PS - One more thing. I agree about your mid-West story example and see too mcuh of this on TV, etc. But people 50 years ago were probably saying similar things about segregation isuues. People were pushing a 'social agenda' then. Who's to say what is right? These are big questions.

Steve

Steve-- you are right. Social mores change with the times. I am stuck in down side of life. I am sure that we will witness Hilary as president in '08 and God only knows what else. Pray for sanity.
DJ

And that is why I am not too sure who I want to win this November! Please hope for the best on this one...

Steve

I guess I have to weigh in on the press and the war on terrorism.

The problem I have with the "main stream press" which is by their new admissions, are liberal, is not with what they report, but with what they do not report.

They are reporting only bad news and supressing good news. You won't see poll results from Iraqi citizens that show the majority want the coalition forces in their country. You won't see interviews with iraqi citizens where they state, that yes it is dangerous in parts of the country (The Sunni Triangle) but in other parts of the country, it is pretty much peaceful. AND, the big thing is, although Iraqis are being killed by suicide bombers, roadside bombs, etc., the numbers are still lower than those that were dragged out of their homes by Hussein's regime to be found only recently in mass graves.

The same goes for interviews with returning military personnel. They will publish only interviews with the minority that is unhappy with being sent to the Middle East. They don't show interviews with the majority of soldiers that were greated as heroes by the Iraqi public, that have volunteered to go back a 2nd or 3rd time. They haven't talked to me - I sign numerous "conditional releases" for Army Reservists" that are enlisting in the active Army.

That is th eproblem I have with the main stream press!

Jeff

Believe me, I am on two knees everyday. I know who I am voting for and I know what I will see in '08.

Fellas........

I always hesitate to get into a 'discussion' that has anything to do with some of the subject matter that is taking a stroll through this thread. For reasons that I will spare you the details of, I find it for the most part.......sanity challenging......

So, just to indulge a small part of my former 'self'...I would like to request your indulgence if that's alright and pose a question if I may......

When did 'reporting' the news cease to be simply 'reporting' the news and somehow acceptably become 'choreographing' the news?
I ask your forgiveness in anticipation of your potential replies to the subject, but I cannot suppress my desire to say that I am a product of a culture that grew up on the likes of Walter Cronkite, and even Dan Rather who, even though they were being hugely suppressed in precisely what they could say (compared to today's standard's), they still were able to simply REPORT......what happened that day in (fill in the town) and leave the interpretation and perception of what they reported to the audience they were talking to!...........not be concerned with the how/what/why of the 'spin'...........?
I even see this with my local news reporter's as of late (past ten years or so). Is it the desire to increase your audience volumne? Your 'Neilsen' rating?......what?
Are the Network's trying to control our attention? Or are they losing faith in our general ability to decide upon what our attention should be focused on? Or, in a more sinister note...are they deciding for us, what we should be focused on???
The mind, like most other body parts, unless exercised properly, can easily fall into a state of 'pacifism'...............

eeeeeeecccrrrrkkkkkkkkk.................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
{sound of soapbox being slid back under the desk..........}

thanks for your time.

Tread.

When Cronkite said 'the war is lost' after Tet, I really don't see that as simply 'reporting'.

Real 'reporting' is jsut trying to gather facts and then present them. This often makes for a boring viewing spectacle.

How can you compete with Survivor or Fear Factor? Why do you think we see debate shows with people from two different parties yelling at each other?

It's just entertainment.

I think to answer your question, we'd have to look at many things; technology, events like Watergate and Vietnam, changing demographics, etc, etc.

Someone brings up the point about all the good news in Iraq; but that ain't news. Reporters don't put on body armor to cover a garden party - they want blood, guts, all the fun stuff. Even local news starts with a nice car wreck.

Hey, if you want some good stuff to read, pick up Atlantic Monthy and read some of Robert Kaplan's stories. Or check out one of his books. You WONT be sorry you did. I can't recommend him enough.

Steve

...hmmm, as I suspected. I should have remained silent.

I have no desire to 'duel', nor will I participate any further. What I will do is simply qoute you........

".....It's just entertainment...."

This is the part about modern day 'reporting' I despise......

The idea of News reporting, having to compete with the likes of supposedly "Reality" TV, is in a word......appalling.

But then, I'm sure I'm in the minority............................

no offense meant Sniper, and I sincerely wish you nothing but Safety in your trip to Palestine. You are obviously a man who feels things deeply and passionately. We can ask little more from our people abroad.

Take the pics....tell the stories.....

Tread.

Hey man, no duel at all! I agree with what you are saying. It is horrible. But other than trying to make some small difference ourselves, we can only live with it.

But, we can do the next best thing and stop watching all those horrible 'news' programs and demand better. (Trust me, the Rather's of the world are on the way out.)

Luckily, there are some other voices out there now and I'm sure many of you already get your facts from these alternative sources.

When we don't have choices, that's when we should be worried.

Things will get better or worse. We're just along for the ride. In the menatime, I want to see some things with my own eyes and then try to relate that to others. Believe me, it very hard to get people to pay attention to anything other than the 'party line'.

Steve

Hi...
I was in Bahrain for the duration of GW1....Not that it means much.

I think they should have gone all the way then and finished the job.
It is true that the first priority was to eject the Iraqis from Kuwait, but there were two other UN resolutions in place...both of which should have been implemented.
The non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the non-proliferation of Chemical and biological weapons...never mind the use of.

The problem at the time was that the Coalition showed signs of splintering if the forces had gone all the way to Baghdad. Even so, there was a far greater showing of Global support then, than say today.

