mistake of assuming that despite the fact that they were going to invade a country and decapitate its leadership, that they would not have to do any nation building. According to the original plans, we were supposed to start withdrawing the few troops we had there in August 2003

They believed they could hand over power to the Iraqi Exiles, slamming the door in the face of so many other planners, so many other options, that when the time came and things once again turned out worse than their worst case scenarios were allowing for.

Over time, the picture is one of intellectual paralysis, a groupthink that strangled alternatives and corrections before they could ever be planned, much less implemented.

But of course, from time to time, folks are going to make such errors. After all, my party did get us involved in a few problematic wars. But in Vietnam, as here, the political side of the war aggravated the policy side’s errors.

This is where our administration betrayed the soldiers. The Betrayal was putting re-election ahead of the correction of mistakes, the admission of errors. Thus, when it was learned that insufficient armor was going on vehicles, they took potshots at the messengers instead of dealing with the problem. Instead of admitting the failures of the policy when the results were still in a malleable state, they are admitting them now that they are safely a part of history, to be looked upon with 20/20 hindsight.

Division, diversion, and digression may be the convenient tools of politicians, but they are deadly to war efforts and warriors alike. It is unfortunate that in fighting this war, with our entire country involved, with our military’s prestige and integrity on the line, that they wasted so much time and effort attacking and shutting out their critics, instead of taking care of the real problems that they faced.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 9, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #111474

This montage shows us a couple of things.

1) There are a lot of troops on the ground who are good people that follow the orders they’re given. (Just like our Vietnam veterans, BTW)

2) Our corporate media is interested in keeping the US constituency behind the Iraq war.

I could put together a similar montage of atrocities committed by our troops in Iraq, but they’d be from ‘unreliable’ news sources like the BBC and Al’Jazeera.

You can always put a positive spin on a war by showing the humanity of the troops on the ground, but war is always a great deal larger than just the individuals fighting for the US machine. We cannot forget the larger picture.

Posted by: aparker at January 9, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #111477

Schwamp,

let me see if I’ve this right. You want those
racists at Reuters and the Associated Press to
fill a RACE QUOTA when it comes to taking photos
in a war? Liberals and/versus priorities! What
are you going to do? How do know, Schwamp, how
many minorities are in those pictures who are
in shadowed silhouette? How many African-American
soldiers are in those photos who are in full
battle gear and can’t be recognized by their race?
And does that matter to the Islamic extremeist
insurgents? No. They only want to kill the red,
the white and the blue. And the last time I
checked, we all bleed red.

Schwamp, how can you tell whether or not in those
photos it’s a white, black or Hispanic piloting a
helicopter, jet fighter or rescuing fellow soldiers as an ambulance driver? Are you psychic?
Or are you a typical liberal who just prefers to
look at the potential negatives? Are you a self
loathing minority who looks for examples of
racism under every rock or are you a white liberal
who believes he/she is saving the world by looking
for further things to divide us?

What kind of racist point do YOU have? Thank GOD
you’ve proven that stupidity is not “under-
represented” here.

Posted by: Dale Garland at January 9, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #111478

To All

It is easy to pontificate about our own beliefs within the geographical boundaries of the great, glorious Unites States of America. When one transcends these borders and transplant themselves into a place where American law does not prevail, but law based upon cultures, dictatorships, lawlessness, and so on, then one must acknowledge that what we experience here in this great country cannot be experienced in other countries. Most other countries on this earth have structures that don’t even approach what we achieve in this country. They are mostly suppressed, oppressed, depressed, endentured, deprived, and much more. We must, as human beings assist those who need assistance to achieve a level highter than they are now living under. It is idealistic to believe that any other country of the world will be anywhere near as free as what we are herre. If we understand those other peoples of the world, we would find that they want to achieve truth, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Most other countries cannot make the statement that they are moving forward on those ideals. We have the capability to assist them and we must do that. It it takes military action, so be it. It it takes only diplomacy (which almost never happens), then so be it. The bottom line is we are are brother’s keeper.

Posted by: tomh at January 9, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #111479

I watch the pictures with mixed emotions. I’m proud of our troops and the courage they’ve displayed. But I’m also sadden by the fact that they are in harms way.

David

No sane, rational person under ordinary circumstances would choose to remain in the middle of the carnage of war.

I totally disagree.
Have you ever heard of a thing called a sense of duty? ALL of todays Military is made up of volenteers. Most of them joined because they feel it their duty to serve their country.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 9, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #111491

Dale,
I admit the race thing was a divisive and un-necssary thing to point out. Though maybe there is something to it.

Ron,
I agree. The sense of cameraderie among troops in battle is very powerful.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 9, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #111520

Any good or supportive material is called: (propaganda)
Our troops mission is shameful, they have no honor: (Iraq is as large a shame upon American history)
Our troops are criminals and THAT must be first on every American voters mind: atrocities committed by our troops in Iraq
Our troops are nothing but pawns who cannot think for themselves. They are fighting and dying for a machine, not for love of country: just the individuals fighting for the US machine

A touching and loving slideshow that shows the troops in a positive light brings nothing but negativity.
Kind of puts the troops question- “Why doesn’t the left support us”- into prespective doesn’t it.

Thanks for the link Jack.
Too bad so many think it was such a terrible thing.

Posted by: kctim at January 9, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #111522
What about the Kurds? Go tell them

^That Winston Churchill is your hero. All of us know what he thought of the Kurds.

Posted by: Paleocon at January 9, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #111526

Kctim,

As usual, you miss the point. The point is Jack has a fetish with calling and gloating victories before they even occur.

I don’t have a problem with it; I do see in the humor in such an attempt though.

Posted by: Paleocon at January 9, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #111531

tomh,
You are absolutely wrong about being our brothers keeper. God gave the people of earth a free will, and I for one will keep what I hold true and dear to me. I will not impose my will, beliefs, politics, loves or whatever else on anybody. I can’t because it isn’t right, nor is it what people want. Ever talk to a woman that was in a controlling relationship? I think that most Americans have forgotten the meaning of a civilized nation. I think the opinions of other nations have become so inure to us that we can’t hear their screams. I think we should go back to that acronym KISS and not worry about Ivan, Ahmed, or Wong or whomever. I think if we keep ourselves self-contained we will be much better off. I think your way off base with being our brothers keeper.
Steve

Posted by: steve at January 9, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #111555

caint we?? caint we??? caint we all just git along?
I liked the photography. The whole presentation was a demonstration of excellent photographic quality. I sent the link to everyone in my address book.
I also perused the second link provided by another post. The presentation was lousy but the diversity of the images offered a much broader representation of what is happening in Iraq.
Did you notice in the second link, the number of smiles? Probably the same as the number of woe, or the same as the number of dead, but represented nonetheless.
Both links provided a wealth of information. The first is something I would expect to see at the end of a news cast. The second, Death, woe, and smiles, I would like to see during the news cast.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #111564

Pal
“As usual, you miss the point. The point is Jack has a fetish with calling and gloating victories before they even occur”

Your right, as usual, I have missed the party before the nation and soldiers point.

