America the Beautiful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter twiztedseraph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Do you think this problem could have been solved internally, and didn’t have to become a media circus which does nothing positive for anybody?

If this stuff happened, was found and reported, and stopped, then in that case does it do the world any good to know it? If it was found and reported, and continued, would that then justify publicizing it? Does the public really “need to know” all these things in order to claim to live under a free press?

Alan
Ah, but the real question is: If this stuff was found to be happening, stopped, then continued to be reported long after it had been stopped, is THAT justified? :rolleyes: At last count, the New York Times has run over 200 front page articles on Abu Graib alone. Bear in mind that the Abu Graib prison scandal came to light and had been stopped by an internal Army investigation, long before the newspapers got wind of it. Head-sawing doesn’t seem to get nearly the same treatment, except on Al Jazeera, and there for the wrong reasons. But let some guard place a book on the ground, and let the sparks fly!!

I suspect that we’ll continue to be hearing about Abu Graib thirty years from now, along with some nauseating moral equivalence from the wingnut crowd and a heaping helping of blame placed on the U.S. for the 9/11 attacks (“if only we would understand them more”). These memes seem to get picked up and repeated ad nauseum, straight out of the Goebbels textbook.
 
Lisa N:
The Iraq war removed one of the world’s most evil men from absolute power. The Abu Grahib incidents were over reported, overblown and hardly on the same radar screen as the public beheadings by Zarqawi and his minions.

That is what this American Catholic thinks. As Bob stated the feelings run in both directions.

Lisa N
I agree with Lisa, too.
 
40.png
shockerfan:
A free press is important to our freedom, and to keep the government in check. How do we maintain this, without putting American lives in greater risk???
It’s simply one of the costs, though undesirable, of having a free press. If the primary consideration was not to put any American lives into danger ever, then we’d get no war news, no news of abuses, no nothing except what the Government put out in a wholly sanitized manner, if it gave us any information at all.
 
40.png
INRI:
I suspect that we’ll continue to be hearing about Abu Graib thirty years from now,
And we should, lest we forget. I was a Vietnamese-speaking prisoner interrogator during that war, and we, officers and enlisted men alike, never abused any prisoners - and there are no stories of the “terrible abuses suffered by NVA and VC prisoners.”

But, this more enlightened and modern Army managed to pull it off, and we can never forget lest it be repeated.
 
40.png
Richardols:
It’s simply one of the costs, though undesirable, of having a free press. If the primary consideration was not to put any American lives into danger ever, then we’d get no war news, no news of abuses, no nothing except what the Government put out in a wholly sanitized manner, if it gave us any information at all.
Much like wars such as WWII and Korea were run. I have read a lot of WWII histories by the reporters in the field, like Ernie Pyle. I never read any hint that any reporter tried to sneak a story around the censor. The reporters accepted censorship as the price for the privilege of reporting about our GIs.
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
Much like wars such as WWII and Korea were run. I have read a lot of WWII histories by the reporters in the field, like Ernie Pyle. I never read any hint that any reporter tried to sneak a story around the censor. The reporters accepted censorship as the price for the privilege of reporting about our GIs.
The abuses at Abu Ghraib weren’t censored. They were crimes that the idiots who perpetrated them gave evidence of with their photography.
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
The reporters accepted censorship as the price for the privilege of reporting about our GIs.
But, censorship wasn’t always a good thing. For the longest time in WWII, it was forbidden to publish pictures of American dead because “the American public would not be able to handle seeing our dead.” Right. Americans were so fragile that they could face reality. Bull. Fortunately, that attitude changed in the later years of the war.
 
40.png
Richardols:
But, censorship wasn’t always a good thing. For the longest time in WWII, it was forbidden to publish pictures of American dead because “the American public would not be able to handle seeing our dead.” Right. Americans were so fragile that they could face reality. Bull. Fortunately, that attitude changed in the later years of the war.
I don’t know that it really is fortunate that the policy changed. A photo of an individual dead on the battlefield adds little or nothing to the narrative. A wide angle shot of Omaha Beach showing the devastation visited upon the first waves would add to the story. I would not mind the censors having guidelines to follow. Of course they would probably be opposite mine–they would allow the individual photo and censor the wide angle shot.
 
40.png
Richardols:
And we should, lest we forget. I was a Vietnamese-speaking prisoner interrogator during that war, and we, officers and enlisted men alike, never abused any prisoners - and there are no stories of the “terrible abuses suffered by NVA and VC prisoners.”

But, this more enlightened and modern Army managed to pull it off, and we can never forget lest it be repeated.
I didn’t realize that. I sure don’t remember any prison abuse stories during those years.

As I was driving home thinking about that, one plausible reason came to mind. Today’s war is more of an intelligence war. I would guess there is a lot more pressure to take prisoners today than there was in Viet Nam. I don’t know the stats, but again I would guess the enemy dead to captured ratio was higher in Viet Nam than in Iraq.
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
I didn’t realize that. I sure don’t remember any prison abuse stories during those years.

