It wasn't only in Haditha...

[blackheart]

Remorse? Why should I feel remorseful? I had nothing to do with their deaths.

And being trite and callous about it is so much better?

Well, who do you want investigating alleged military crimes? Rockford?

A civilian court is a start.

You know quite well what I mean. Repeating this propaganda about U.S. "atrocities" when they've only been alleged and an investigation is underway doesn't help improve our situation in Iraq.

Actually, I don't. It's still news, therefore it should be reported and not hidden.

When did I ever say that an investigation shouldn't be done, or that if appropriate, prosecutions shouldn't result from those findings?

When you said "something bad happened a few times, maybe from 10 men out of 100,000, in a country of 20,000,000." that was what I took as an insinuation that you viewed this event as a statistical anomaly.

Have any charges been brought?

Not that I'm aware of, but charges will likely be brought as a ball is likely to fall to earth when it is thrown up. But what's that have to do with what I said? Here's the quote for when the Haditha massacre was first investigated by TIME:

""To be honest," Marine Captain Jeff Pool e-mailed McGirk, "I cannot believe you're buying any of this. This falls into the same category of AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq) propaganda.""
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/31/haditha.tm/index.html

 

[Leha]

Ummmmm...I just read the news: marines found not guilty, there was militant in the house who opened fire. (I mean Ishaqi accident)


Scroll down to see video.
http://www.cnn.com/

 

[Ramius75]

Ummmmm...I just read the news: marines found not guilty, there was militant in the house who opened fire. (I mean Ishaqi accident)


Scroll down to see video.
http://www.cnn.com/

ya, read this in BBC also...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5042036.stm

pretty sickening, if u ask me. Its like a computer game first person shooter, they raid a house, someone shoot back, they shoot everything in sight. I really wonder how they do that also. Pointing and shooting at children and women... Isnt in america this will result in a hostage situation ?? Do the police in USA goes in a bank gun blazing killing the family of the suspects who shoot back ??

Its this normal military behavior ??

If it is, there they should have no place in the country whatsoever. Pretty sickening world.

wont the ppl never learned the lessons in the past ??

 

[VoodooAce]

Actually, you used the word "you" in such context as you meant Padma or I, when we had both stated that we found such crimes to be abhorrent. To allege we would have preferred a cover up as opposed to the truth was directly insulting.

Now, if your allegation had been that there are conservatives who would have preferred a hidden cover up, then that is certainly debateable. But that is not what you said.

Actually MB, this is exactly what I said:

Why are people so upset that people are so upset that our troops could do such terrible things? Just because you're a military appologist doesn't mean we're upset with you....or the military in general. Just those that do this sort of thing, and those that would cover it up.

Or are you just upset that this wasn't covered up well enough?

If you can find anywhere in here where I mentioned you or Padma, let me know. I'm still not sure why you thought I was talking to you. Nowhere in the post did I refer to anybody specifically. I guess I should have said 'they', but I figured it was obvious what I meant. Kinda sensitive, eh, MB?

But, yes, my insinuation was that there are conservatives that would prefer this stuff was covered up. Its not debatable, its fact.

 

[amadeus]

And being trite and callous about it is so much better?

What difference does it make? Dead is dead. My attitude isn't going to bring them back to life.

A civilian court is a start.

Civilians don't know the code of conduct of the U.S. armed services. If you wanted to try them in a civil court, wouldn't that be under the jurisdiction of the Iraqis, and would you want to trust them with our nationals?

Actually, I don't. It's still news, therefore it should be reported and not hidden.

You call it news, I call it sedition.

When you said "something bad happened a few times, maybe from 10 men out of 100,000, in a country of 20,000,000." that was what I took as an insinuation that you viewed this event as a statistical anomaly.

It is an anomaly. Almost nobody here would make the claim that these actions are so widespread as to represent a significant portion of the U.S. military deployment in Iraq.

Not that I'm aware of, but charges will likely be brought as a ball is likely to fall to earth when it is thrown up. But what's that have to do with what I said? Here's the quote for when the Haditha massacre was first investigated by TIME:

""To be honest," Marine Captain Jeff Pool e-mailed McGirk, "I cannot believe you're buying any of this. This falls into the same category of AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq) propaganda.""
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/31/haditha.tm/index.html

Remember blackheart, innocent until proven guilty. Let the military justice system do their jobs.

 

[YNCS]

You call it news, I call it sedition.