Jack said: Just something interesting. Comment if you like, or just watch it.

How is that gloating?
Why is ANYTHING positive considered propaganda?
Why is it not possible to watch this slidshow without a political thought?
What is wrong with taking the pics at face value instead of demeaning them?

As usual, you guys fail to see any good if it does not support your party or its agenda.

Posted by: kctim at January 9, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #111579

Steve,

Well, let’s say you’re right that we shouldn’t be imposing our “will, beliefs, politics, loves or whatever else on anybody”. Should the U.S. also stop providing financial and medical assistance to needy nations?

Mark

Posted by: Mark at January 9, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #111582

Kctim,

As usual, you guys fail to see any good if it does not support your party or its agenda.

Do you see my nic? I could care less for either party (I’ll vote Republican over Democrat), but this video epitomizes the rosy picture that President Bush wants to portray, whilst he sits back and gets advise from others due to him being such a failure on foreign policy.

Neoconservatism is fine, if you want an aggressive foreign policy, but 1.) Finish the job (he hasn’t done a satisfactory job in my opinion and 2.) Pick a fight with a better nation. If you’re going to be close to a Fascist on foreign policy, at least have the will to fight a nation worth your time.

Of course, natural resources always come first, which is too bad.

Jack said: Just something interesting. Comment if you like, or just watch it.

How is that gloating?
Why is ANYTHING positive considered propaganda?
Why is it not possible to watch this slidshow without a political thought?
What is wrong with taking the pics at face value instead of demeaning them?

That’s credulous. Of course, he isn’t going to type “Hey guys, I’m going to pull an Eric.”

I like Jack and respect him (he certainly isn’t a political pleb), but a lot of his arguments are borderline sophistry. At least he isn’t nearly guilty as most who follow politics.

1.) Read above ^

2.) Because Iraq isn’t hardly like that. I know enough men in the military who have been there. They don’t say it’s dark and gloomy, but they do they it sucks and they want to go home. This video is about gloating in the left-wing’s face (not that I care, but I pick on “Hey, we accomplished the mission when you thought we’d fail”, as you can read my second post in this thread for consistency on such; calling a victory and gloating about it when there is a long ways to go.

3.) Because you become a lemming, a pleb, a sheep and a sycophant if you aren’t politically aware at all times. I am curious if you fail to grasp how dirty government really is.

4.) You should really do a per capita on this. What’s wrong with it? Well, I bet 9.5/10 are anxious to go home and don’t want to be there. You’ll have a few who die and this video is slightly about the death rate, in terms of likelihood in what is actually transpiring.

With all due respect, I don’t see how you can be a libertarian and be so credulous when it comes to the Republican party. You aren’t alone; I meet plenty of neocon-libertarians (and that’s an oxy-moron in and of itself.)

The typical Neoconservative I come across shouts CUT WELFARE CUT WELFARE, but they won’t support the actual abolishment. It’s like the Cons who want to be tough on the Mexican border, yet, they are too pacifist to support Pat Buchanan’s “shoot and kill.”

Posted by: Paleocon at January 9, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #111601

Geesh! You guys are killin’ me

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #111621

Okay Mark,
Yes we should not be providing financial assistance for any nation. I was under the notion that evangelist and the priests and those sort of people would be providing financial assistance to the needy. Accountability for the people who collect money to “help” the needy would be nice, furthermore that would put a lesser strain on the American taxpayer.
Medical assistance is a horse of a different color because I’m not sure what you mean by that. If you mean should Doctors be required to donate their time, no they shouldn’t. If you mean medical teams are sent to a castrophy like the tsunami to assist in the treatment of the injured and infected, no the US shouldn’t pay for it. Once again, I remember the TV ads asking for money to pay for treatments and aid.
I must say I am a firm believer in the Monroe Doctrine and think we should leave the world alone, and get on with our lives. We can hide under the disguise of being humanitarian, but in the end, it’s about the money invested in a region or country. No more, no less. The thought that we would do anything without a dollar sign attached is ridiculous.
Steve

Posted by: Steve at January 9, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #111625

Paleocon,
Pat Buchanan is the anti-christ and should be treated as such. He is a manipulating cow that tells millions of people how to think and what to do, yet I don’t see him on the border with his 30 odd six. No sir, the guy is a fraud and he fuels the finger-pointing going on in this country. Instead of saying the President may have made a mistake and let’s fix it, he’ll say something like “George Bush should have told the [NAACP convention] that black America has grown up; that the NAACP should close up shop, that its members should go home and reflect on JFK’s admonition: ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country”. He not a neo-con he’s a hypocrit.
Steve

Posted by: Steve at January 9, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #111628

kctim
How is that gloating?

It’s not demeaning the troops


Why is ANYTHING positive considered propaganda?

Because it doesn’t show Bush in bad light.

Why is it not possible to watch this slidshow without a political thought?

Gotta get the message across. Bad Troops.

What is wrong with taking the pics at face value instead of demeaning them?

Because there’s no Liberial spin that way.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 9, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #111629

Steve, do you know what the Monroe Doctrine stated?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 9, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #111638
30 odd six

Seriously not being mean, but it’s a ‘30 ought 6’.

It’s the name of a shell, the .30-06 Springfield Cartridge. Not the name of the gun used to shoot this cartridge, which at the time was the Springfield 1903 rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-‘06

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 9, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #111639

I think to truly get the full and accurate picture of the Iraq War and what our troops are doing there, we need to look at the series of pictures that BOTH Jack and treehugger linked to.

David, Stephen, very good replies.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 9, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #111642

Yes, David and Stephen. Adrienne is right.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #111652

I’ll wait for another hour for a reply.
I hope it’s not another sermon on somebody’s soapbox.
I hope it’s not from a gnat either.
Of all the threads I’ve read in the last 2 weeks I enjoyed this one the most. Not because I won, beat someone, changed some minds! I enjoyed this thread because I saw both sides. “SAW” Both sides. One made me feel proud, the other made me see the raw material.
What influienced me the most was the smiles. They were present in both links.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #111655

Ron, it is one thing to join to serve. It is another to choose to stay in a combat zone. That takes the training and mental conditioning of the military PLUS a sense of duty to override the normal, rational response to escape a combat zone.

Have you been seen tortured, twisted injuries, severe burns, or the dead from shrapnel wounds? It is not a situation a normal ration person would choose to continue to witness under NORMAL Circumstances. Which I pointed out.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #111658

You stress NORMAL. Why are you equating war with NORMAL. If you would look at link number 2 you would see war. If you would also look at link number 2 you would also see why they are there.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #111659

I’ve found it informative to look at the images posted by both sides here, but this is a totally emotional instead of logic-driven way of trying to understand an issue.