However on hindsight I think they should have gone. Many Marsh Arabs and Kurds would have been saved from the internal "struggles" that followed the ceasefire.
Also the uprising in the South would have been unnecessary and again many lives would have been saved. Its worth mentioning that the GW1 never officially ended...i.e. a ceasefire was agreed and nothing else as I recall.

It also makes me wonder if they had liberated Iraq then, would there be as many problems today?
But that's topical and not allowed.

Cheers
Peter

Peter-- I moderate this Forum and I can assure you that we have never surpressed a discussion. Contributors have been decent in their remarks and we avoid shallow commentaries. This is a fruitful discussion as I indicated when I urged Tread to start the ball rolling. We have managed to bring into our group some interesting pints of view and counter arguments are always productive. So, feel free to put your point down. People enjoy discussion and this forum allows them to express themselves.
Look forward to hearing from you.
DJ

Hi DJ...
I stayed away from commenting on the current situation as up till now anything topical or current was frowned upon, which I understand.

Does this still stand or might I comment topically even though it might upset some parties and that would be the furthest thing away from any intention on my part?

I'm not sure I should.

Thanks and cheers.
Peter

Peter-- let it rip with both barrels.
DJ

IMHO, this looks reminescent of Gen. MacArthur's plan to attack China during the Korean War.

Pres. Bush Sr. should have gone for the jugular the first time out.

Recent news and reports have confirmed my belief the Coalition should have done it first time.
The momentum was there, Sadam DID have WMD then, and there were UN mandates in place., unlike now.
And yes Tread's comments on the Highway of Death are valid, but I still think the uproar at the UN would not have been as damaging as the current situation with the UN.

True some Arab support would have melted, but at that time the majority of the World community would have supported it, unlike now.

As far as installing a puppet government.
Then as now a democratic Iraq would have been a priority, so see little difference.

At the time USA and UK (amongst all the other coalition forces) would not have alienated existing allies and turned potential allies away...to put it mildly.

There are other issues but that would be against site policy to state them here.

Just my feelings, based not just on hindsight, as I had the same feelings at the time GW1 came to a halt....and no insult to anyone.

Cheers
Peter

Peter-- once again, you dangle something in front of our faces then do not discuss the point. Leaving me to speculate about where you are leading us. That aside, GW1 was a triumph for those who believe (as I do) that you go to war to secure a clearly defined objective, once you attain the goal, you stop and assess. Now, we went to war to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Mission accomplished. We took steps to ensure he would not return-- pre positioned equipment, regular large scale maneuvers, etc.-- check that block. We confineded his dealings within Iraq. The UN failed and failed miserably in the oil for food deal allowing Iraq to rearm. Saddam was dumb not stupid. The first things he bought with his oil for food dollars was equipment to rearm his ground and air forces. Overtime, there is no doubt in my military mind that he would have shifted bucks back into WMD study and production. He had the capabilities, the people and the intention to use it. Why didn't he let the UN inspectors discover what it has taken us about two years to find out---he did not have WMDs. That where he was super dumb. He cause doubt and after 9/11 there could be no wiggle room for doubters. We assumed he had the stuff (and we were far from alone in that belief) and that he would use it or allow others to use it. The risk of not taking him out was too great. We did and continue to do the right thing. It is difficult and if Kerry gets elected what is a challenging situation will become a shambles that will scar this Nation's foreign policy for the foreseeable future.
DJ

Hmm, with the danger of getting on dangerous grounds here...

Let us make an overview.

GW1: mission accomplished, but with some nasty after effects.

Balkans: not quite up to standards, but pretty stable now.

Afghanistan: Apart from Kaboul, still an utter mess, even with UN support...

GW2: urrh, hmm, well, no WMD, yes, they no longer have a dictator, but still one hell of a hornets nest. UN support? Hmm, perhaps let's see how the elections turn out...

The future:

Soudan: Not much to be gained there, so why bother...

Iran: Leave the dirty work to Israel?

Syria: behaving like a good boy or same as Iran?

North Korea: Big brother China is watching... No?

Tchechnia: "internal" Russian problem?

And then I probably forget a couple...

War on terrorism... there is still a lot of work to do... Nobody's safe yet...

Just my toughts,

Kris

Kris-- nice rundown. I think you are right on with Syria and Iran. North Korea is a Chinese/Japanese problem that we should assist in solving. The Gulf remains an economic vital interest for the world. Placing emphasis on this area will yield long-range benefits for all mankind. To have the area move towards the 21st Century and out of the 5th Century mindset will take time and patience. Time and patience translate into a political will to see the job through. This is the choice we Americans face. I think we are up to the challenge.
DJ

Hi DJ...
"secure a clearly defined objective, once you attain the goal, you stop and assess."
Is this not what I have done with regard to this post?
I have answered the question. Yes GW1 should have gone all the way then.

I am still not convinced this should be discussed with reference to the current Iraq situation as up to now at least site policy has not allowed current issues for debate.
I have seen far less controversial subjects blackballed in the past.

Thanks for listening.
Cheers
Peter

[quote]


Peter-- Dare To Win!
DJ

Being of the History mindeset, as my little quote says "those who don't learn from history...etc" That region of the world will NEVER become stable. Go back....way back... ever hear of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Hebrews,. Those groups have been warring with each other over this little scap of earth for going on 5, 000 years now. It's the same with all the little bitty nationistic groups in the adriatic region Serbia, slovenia, Translvainia, Chetnia, Bosnia. These folks just can't get along, never have and never will. Personally I think Siper is nuts going to Palestine. That little group are relative newcomers to the mess as Palestine was more or less a function of the end of British rule in the 20's. The killing is never going to stop and I hope Steve doesn't get caught up in it. I met with several of those folks once and one of their stated goals was to push the "Jews" back into the sea. It sure would be hard for me to try to make peace with someone who has sworn to kill me.