" I know most of you folk in here are guys, and males (tend to) be attracted to war (I've seen the jingosim at UCLA frat parties.."bomb the ragheads", "kill all muslims", etc....truly disgusting)."
Bwoop! Rampant sexism suddenly deletes from my mind the truth value of your entire statement!
Here's an imaginary scene for anyone living in "Anywheresville", surburban US, relaxing with the kids at home on with the tranquil afternoon: Suddenly the calm is shattered by a huge blast casued by an an Iraqi bomb, the street is leveled, houses are on fire, every window for 10 blocks around is shattered and there's bodies, blood and dismembered limbs lying in the street, deafened people wandering around in shock.
That's not war is like. Anyway, so long as the Iraqis are doing it to transform my region for their own national security, I think it would be a good thing.
" I know most of you folk in here are guys, and males (tend to) be attracted to war (I've seen the jingosim at UCLA frat parties.."bomb the ragheads", "kill all muslims", etc....truly disgusting)."
Bwoop! Rampant sexism suddenly deletes from my mind the truth value of your entire statement!
Feel free to play again in the future.
Oh puhleeeze. Twist my post a little more can't you? Or look at it in the unrealistic tones of black'n'white, as often is the case here?
You sound as if I believe all men are pro war...which is ridiculous...just attend any "anti-war", or is that "pro-peace" rally. And similarly, many women are pro-war....or is that "anti- peace"?
I said that the most vocal posters in here are men, and happen to be Pro War. And.... it is true that "matters military" tend to attract males rather than females. That should be obvious to anyone. Looking at armies, navies and air forces throughout the world, I hazard a guess that men outnumber women, maybe, parhaps, possibly, yes?
...but then you reduce all male pro-war attitudes to the jingoism you see at a UCLA frat party? If you didn't want to make such an association, you shouldn't have written it.
Also, did it occur to you that your new found broadcasts from Iraq and Middle East could be similarly (but polar) propagandized as you feel US media is? My hunch is that it is more than "a little", as well. More like far overstretched compared to anything you would see in the most biased of US-based sources. There is no great incentive for objectivity on the ME broadcasts, IMO- just the "Arab" cause. There you will find the most intense anti-US attitudes, completely unchecked by any sort of "fair and balanced" approach. What did you expect, honestly? Your only practical recourse is to inject a bit of moderation from yourself, and don't get sucked in (with a wooosh, no doubt) by either side.
...but far be it from me to sour your new exposure to overseas TV from the "gold pay dirt mound" of truth you feel it is. We now know where you will be getting your POV from and will consider your future posts as such.
Uh oh.. here we go with the "the world would be a better place with women running it" mantra...
A Georgia Bush would have still sent troops into Iraq. Just that a week later she would've felt bad about it, ate a bunch of ice cream and watched Dr. Phil to make herself feel better.
Also, did it occur to you that your new found broadcasts from Iraq and Middle East could be similarly (but polar) propagandized as you feel US media is? My hunch is that it is more than "a little", as well. More like far overstretched compared to anything you would see in the most biased of US-based sources. There is no great incentive for objectivity on the ME broadcasts, IMO- just the "Arab" cause. There you will find the most intense anti-US attitudes, completely unchecked by any sort of "fair and balanced" approach. What did you expect, honestly? Your only practical recourse is to inject a bit of moderation from yourself, and don't get sucked in (with a wooosh, no doubt) by either side.
The broadcasts come from all over the world, you know, that largish area that exists...covering a whole range of sources and opinions... from North America, South America, Europe, Russia, East Asia, Oceania, and yes...Israel and the Middle East. The reports are often 'context based', documentary style, with less emphasis on spin, soundbites and "sampling". Sure, they feature what the Arab in the street is saying, but hey, that gets me even more convinced that this war might be a disaster, long after the military campaign has been technically won by the US/UK colation. Just because the range of opinion is wider than the US networks, (which are owned and controlled by a tiny clique of elite businessmen whose lives are far removed from the reality of the average citizen) doesn't make the slant "anti-US". I sometimes get the feeling that some people equate "America" with "extreme right-wing philosophy". That, is scary.