What is the “real” picture of World War II? Pictures of the Holocaust or pictures of an American soldier kissing a woman in Times Square?

What is the “real story” of Iraq? A picture of a child wounded by an American bomb or a bulldozer unearthing Saddam’s mass graves?

Unfortunately, the sound-bytes and 15 second news clips of our media culture have conditioned us to base our understanding of issues on cherry-picked images which can never deliver the full story.

If you see a picture of one man cutting open another man’s chest, someone might tell you, “Look at that madman torturing and killing that innocent victim!” Others might explain, however, that despite the sickening spectacle, the blood and guts, the image actually shows a doctor trying to save someone’s life.

So what’s the truth? Images themselves don’t tell us. One of the biggest lies of all is that a “picture tells a thousand words.”

Posted by: sanger at January 9, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #111660

The first link shows the pride this company, this “corporate/american”, has for the kids who signed up after the Trade Center went down.
Link # 1 shows how much that little girl wants her daddy to come home.
He might, he might not.
The least we could do is give that little girl the impression her daddy will come home a hero.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #111662

Steve,

Invoking the Monroe Doctrine while making a case for isolationism seems a bit contradictory to me. Plus, I’m not quite sure how the Monroe Doctrine is relative to the Iraq situation anyway.

Nonetheless, I think I understand what you’re getting at, and I certainly can’t argue that an isolationist approach is very attractive, if not unrealistic. Plus, you seem to be consistent on the issue. I don’t quite agree with you, but that’s a different thing altogether. My personal feeling is that an effective national security strategy requires a decisively more offensive approach.

Mark

Posted by: Mark at January 9, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #111664

Jack, THANK’S! You did it again.

David,
Their are soldiers re-enlisting. They have that sence of duty.

Schwimp, Dale,
Why even mention the race thing? There is no race thing here.

NEGATIVES,
How anywone can find something negative about these images is beyond me.

Posted by: rick at January 9, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #111669

Jack,

Wow! Very interesting stuff; great job!! It certainly puts it in perspective. God Bless our Troops and God Bless America…

Posted by: rahdigly at January 9, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #111674

Go here for information on the Monroe Doctrine

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/MonroeDo

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #111676

Are Romer and Daughtery off pontificating? I see them everywhere. I’d have thought they would have chimed in by now.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #111689

I’m an old man. I have to get up in the morning. I don’t have the option of typing day after day. I work for a living.
I will say the R&D factory has made me listen. They’ve made me listen to the very first post, because I feel I may be the only one.
I loved the photography in link #1 and I appreciate and respect the photograpy in link #2.
I lost interest in the subsequent links because they didn’t matter. I shouldn’t have even responded yet I do. A human thing. Perhaps I should change my ways.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #111698

The main issue that I’ve seen is that Republicans are often unwilling to be persuasive, and instead resort to being manipulation and intimidation. I don’t say so lightly, I say so after being given a picture of the situations in Iraq before the war that was negligently constructed, and after seeing my party bashed all over the place by the GOP for having reservations about this war, and authorizing Bush to wage it.

Because they were unwilling to change minds and hearts by means of logic and statesmanship, the price they paid was grudging, conditional support for the war.

Because they have focused more on the political aspects of the war, the image of it, and not on the substance of fighting it, many have gotten the impression that the primary GOP interest in continuing the war is reinforcing their power, if not expanding it. Because some of that early support was bought at liberal’s expense, the crazy theory gains a certain credibility. It doesn’t help that the Neocons adhere to a rather objectivist rationale for the things they do, and that they tried to sell pre-emptive war against Iraq to the Israeli’s back in the late 90’s.

It’s paranoid to believe that this is what the GOP and Neocons wanted, but the paranoid in this case is preferable for many to the scary thought that their government is truly in this far over their heads.

In the end, the tragedy of Iraq is that at every step the Republicans could have taken a much humbler approach, and avoided much grief and heartache for us all. As it is, it is now America’s war, and it will do us no good as a nation to treat it like its somebody else’s problem. It will be ours, especially if those we let down in Iraq decide to bring the trouble back home to us, in the most tragic of ironies. It took a group of Neocons with an agenda to open up this can of worms. It will take the whole country’s cooperation to stuff them back in, if that’s possible.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 9, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #111751

After reading these comments, is it any wonder that most people think the Libs DON’T support the troops?

Thank you Jack. As a VietNam vet your slide show brought a tear to my eye and put a lump in my throat. In every picture even in the 2nd link I see the building of FREEDOM.

Posted by: tomd at January 10, 2006 4:41 AM
Comment #111818

Pal
It is a slideshow, nothing more. Anybody who feels they have to be negative about a post like this is just being partisan.

As for your question:
“I am curious if you fail to grasp how dirty government really is”

I subscribe to the Alex Jones train of thought. You tell me.

www.infowars.com

Posted by: kctim at January 10, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #111820

They already did Rocky, it’s called peace.

Posted by: Katherine at January 10, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #111823

If anybody believes that liberals don’t support the troops, tomd, it’s because of folks like you repeating that awful lie again and again.

When you’re so cynical about us that you believe every move we make is political, you miss the little things. Things like advocating for the best armor for our troops and vehicles. Things like advocating for greater troop presences, and policies to reduce the manpower strain of our volunteer army. Things like our continued insistence on securing Iraq.

I don’t feel like I need to be reminded of the pain and the sacrifice of the soldiers in Iraq. I think about that everyday, and I can’t for the life of me understand why this doesn’t seem to be plausible to those on the right.

We need to start understanding that big ideas and sweeping generalizations will not win the war in Iraq, and will not help our soldiers in the least. Iraq will be a war where the small victories of democracy will be most crucial. Not the elections, so much, but the acceptance and the living out of the rule of law. We defeated Saddam’s armies, but now we and the Iraqis face his deep-seated legacy of paranoia, cynicism, and ethnic strife. No politician’s speech or flypaper strategy can defeat that. It’s long past time that the right realizes that the manner in which we conduct ourselves in wars like this will be crucial to our success in this and future wars. It’s long past time they realize that a policy of political divisiveness back home, from either side of the aisle, will be useful to nobody.