As I was driving home thinking about that, one plausible reason came to mind. Today’s war is more of an intelligence war. I would guess there is a lot more pressure to take prisoners today than there was in Viet Nam. I don’t know the stats, but again I would guess the enemy dead to captured ratio was higher in Viet Nam than in Iraq.
It all depends on what the press decides they can get money out of. During Vietnam it was My Lai (something much worse than putting panties on a prisoner’s head).
 
40.png
gilliam:
It all depends on what the press decides they can get money out of. During Vietnam it was My Lai
I don’t think the reporters and editors do what they do for money. I believe it is all ideology. If a liberal president were in office, the war coverage would be a lot different.
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
I don’t think the reporters and editors do what they do for money. I believe it is all ideology. If a liberal president were in office, the war coverage would be a lot different.
LBJ wasn’t a liberal?
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Certainly there is a whole Bush-hating contingent, but the funny thing is the people who have led the charge on it being an “unjust war” were just as pro-war that Bush was, if not more, than Bush himself.

Just to give you a sample of what those accusing Bush of war-mongering said at the time:

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

And of course, President Bill Clinton, who undoubtedly lusted after the initial popularity (before the media spin) of the war that Bush gained after 9/11, had these things to say at the time:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

It is sad that partisan misinformation is so rampant that the world views us as being a party of war-mongering Republicans in power, and compassionate Democrats out of power. Don’t believe it; I’ve met with political leaders of both parties and neither side has a corner on the righteousness market.
QUOTE]
Also you guys are predominantly Christian right? But those guys were SMILING in the photos of arab men (some innocent) being tortured. But i wanna point out I’m not anti american. I mean if for nothing else Catholic answers is proof of the goodness over there. I just want to see how many educated Catholics feel about the war considering it was founded on well lets face it fallacies.
There are idiots everywhere, even on “our side.” :rolleyes:

Founded on fallacies? Highly debatable but solved in the minds of the press, over 80% of whose editors are registered Democrats.

Alan

Good post! It is so hypocritical of the Dems to only support our Government when “their man” is in office. I have no doubt that if Clinton were present they would be singing quite a different tune. The behavior of the far left wing of the Democratic party would be subject to facing charges of treason if this were an earlier era of our Country’s history. Does this sound strong? I agree, but I also think that it’s true.

MARANATHA!
 
40.png
gilliam:
LBJ wasn’t a liberal?
I don’t know what LBJ was besides a politician. He spent much of his senate career like most of his southern, democrat colleagues, as a segregationist. LBJ desperately wanted to be elected on his own and the only way to do that was to out liberal the northern Democrats. The liberals couldn’t forgive him his past, so after the war escalated they turned on him. They had never trusted him-see any Kennedy insiders memoirs and you will see what I mean. To get Robert Kennedy elected, they first had to destroy LBJ so he wouldn’t run in 1968.
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
I don’t know what LBJ was besides a politician. He spent much of his senate career like most of his southern, democrat colleagues, as a segregationist. LBJ desperately wanted to be elected on his own and the only way to do that was to out liberal the northern Democrats. The liberals couldn’t forgive him his past, so after the war escalated they turned on him. They had never trusted him-see any Kennedy insiders memoirs and you will see what I mean. To get Robert Kennedy elected, they first had to destroy LBJ so he wouldn’t run in 1968.
Which leads us to Surhan Surhan killing Bobby Kennedy… for what reason?
 
40.png
gilliam:
Which leads us to Surhan Surhan killing Bobby Kennedy… for what reason?
Beats me. I never had much interest in that story for some reason. I don’t remember following the trial or anything. Of course I was in college at the time. Much of that part of my life is a bit foggy. I think it was fun though–unfortunately my buddies from that time are a bit foggy also.
 
I apologise for the generalisation on the marines and on america. I guess I just got ahead of myself watching a few Arab Americans ridiculed on a wrestling show. Again my apologies. Note I still dislike the war and the fact that the media played it as if there were no civilian casualties.
 
40.png
twiztedseraph:
I apologise for the generalisation on the marines and on america. I guess I just got ahead of myself watching a few Arab Americans ridiculed on a wrestling show. Again my apologies. Note I still dislike the war and the fact that the media played it as if there were no civilian casualties.
That’s OK by me. I am glad that you asked. From within the USA, I have no idea to know what we look like from outside unless someone outside looking in tells me what they see.

Unfortunately I think that a disproportionate amount of newscasting here is done by people with a bias, many of whom seem to be trying to be “fair” by not giving our country any preference – sometimes I think they actually try to compensate by showing how “tough on America” they can be.

Strange, maybe, but true. It seems to be an artifact of how our government has evolved of late.

Alan
 
40.png
twiztedseraph:
Just curious whats the American Catholic feeling on the iraqi war? Also the Abu Grahib torture incidents.
I’ve already responded to your question but I just thought I’d add; it’s amazing how American I become once a foreigner questions US policy.

Among my fellow Americans, en famille, so to speak, I’m perfectly willing to savage the current administration (any current administration), criticise US institutions, &c., &c., but let a foreigner say something and – well, I don’t turn into Bill O’Reilly but I nmight start quoting him.

I first noticed this last year during the election. At my job there are two young ladies from Haiti and a woman from Rouanda. To hear them rip Geo. Bush apart you might have thought he was Hitler – and it didn’t help that they all had French accents!! (would it be un-Christian to nuke Paris?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top