This country, if democracy still has any relevance, is about all the people who comprise it. And its leaders, if democracy still has any relevance, should represent of all of these people.
I guess that would be a "No", something like that wouldn't occur to you. It's saying something different than the US media (which is evidently owned and biased by isolated businessmen- EVIL MALE sort of men, to boot), so therefore it must be truth. OK, carry on then.
Why would the war be going better than we are told you ask? Simple. The media is desperate for 24-hour coverage. Every triumph and every minute mishap is being reported. It is the quest for constant info that drives this. There are also so many talking heads around that think they know it all. They speculate and speculate and then speculate some more. Then, there are the reporters with their ridiculous questions and personal bias (i.e. Leslie Stahl).
In my opinion, the most negative so far have been the NYT and MSNBC. There bias and agenda is usually quite clear. The quotes I posted earlier are only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.
We control about half of Iraq right now. We have total air dominance. Casualties have been light. The media issues a news alert everytime a Marine is fired upon. Their impatience is stunning....they ask questions regarding the miltary's timeline and accuse it of creating a sense that the war will be over immediately. In reality, the media itslef has created this sense...by overemphasizing "shock and awe" and constantly asking for a timeline in the first place. Phrases like "fierce resistence" and "slow progress" or "some are asking if the Pentagon has underestimated". Wow, what a great story that would be.
Everyone with a clue is in agreement that it is because they are 1. inexperienced and 2. more fearful because of being 'embedded' with the troops. End of story, move along.
This country, if democracy still has any relevance, is about all the people who comprise it. And its leaders, if democracy still has any relevance, should represent of all of these people.
* The latest polling shows that 71% of Americans favor the war and 27% oppose it, virtually identical to the support measured over the first weekend of the war.
Some parts are going well, other parts are a little more tricky.
Question is, do you describe the opposition forces in your article as valiantly holding off coalition forces through pure might, or are they hiding behind civilian populations (using them as human shields) to ward off assured destruction? Do you think they would last more than a day defending themself from annihilation if they were simply fighting as a military force vs. cowering in a stand-off behind their own civilians? Do you deny that if these opposition forces do not maintain their grip over these civilians, the civilians are about one step away from revolting to put these warlords down in a bloody massacre?
Comments
Bwoop! Rampant sexism suddenly deletes from my mind the truth value of your entire statement!
Feel free to play again in the future.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Here's an imaginary scene for anyone living in "Anywheresville", surburban US, relaxing with the kids at home on with the tranquil afternoon: Suddenly the calm is shattered by a huge blast casued by an an Iraqi bomb, the street is leveled, houses are on fire, every window for 10 blocks around is shattered and there's bodies, blood and dismembered limbs lying in the street, deafened people wandering around in shock.
That's not war is like. Anyway, so long as the Iraqis are doing it to transform my region for their own national security, I think it would be a good thing.
Originally posted by mrmister
" I know most of you folk in here are guys, and males (tend to) be attracted to war (I've seen the jingosim at UCLA frat parties.."bomb the ragheads", "kill all muslims", etc....truly disgusting)."
Bwoop! Rampant sexism suddenly deletes from my mind the truth value of your entire statement!
Feel free to play again in the future.
Oh puhleeeze. Twist my post a little more can't you? Or look at it in the unrealistic tones of black'n'white, as often is the case here?
You sound as if I believe all men are pro war...which is ridiculous...just attend any "anti-war", or is that "pro-peace" rally. And similarly, many women are pro-war....or is that "anti- peace"?
I said that the most vocal posters in here are men, and happen to be Pro War. And.... it is true that "matters military" tend to attract males rather than females. That should be obvious to anyone. Looking at armies, navies and air forces throughout the world, I hazard a guess that men outnumber women, maybe, parhaps, possibly, yes?
Also, did it occur to you that your new found broadcasts from Iraq and Middle East could be similarly (but polar) propagandized as you feel US media is? My hunch is that it is more than "a little", as well. More like far overstretched compared to anything you would see in the most biased of US-based sources. There is no great incentive for objectivity on the ME broadcasts, IMO- just the "Arab" cause. There you will find the most intense anti-US attitudes, completely unchecked by any sort of "fair and balanced" approach. What did you expect, honestly? Your only practical recourse is to inject a bit of moderation from yourself, and don't get sucked in (with a wooosh, no doubt) by either side.