It’s time we figure out that whether we believe it or not, we’re in this together, for the good and the bad. The tragedy of the Iraq war has been that in failing to trust anybody but their own coterie of fellow hawks, the architects of this war sowed the seeds of many of the failures and errors of this war. It would be unfortunate for that bubbled-off sensibility to continue. The history of the last century has proven that no one party has the monopoly on fighting wars or making peace, and no one party has the monopoly on screwing it up. We are all human, and all fallible, and if we do not listen to others, we will see the horizons of our future shrouded in the mists of self-absorbed partisanship.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #111835

Most Iraq intervention vets I have talked to are not terribly political people, but the human situation in Iraq presented itself starkly. Most of the Iraqi people are needy, many are modernist minded and would love for their nation to get up to the level of peace and stability of Kuwait or Jordan. Many of our young soldiers are fairly sensitive to the Iraqi human situation.

However, our troops can’t help but notice that the enemy we find there is evil, evil, evil. This enemy makes it easy to personify every video game one has ever played.

And what do the troops perceive as the outlook on Iraq of the MSM and the Cindy Sheehan huggers?
Something close to being beyond blindly negative, beyond being quagmire pessimists, and verging on being cheerleaders for the very goals that the enemy most wants—an unconditional surrender and premature withdrawal.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook at January 10, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #111842

“And what do the troops perceive as the outlook on Iraq of the MSM and the Cindy Sheehan huggers?”

It doesn’t matter what the troops think. They are brainwashed patsies who do not think for themselves.
All positives must be countered with negatives.
You can’t see the good in anything, you must dwell on the bad.

Posted by: kctim at January 10, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #111844

Jack:

I appreciated the manner in which you provided this slide show. You didn’t preach, you didn’t provide comment—you simply put it out there for people to watch and comment on.

Its interesting to note that many people had positive things to say about how the slide show presents our soldiers. Others quickly labeled it as “propaganda” (Paleocon), “racist” (Schwamp), or took it as an opportunity to slam the administration or the military totally by using words like “brainwashed”, “quagmire”, “disgust” and “shame” (David Remer).

I liked how treehugger took the opportunity not to negate the slide show, but rather to add a different and perhaps more complete set of pictures to it. Max as well suggested that no one should think that “these pix represent the whole story”, which of course they don’t. Adrienne, with whom I usually disagree, said it best: “I think to truly get the full and accurate picture of the Iraq War and what our troops are doing there, we need to look at the series of pictures that BOTH Jack and treehugger linked to.” (Bet you haven’t been holding your breath waiting for a compliment from ME, eh, Adrienne? ;) )

But the quickness with which some writers jumped to the use of negativity is eye-opening. It’s indicative of their mindset. The slide show portrayed our soldiers wonderfully, whether you agree with the premise for the war or not. The slide show honored the men and women for their courage and sacrifice, whether you agree with the premise for the war or not.

Its a shame that it couldn’t simply be seen by all for what it was, but instead was used by some as a platform to display their negative thoughts.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 10, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #111896

When a soldier asks, “why did my friend die”, I want my answer to be one of substance, not one of formality. I want the words “He died for his country” to mean something beyond the reassurances of grieving family and friends, or even the soldier’s own personal sacrifice. I want them to mean that for that sacrifice, something was acheived that truly merited the loss of such a proud life.

In the scheme of things, the thing is that many of the soldiers are far ahead of their leaders in terms of knowing what must be done. That’s shameful. Brave soldiers do not deserve feckless leaders.

Fortunately, leaders can improve, but they need to want to do that themselves. The unfortunate part these past years has been the unwillingness of our leaders to reconcile their grand ideas of the war with the realities of it.

We need to, as a nation, come together and collectively sacrifice our big ideas about the right and wrong of this war, and simply observe the needs of the situation and act accordingly. If that means drafting Americans to aid the military, so be it. If that means we stay five years instead of two, we do that. If that means withdrawing from the nation ahead of time, that’s what we do. We need to listen to those who know what they’re doing, and moreover, put them in charge of things.

The soldiers in that video put their trust in their superiors, including the American Citizens who are highest in the chain of command (We elected the president after all) to do what’s right. We should not fail them by assuming the best when the worst is yet possible. We should not fail them by letting the vindication of our ideologies take priority over the practical completion of this mission.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #111899

Kathrine,

“They already did Rocky, it’s called peace.”

Peace isn’t an idea, peace is a reality.
Until all humans can put all their differences asside, until all humans can become enlightened enough to treat all others as they want to be treated, the reality of peace will remain only a dream.
It is greed that drives the forces of man to conquest. Whether those forces are controled by despotic regiemes, or by those that prop them up, or by those that merely allow them to exist.
That isn’t the road to peace.
The road to true peace isn’t paved by those that belive in peace through strength, it is paved by those that realize that we, all of us, live on a tiny rock in space, and this is all we have together, and we better make the best of it.

Posted by: Rocky at January 10, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #111950

David R. Remer

Ron, it is one thing to join to serve. It is another to choose to stay in a combat zone. That takes the training and mental conditioning of the military PLUS a sense of duty to override the normal, rational response to escape a combat zone.

But I don’t call that being brainwashed.

Have you been seen tortured, twisted injuries, severe burns, or the dead from shrapnel wounds? It is not a situation a normal ration person would choose to continue to witness under NORMAL Circumstances. Which I pointed out.

I served two tours in Vietnam for a total of 2 1/2 years with the Search and Rescue Service.
I turned out ok,ok,ok,ok……….

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 10, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #111955

Hello,
To all those people asking what the Monroe Doctrine has to do with Iraq, this is a quote ” It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. President Monroe goes on to say the United States will go to War with any intrusion, that was 1823, fast-forward to 2006. I do believe there is a time to step up and crush a tyrannt, Saddam probably fits the mold, but I see much more dangerous people, and much more atrocities then what good ole Saddam did. Personally, I would put the 140,000 troops in Afghanistan and really fight terror. Then I would send a note to China and No Korea to clean up their act.
I have see war at it’s worst in Viet Nam and Iraq is done. The brave woman and men are pulling straws to see who gets kill next, I don’t like it, they don’t like it, and the Iraqi’s don’t like it. We are putting the criminal on trial, let’s say have a nice day, and send the troops to Afghanistan and really clean up the mess. I may be alone in this, but I know the terrorist are in Afghanistan, the bozo’s in Iraq are some wierd freedom fighter jihad shitheads, like the IRA in Ireland. Leave them alone, they’ll soon be knocking on our door for something.
Steve

Posted by: Steve at January 10, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #111997

Steve-
By no means should we leave them alone. Unfortunately, Bush’s misguided policy has gotten us into a position where Iraq’s failure will be a strategic failure of far more consequence to us than Vietnam’s failure. That’s why it has always been my position that we have to finish what we started here, despite the foolishness of how we got there in the first place. Bush’s mistake cannot simply be remedied by the opposite action. I do not blame folks for not wanting to stick with a war that they were not honestly brought to support, and whose conduct and setup cost way more than was advertised, but I don’t see where we have a choice, if we don’t want to create a strategic train wreck. We will see this resolved, or we will have to add it to that monster deficit as the inheritance of our children.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #112047

We must stay in Iraq. Bush and his Republicans broke Iraq. Bush and his Republicans must fix it. We must stay until ALL Al Queda are dead. No matter how many Republicans are killed in this, we must stay the course.

Posted by: Aldous at January 10, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #112052

I waited around for sixty entries.

I find them all very fascinating. It is kind of a Rorschach test.

We have pictures of American soldiers. None are engaged in combat. It shows them in ordinary activities on patrol and around camp. We see some having fun and some grieving. I thought of it as a moving tribute to our troops. Not everyone saw that same thing.

Those obsessed with race, see a racist montage.

Those obsessed with Bush see a failed Bush policy

You also have to understand why some people see the left as anti-military. We get comments that we should show U.S. atrocities or something with Abu Ghraib. We get accusations that pictures of American soldiers are Bush propaganda. So I have to wonder if pictures of American soldiers not fighting and not abusing someone offends you, what is your attitude toward American soldiers? And if you think that pictures of American soldiers is propaganda for Bush, what do you think is propaganda against Bush?

Of course, Aldous thinks all the soldiers are Republicans.

Posted by: Jack at January 10, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #112062

Jack:
“You also have to understand why some people see the left as anti-military.”

I am on the left but I am not anti-military. I respect their service and am grateful for what they do for all of us. I am however very much against this president — for many reasons, not the least of which is because I don’t think those young men and women who serve us so well should even be there. Because I know he didn’t provide them with a proper or affective amount of armor which they’ve needed. And because he has cut their wages and health benefits. In short, I don’t think this president respects them or honors them as I do, instead, I think he’s treated them like pawns he can move around to do his bidding. I suspect that his attitude is because he himself never had to experience what it is like to be sent off to war.

“We get comments that we should show U.S. atrocities or something with Abu Ghraib.”

Of course we must force ourselves to look at some of the bad or downright atrocious things that have happened due to our engaging in pre-emptive optional war. Because that is the reality, and because some of what has happened there has heaped shame upon the name of America. Acknowledging things is how lessons are learned. Being too squeamish to look, or hiding from such unpleasant things means we are refusing to learn those lessons.

“We get accusations that pictures of American soldiers are Bush propaganda.”

I think that your pictures alone without looking at treehuggers could definitely be considered propaganda. They were far too clean and didn’t show much in the way of all the dirty, hard work going on or the death, dismemberment and destruction that is taking place. The suffering that is being endured by our troops and by the people of Iraq is something that cannot and should not be avoided, IMO. Like I said, it’s important to look at many pictures to try to get a sense of the whole story.

“So I have to wonder if pictures of American soldiers not fighting and not abusing someone offends you, what is your attitude toward American soldiers?”

It doesn’t offend me to look at nice clean pictures of our troops, it offends me that others might get the sense that those are the only kind there are, simply because they won’t seek out, or indeed refuse to look at the dirtier, bloodier, more tragic and heartbreaking kind that are also out there.

“And if you think that pictures of American soldiers is propaganda for Bush, what do you think is propaganda against Bush?”

I don’t think propaganda against Bush is necessary. The Iraq war has been a huge mistake (even by several of his own admissions, and in the view of some of the people in the Republican Party) so every picture we see of our injured or dead soldiers is a reminder of that fact, as well as of their failure to plan, and equip, and wage this war with too few soldiers. This is why they didn’t want us to see the photos of the flag-draped coffins returning home. And this is why they bring our injured soldiers home to the military hospitals in DC only at night, also.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #112067

Jack-
It’s not rorschach, it’s a mirror. The work pretty much speaks for itself, and few show an active dislike for the soldiers themselves, so all you’ve basically done is started people where they left off.

You want a real debate, look at the war and find something new and different to say about it. That will shift things around.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #112069

Rorschach. The images have revealed the personalities.

I wrote nothing about Bush or even about Iraq. I am not sure if all the images comes from Iraq or if some are from Afghanistan or anywhere else.

Rocky’s initial post made sense for a person who had doubts about war but not about the troops. Others didn’t leave it at that.

Posted by: Jack at January 10, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #112083

Jack,

I suggest that the responses you’re getting from some posters—and interpreting as anti-troop—are much more likely to be only anti-Jack. I was actually surprised (and pleased) to see that you just posted the link, but refrained from making any other statement. However, I can imagine others who have followed your posts in the past jumping to conclusions and assuming you had an agenda behind the post—they are responding to their assumptions about your agenda, not the video itself. I have a hunch that, if you had posted the link under a different and unfamiliar name, you would see fewer negative responses.

Posted by: Charles Wager at January 11, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #112088

“However, I can imagine others who have followed your posts in the past jumping to conclusions and assuming you had an agenda behind the post—they are responding to their assumptions about your agenda, not the video itself. I have a hunch that, if you had posted the link under a different and unfamiliar name, you would see fewer negative responses.

Posted by: Charles Wager at January 11, 2006 02:05 AM”

Kind of like hating President Bush just because he’s President Bush.

Posted by: tomd at January 11, 2006 3:35 AM
Comment #112090

“If anybody believes that liberals don’t support the troops, tomd, it’s because of folks like you repeating that awful lie again and again.” I don’t see a lie. All I see on this thread is a beautiful post by Jack that shows our finest troops at their best, and just look at all the negative comments. I view your support of our troops kind of like I percieved Jane Fonda’s visit to Honoi. If I ever have to go to war again, PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT ME.

Posted by: tomd at January 11, 2006 3:51 AM
Comment #112104

tomd,

Kind of like hating President Bush just because he’s President Bush.
You’re not giving Bush nearly enough credit here—he’s earned every bit of resentment that’s directed his way. I don’t know a single person that doesn’t like Bush that can’t name a long list of legitimate grievances. I also don’t know a single person that doesn’t like Bush that didn’t give him the benefit of the doubt and full support after 9/11. Since then, he’s betrayed our trust almost on a daily basis. You many love Bush because of his words, but don’t blame us for disliking him because of his actions (or inactions).
All I see on this thread is a beautiful post by Jack that shows our finest troops at their best, and just look at all the negative comments.
I see a few negative comments (including yours), and many more positive ones. None of the negative comments are directed against our troops.

Posted by: Charles Wager at January 11, 2006 5:23 AM
Comment #112115

“All I see on this thread is a beautiful post by Jack that shows our finest troops at their best, and just look at all the negative comments.
I see a few negative comments (including yours), and many more positive ones. None of the negative comments are directed against our troops.”

That’s my point. Jack posts a wonderful slideshow that shows our military in it’s best possible light. Nothing in his pictures or post identify it as even being political and certainly not left or right, and and it took a mere 19 minutes to connect it to the President. I see it as a tribute to our fighting men and women and I think every American should be proud to see it.