...but far be it from me to sour your new exposure to overseas TV from the "gold pay dirt mound" of truth you feel it is. We now know where you will be getting your POV from and will consider your future posts as such.
and face it . . . bvoys play with GI joe, UT, Quake, Civilization etc . .etc . .
Girls . . .some do as well but mainly they are given Barbie and horses . . .
A Georgia Bush would have still sent troops into Iraq. Just that a week later she would've felt bad about it, ate a bunch of ice cream and watched Dr. Phil to make herself feel better.
(/me ducks the flying dishes)
Also, did it occur to you that your new found broadcasts from Iraq and Middle East could be similarly (but polar) propagandized as you feel US media is? My hunch is that it is more than "a little", as well. More like far overstretched compared to anything you would see in the most biased of US-based sources. There is no great incentive for objectivity on the ME broadcasts, IMO- just the "Arab" cause. There you will find the most intense anti-US attitudes, completely unchecked by any sort of "fair and balanced" approach. What did you expect, honestly? Your only practical recourse is to inject a bit of moderation from yourself, and don't get sucked in (with a wooosh, no doubt) by either side.
The broadcasts come from all over the world, you know, that largish area that exists...covering a whole range of sources and opinions... from North America, South America, Europe, Russia, East Asia, Oceania, and yes...Israel and the Middle East. The reports are often 'context based', documentary style, with less emphasis on spin, soundbites and "sampling". Sure, they feature what the Arab in the street is saying, but hey, that gets me even more convinced that this war might be a disaster, long after the military campaign has been technically won by the US/UK colation. Just because the range of opinion is wider than the US networks, (which are owned and controlled by a tiny clique of elite businessmen whose lives are far removed from the reality of the average citizen) doesn't make the slant "anti-US". I sometimes get the feeling that some people equate "America" with "extreme right-wing philosophy". That, is scary.
This country, if democracy still has any relevance, is about all the people who comprise it. And its leaders, if democracy still has any relevance, should represent of all of these people.
Originally posted by Randycat99
...EVIL MALE sort of men, to boot)....
Oh Christ. Sammi Jo is now a man hater?
Grow up kids. Sorry, kidz.
sammy jo, you mind if i ask (approx.) how old you are?
It didn't take any twisting, but I'd be happy to get back to other topics if you're done.
In my opinion, the most negative so far have been the NYT and MSNBC. There bias and agenda is usually quite clear. The quotes I posted earlier are only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.
We control about half of Iraq right now. We have total air dominance. Casualties have been light. The media issues a news alert everytime a Marine is fired upon. Their impatience is stunning....they ask questions regarding the miltary's timeline and accuse it of creating a sense that the war will be over immediately. In reality, the media itslef has created this sense...by overemphasizing "shock and awe" and constantly asking for a timeline in the first place. Phrases like "fierce resistence" and "slow progress" or "some are asking if the Pentagon has underestimated". Wow, what a great story that would be.
SammiJo said from her bubble:
This country, if democracy still has any relevance, is about all the people who comprise it. And its leaders, if democracy still has any relevance, should represent of all of these people.
In case you aren't paying attention, they are.
From the Gallup home page 3-28-03
* The latest polling shows that 71% of Americans favor the war and 27% oppose it, virtually identical to the support measured over the first weekend of the war.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The latest poll is up to 78% now.
And up to 91% in Spain in the latest poll!
(Against, that is)
Question is, do you describe the opposition forces in your article as valiantly holding off coalition forces through pure might, or are they hiding behind civilian populations (using them as human shields) to ward off assured destruction? Do you think they would last more than a day defending themself from annihilation if they were simply fighting as a military force vs. cowering in a stand-off behind their own civilians? Do you deny that if these opposition forces do not maintain their grip over these civilians, the civilians are about one step away from revolting to put these warlords down in a bloody massacre?