Again, Thank you Jack.

Posted by: tomd at January 11, 2006 6:02 AM
Comment #112134

Once again someone takes a beautiful tribute to the brave soldiers of this country and turns it into an oppertunity to play politcs. SHAME ON YOU COWARDS!

Posted by: G at January 11, 2006 6:25 AM
Comment #112149

You want a real debate, look at the war and find something new and different to say about it. That will shift things around.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2006 11:21 PM

No, You’ll get the same anti Bush, anti Troop retorect.
The anti Bush doesn’t bother me. That come with the job. It’s the anti troop that makes me want to climb through wires and strangle the people posting it. These guys are doing the job they’re told to do. Most went in service because they fell a sense of duty to our great country. They don’t deserve this.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 11, 2006 8:54 AM
Comment #112150

Charles

I am wounded. I was unaware that I was so detested that my mere presence would cause otherwise rational and patriotic Americans to come out against pictures of our troops.

Re the general idea of being popular, I go with Oscar Wilde on this one, “There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about”. I guess it is better if my simple name provokes a negative reaction than no reaction at all.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #112167

I just have to roll my eyes at this. This in’t a Rorschach test, because I bet that if you asked people who their sympathies were with, nearly everybody would say “The Soldiers.”

If anything is showing up in the different interpretations, it’s a different of approach. People like me believe that it takes more than lip service to the glory of the soldiers to see that the purpose that the soldiers are dedicated to is fulfilled. Some farther to my left believe that the soldiers are the victims of a bad policy, and that the best course of action is to end the policy and bring them home. They would say that the images present false comfort in the face of a terribly more ugly reality.

Others, on the right, are still dedicated to protecting their leaders, and leaving unquestioned the President’s policy choices. They think that the criticism and even opposition coming from Democrats is dangerous to our national security.

Still others recognize that something has gotten screwed up, but that the troops need our support. Seeing a response from the Democrats like ours, though, they respond themselves in a way shaped by notions of Democrats as peaceniks and collaborators, an image pushed by the media they’ve been taught to trust.

There’s very little in the way of new substance in the aesthetically pleasing montage, and once you’ve seen a few seconds of it, you could guess what point the rest of it has easily.

My previous post to Jack runs along these lines: In the absence of new opinions or new facts, the old debates stands. So, unless there is a new, significant set of facts to bring to the fore, you’re going to see people assume their old stances. That is why it’s necessary for you to bring a new view to the debate, a new interpretation. That increases the chance that people will be knocked off of their comfortable stances (amply demonstrated here) and forced to reconsider things from a new perspective.

If anybody here has the chance, they need to read George Packer’s The Assassins’ Gate. That book represents what is badly needed in this war: perspective. You cannot read the book without believing that the Bush Administration bungled things, but you also cannot read it without concluding that we have a responsibility to see Democracy through to fruition there. For too long, our strategy here at home has been protecting ourselves, preserving our own lives. We cannot go to Iraq and create Democracy if all we are concerned about are the body counts on either side. The Bush administration got us into this without comprehending the sacrifice necessary to do so. It’s time we face that necessity, and not use the blithe simplicity of hawk and dove positions as an excuse not to think.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #112234

Stephen:

And some of us simply took it at face value and saw the honoring of our soldiers. As was intended. There was no politicization of the slide show other than what each individual viewing it brought to bear. And by reading what people brought to the blank canvas, we got a viewpoint into their psyches.

Some painted with positive affirming strokes. Some added texture to the canvas by providing additional materials. And some…..you know who you are….couldn’t resist painting with dark brooding colors.

I look inside myself and see my heart is black
I see my red door and it has been painted black
Maybe then I’ll fade away and not have to face the facts
It’s not easy facin’ up when your whole world is black

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 11, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #112282

“My previous post to Jack runs along these lines: In the absence of new opinions or new facts, the old debates stands. So, unless there is a new, significant set of facts to bring to the fore, you’re going to see people assume their old stances. That is why it’s necessary for you to bring a new view to the debate, a new interpretation. That increases the chance that people will be knocked off of their comfortable stances (amply demonstrated here) and forced to reconsider things from a new perspective.”….Or you can post more peaceful, benign posts like this one and let the “Bush Bashers” and military haters expose themselves for who they are as they are now.

Posted by: tomd at January 11, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #112288

Stephen posted:

So, unless there is a new, significant set of facts to bring to the fore, you’re going to see people assume their old stances.
tomd responded:
Or you can post more peaceful, benign posts like this one and let the “Bush Bashers” and military haters expose themselves for who they are as they are now.
Which illustrates Stephen’s point nicely…

Posted by: Charles Wager at January 11, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #112291

Jack,

I am wounded. I was unaware that I was so detested that my mere presence would cause otherwise rational and patriotic Americans to come out against pictures of our troops.
Now you’re just being melodramatic. All you have to do is go back to some of your other posts about unpatriotic Americans and look at the responses you get—often, they are similar. If this is a Rorschach test then it’s a reflection on you, not the troops.

Perhaps you did have an agenda here—to bait people into responding the way they usually do so you could jump on them for being unpatriotic. I can’t prove that one way or the other, and I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt…but your assumptions about the negative posters is supporting that theory.

Posted by: Charles Wager at January 11, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #112314

I saw the quality of the photography. For instance, the photo of the soldier standing in the light on top of a pile of rubble. I saw that and I thought it must have taken hours to pose. But then, how could it have taken hours?

The Credits contained a media organization, my apologies for not naming them.
I realized out of the huge number photos being taken this type of quality will always be there. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut.
The second link showed photos of everyday snapshot stuff. I noticed the photos of wounded children had labels attached. I didn’t notice any labeled photos with smiles. Perhaps that is propaganda.

I would like to see a broader range of information come out of the media.
Ted Kappel was interviewed on CNN and he talked about the media and it’s need to sensationalize the current event.

I can’t find the interview on CNN.com Perhaps someone can provide a link.

What would the environment be like if we saw the first link every day. And we had been seeing the first link every day for the last 20 years. We’d probably have kicked terrorism into the mud with one footprint.

We didn’t.

We saw pictures of President Reagan’s skin cancer on his nose in minute detail, and a happy smiling full frame view of Mr. Clinton and his insignificant bump.

We saw Dan Quale.
Did you know there are two correct ways to spell tomatoe, tomato, potato, potatoe.

The media present at that stageshow didn’t think anything of the Vice-President’s correction at the time it was made. The kid left the area and grabbed a dictionary and showed it to a reporter. It was then the media coined the “potatoe” thing. The kid was interviewed on David Letterman’s show.

I watched the debate between Dan Quayle and Mr. Benson. I also watched the debate between Mr. Clinton, President Bush, and Ross Perot.

I watched Mr. Benson refer to Dan Quayle speaking of J.F.K. over and over in the media.

I watched Ross Perot point out that Mr. Clinton’s experience doesn’t equate to the experience of the Mayor of Chicago. I heard nothing about that point in subsequent coverage.

It’s suprising how much detail the media will go into to make a story, but Bill Clinton, thru his entire campaign could only have “a shady real estate deal”.

President Bush’s “Read My Lips” was played over and over in a negative light. Did anyone see pictures of how that tax hike really transpired? Congress provides the money. PERIOD.

Ross Perot was able to buy his time on the media. Why doesn’t any one else get to buy that much time? Why doesn’t anyone else buy time like that?
Because, 13% of the vote would guarantee a victory for the media darling, Bill Clinton, The comeback Kid. The Perot Campaign took votes from President Bush. Bill Clinton was elected.

The media finally took notice of something that’s been in their face for the last 20 years.

George Bush was in his campaign and he was telling the American People to “hang tough”. The media, John Kerry, and “The New John Kerry” were saying “Bush was saying the same thing over and over again”.

George Bush got elected again and the media was first noticing something they called “values”.

“What was it the voters were saying when they left the polls, Jane Curtain?”
“Well Dan, It was “Values”!! They all seemed to say “Values” !!!!!!
“Well, That’s great!, Jane.
“Back to you, Dan”

I was reading my local paper and this column said that both parties have been guilty of taking money from this guy. It reminds me of the postoffice scandal. The columnist stated it was the “party in power” that is to blame. It reminded me of the postoffice scandal.

Could this guy with the Fedoro be tit for tat? Quid pro quo? How many times have I heard that phrase?

Why is the media talking about a “Contract with America” again? Why is Viet Nam being brought up?

I’ll give you the nuts and bolts of my opinion of why we are in Iraq.

Osama Bin Laden kicked Russia’s ass in Afganistan. Granted. He did it with our weapons. We should ask ourselves, Why was he fighting with Russia? We didn’t see that in the media.

Spare me, folks of many books. I’m only talking about what I see in the media. My interpretation of what I see in the media.

Why would Anyone want to fight a war on your enemy’s battlefield. You have a 2 to 1 advantage in a defensive position.

Iraq is Babalon for a reason. It is an economic powerhouse. You have to capture the flag and the flag is not in Afganistan!

George Bush gave away his battleplan when He said “Bring It On!”. Everyone thinks Osama Bin Laden is in Afganistan. Let them. He’s sending all his money and power into Iraq. We’re picking it off. It’s going to take a while. Expecially when we’re bickering among ourselves.

Reelect President Bush for a 3rd term just to make a point.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #112316

Charles

Of course I am being melodramatic. It is nearly impossible to insult me. You must have noticed that by now.

I do have an actual point, however. I don’t believe I have ever questioned anyone’s patriotism. In fact, I have gone out of my way to say that Democrats are patriotic (although sometimes misguided or mistaken). I am partisan and I believe I can be aggressive in debate, but I don’t think it is unreasonable. If you have examples where you disagree, please show them.

Re the pictures. I really did intend to show Americans in a good light. But by the third post I noticed that this was a test for how people felt about the military, not what they said they thought or even what they thought they believed, but their real feelings. This actually annoyed me, so I responded after 60.

A had similar feeling when I wrote about the composition of the military. It is NOT made up mostly of poor people. People questioned the stats (which is legitimate) but I came to understand that many of the posters considered the military an inferior career path. This is not right. I would be happy if my boys would join the military and I would be as proud if my son got into West Point or Annapolis than if he got into Harvard.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #112327

16 minutes to say… something….
Smeone said.
I’m from Indiana. I’m not sure what time it is.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #112328

Jack,

Rocky’s initial post made sense for a person who had doubts about war but not about the troops. Others didn’t leave it at that.
Just to clarify, when you said “Other’s didn’t leave it at that”, it could be taken to mean that others were expressing doubts about the troops. However, I suspect what you meant was that others took the opportunity to express doubts about the media and this administration. Is that correct?

I ask because I don’t see any posts that are against the troops, in spite of tomd’s claims about military haters…

Posted by: Charles Wager at January 11, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #112333

I’m looking at these photos and I’m wondering if we’re going to repeat some history. I don’t think we are because I’m tired of having bombs go off and planes go down.
President Bush said he will protect this country and there hasn’t been an attack since the Trade Center Buildings went down.
John Kerry said he would reduce terrorism to a nusence.
Was the Trade Center a nucence?
neucense. I don’t know.
My Kingdom for a spellchecker!


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #112338

You guys are all acting like you’re all on the same plate. And The plate is tetering on a pin. There are you on the left and you on the right and there are you guys jumping back and forth, thinking you’re making a difference.
The plate is sitting on a table.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #112340

This is a difference in our perception.

Nobody overtly criticized the troops. But many people felt it necessary to bring up atrocities, brainwashing, prisoner abuse etc to “balance” the picture.

If someone posts a montage of high achieving school children in a inner city, would you need to balance it by showing the criminals among them? A feminist rally photo, should be balanced with an aborted fetus?

I specifically did not mention the Bush policies. I thought all Americans could be proud of their troops. I am sure there are both Republicans and Democrats among them.

It is also true that many Bush opponents considered the pictures propaganda FOR Bush or that I was gloating. It seems like many of them equate respect for the military as being on the other side. Ask yourself why this is true.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #112341

Weary Willie,

The plate is sitting on a table.
Semantics. Call it a table if you like, but it has no more surface area than the head of a pin.

Posted by: Charles Wager at January 11, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #112346

Weary Willie
What part of IN are you from?
I am from South Bend/Elkhart area originally.
Thanks for the break from this thread.

Posted by: tomh at January 11, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #112347
I specifically did not mention the Bush policies. I thought all Americans could be proud of their troops. I am sure there are both Republicans and Democrats among them.
I think all Americans are proud of the troops, and just because someone interjected their opinion of Bush’s policies into the discussion doesn’t make them any less supportive and proud of the troops.
It is also true that many Bush opponents considered the pictures propaganda FOR Bush or that I was gloating.
What is true is that a few Bush opponents considered your pro-Bush stance from other posts, and assumed that this was your intention in this post. They are making an assumption, and there is no evidence in this thread to support it.
It seems like many of them equate respect for the military as being on the other side. Ask yourself why this is true.
This is your assumption, and there is also no evidence here to support it
Posted by: Charles Wager at January 11, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #112349

Knox, Starke County

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #112350

Don’t bug my phone, ok?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #112351

“It is also true that many Bush opponents considered the pictures propaganda FOR Bush or that I was gloating.”

They are at WAR, Jack. Looking at your photo montage I asked myself, where is the war? It’s not all handing out supplies and shaking hands with the people. There was not ONE drop of blood in your pictures. Not ONE dead person was shown. Not ONE picture of bombed-out buildings. If there had been at least a few photos that looked like an actual war was being fought, I’d not have said that treehugger’s pictures were also necessary.

“It seems like many of them equate respect for the military as being on the other side. Ask yourself why this is true.”

What the hell is this supposed to mean? What “other side”? The other side of “what”? We’re all American’s AREN”T WE?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #112359

Would everyone state your screen name and occupation?
Just for kicks and giggles?
You know where I’m from. What about y’all?


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #112364

This link is a non-profit organization. It doesn’t give a shit about what side of the fence you’re on.
They help people in Starke County, IN. Enough said.
I will submit to the chastizement of the Overlord on this site for promoting a cause without paying the advertizement fee.
I like these guys noless.

I’m hitting the button to post now. I’ll see ya later.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 11, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #112369

Weary Willie

As I stated I’m from Elkhart Co.(born in Osceola)
I’m now a resident of AZ. I also have relatives in Knox-Starke Co.
I’m retired. And I won’t bug your phone.

Posted by: tomh at January 11, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #112444

Charles:

Perhaps you (Jack) did have an agenda here—to bait people into responding the way they usually do so you could jump on them for being unpatriotic.

I can’t believe what a bastard Jack is for baiting people. Look at the hateful and tricky words he used:

Just something interesting. Comment if you like, or just watch it.

I can barely stand to have reprinted those devious words of hate. Jack, you should be ashamed for having offered to let people comment or not. Shame shame shame!! :)


Jack:

I would be happy if my boys would join the military and I would be as proud if my son got into West Point or Annapolis than if he got into Harvard.

Truth be known, the Naval Academy in Annapolis has the 4th lowest acceptance rate compared to applications—one notch lower than Yale and one notch higher than Harvard. Part of the application process for the military includes physical health, with issues like scoliosis or asthma being potential disqualifiers. This broadens the military application from the academics, standardized testing and extra-curricular activities that most schools look at. When it comes to leadership training and experience, the military has a significant advantage over most schools.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/webex/lowacc_brief.php

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 12, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #112490

Adrienne,

“They are at WAR, Jack. Looking at your photo montage I asked myself, where is the war? It’s not all handing out supplies and shaking hands with the people. There was not ONE drop of blood in your pictures. Not ONE dead person was shown. Not ONE picture of bombed-out buildings. If there had been at least a few photos that looked like an actual war was being fought, I’d not have said that treehugger’s pictures were also necessary.”

Hopefully, you know my political leanings by now.
That said, we have already seen plenty of the photos that “treehugger” linked, and very few of the sort that Jack linked.
My original post, as Jack said, was to point out that I had no problem with the soldiers shown. They are a nescessary part of the martial mentality that has consumed this country, but at worst they are only pawns.
We, as humans, need to make their service unnescessary.
Revenge is best served hot, and the anger over Sept. 11th has cooled somewhat. It’s time to move on.
What I find really curious is that no one has commented on my second post.

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #112572

Rocky:
“we have already seen plenty of the photos that “treehugger” linked, and very few of the sort that Jack linked.”

Maybe we’ve seen plenty of the sort that treehugger provided Rocky, but I’m not so sure about all the knee-jerk flag wavers and armchair chickenhawks.

“We, as humans, need to make their service unnescessary.”

But with the Neocon’s in charge we will only get endless wars.

“What I find really curious is that no one has commented on my second post.”

I thought it was a very good post — but it seems like the majority of folks on the right only roll their eyes when someone talks of promoting peace.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #112573

Joe-
That’s you’re mistake, right there. I see dark and light in this world, and my belief is that sometimes you have to fight through the dark to get to the light.

What I advocate isn’t easy, but nothing is. It’s time the right realizes that they can’t be the good guys for free, and that working for the good of America takes more than just commitment- it takes discipline. Discipline of ourselves, and of our leaders. My reasons for criticizing Bush stem from the degree to which I value Honesty and integrity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #112581

Adrienne,

“But with the Neocon’s in charge we will only get endless wars.”

Then we need to change the way we do business

“I thought it was a very good post — but it seems like the majority of folks on the right only roll their eyes when someone talks of promoting peace.”

I guess that most of the right might think that war is good for business.

We do have to realize that these guys in the pictures are, for the most part, just like the rest of us, perhaps with just a bit more of the “gung ho” gene.

I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the far right, however, they seem more interested in the results, and not how much they have to destroy getting those results.

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #112618

JBOD,

I can barely stand to have reprinted those devious words of hate. Jack, you should be ashamed for having offered to let people comment or not.
Yes, what is this world coming to! Will the hate never end! :)

Posted by: Charles Wager at January 12, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #112926

Promoting peace at the expense of weakness is the best way to end up with a differant flag over your courthouse. While I agree that war should NEVER, be our only, or first option. Sometimes you have no choice. Also, if you think conservatives are the only ones who would wage war, then you are only familiar with reccent history. The major wars fought on behalf of this country in the past have been done under democratic leadership. Funny to me is,the shift on policy and belief form left to right. When the Republican party was under Reagan, he called for small government and reduction of spending. years ago before segregation who was the party who ran the south? It is all relative, because people to me seem to have forgotten the history of their parties and have slipped change into their platform to fit them nowdays. Funny how both parties have change their stance on allot of issues. Yet somehow there is no huge outcry. I know i am completely dismayed when i see the spending this congress has and continues to fork out. I am stunned when Big oil companies continue to rake in billions on the back of the working men and women of this country. I am almost sick to my stomach when i see the people in this country fighting eachother over trival things such as gay marriage, when the national debt is approaching 400 billion. So I guess my question is who is goning to effect change in these areas? Who is going to sumbmit new ideas and new programs that would clean up the tripe that is the political elction process and bring integrity back to public service? That is after all, what a politician is supposed to be! A Public SERVANT, not the other way around.

Posted by: Jerry at January 13, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #112930

Jerry,

“Promoting peace at the expense of weakness is the best way to end up with a differant flag over your courthouse. While I agree that war should NEVER, be our only, or first option. Sometimes you have no choice.”

I’m thinking that you missed the point entirely.

We, all of us, need to get to a point where war isn’t an option at all!
Sadly, we aren’t even close.
The greed you talk of with the oil companies is only one example.
Someday this will be a global community, but before that happens we will all have to learn how to share, and how to get along with each other.

Posted by: Rocky at January 13, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #198125

To the left a message.

WE are at war against an enemy who doesn’t care if you hate Bush or not. If they get a hold of your ass they will cut your balls off as soon as look at you….and maybe even your head. It must be a good feeling to know that the very ones you aid and abet will if you get your way will soon be screwing your wives.

Posted by: wally at December 7, 2006 6:47 AM
Post a comment