Those mean newies, actually letting the world know about what is happening.

You're right, it is seditious not to sugarcoat atrocities. What could the reporters have been thinking? But don't worry your conservative heart about it. Just tune in to the Bush Propaganda Ministry, err, I mean, Fox News and you won't have to listen to such treacherous slander.
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[VoodooAce]

Yes, I'm sure everybody would have been better off if in 1944 the New York Times had pictures of U.S. abuse of Axis soldiers splashed on every page for the last two years.

Can you not hear yourself? You're putting American lives in jeopardy because you want the "truth?" Here's the truth for you: something bad happened a few times, maybe from 10 men out of 100,000, in a country of 20,000,000.

And what about this story from the BBC? Maybe the Iraqi police reports aren't the most reliable sources of information, huh?

First of all, I'm not putting anybodies life in jeopardy, period. Think before you type. I'm sitting in my house posting on CFCOT, for christ's sake.

We are Americans, RM. We demand and deserve to know what is going on.

There is a very fundamental difference between your idea of freedom and mine. Can you not hear yourself?

You're advocating hiding the truth from the people the nation belongs to...us. And I'm pretty sure its not just abuses you're for hiding the truth about. I've seen you complain about the media showing the stark realities of war during Viet Nam. If you had your way, I suspect we'd have nothing but heroic stories 'from the front lines'.

I'm for giving the people the truth; the facts. How are we possibly supposed to make informed judgements and decisions? Give us the full picture, and we decide what's best for us. What about some kid thinking about joining the Marines or Army? Don't you think he deserves a clearer picture of the facts before deciding to put his life on the line?

Who decides what's fit for American public consumption? How do they decide? Who keeps checks on them?

But the biggest question is, "How can we possibly ever know what the truth is?". Would we then just have to trust everything they tell us about every war we're in, or might get into? Is that really good enough for you, RM?

 

[malclave]

We demand and deserve to know what is going on.

Then why are some people so opposed to investigations and want to crucify the military en masse without knowing what's going on?

 

[amadeus]

Those mean newies, actually letting the world know about what is happening.

Republishing the same story 50 times from a slightly different angle to create the illusion of a new story is not my idea of letting anyone know anything.

First of all, I'm not putting anybodies life in jeopardy, period. Think before you type. I'm sitting in my house posting on CFCOT, for christ's sake.

Not you, but who you support, "news" sources like the Los Angeles Times, etc.

We are Americans, RM. We demand and deserve to know what is going on.

You're advocating hiding the truth from the people the nation belongs to...us.

Sometimes a state needs to keep things secret, particularly when that state has nationals whose lives are depending on it.

And I'm pretty sure its not just abuses you're for hiding the truth about. I've seen you complain about the media showing the stark realities of war during Viet Nam. If you had your way, I suspect we'd have nothing but heroic stories 'from the front lines'.

You had better believe it, because that's the only thing that deserves to be published. Those abuse pictures and these stories have little difference from publishing instructions on how to build a bomb; material that can only harm the U.S. mission in Iraq.

I'm for giving the people the truth; the facts.

How are we possibly supposed to make informed judgements and decisions? Give us the full picture, and we decide what's best for us. What about some kid thinking about joining the Marines or Army? Don't you think he deserves a clearer picture of the facts before deciding to put his life on the line?

I'm all for giving the facts. Here's an interesting fact that many, particularly on the left have seem to forgotten: these are allegations only, an investigation has started and no conclusions have been made yet. Here's another fact: broadcasting around the world that U.S. soldiers are a bunch of monsters doesn't help anyone, except for a few far-left radicals who get an erection every time an American is killed somewhere.

Who decides what's fit for American public consumption? How do they decide? Who keeps checks on them?

Who decides it now? A few newspaper editors and TV news anchors.

But the biggest question is, "How can we possibly ever know what the truth is?". Would we then just have to trust everything they tell us about every war we're in, or might get into? Is that really good enough for you, RM?

The most important part of war is winning it. I don't care what the truth is, I want the mission completed with as few U.S. casualties as possible. If this comes at the expense of a few planted stories and phony news reports, fine.

 

[VoodooAce]

Then why are some people so opposed to investigations and want to crucify the military en masse without knowing what's going on?

I don't know. Doesn't apply to me. I haven't seen anybody say they don't want investigations, but I could have missed it. Seems that most people do to me. I also don't see anybody wanting to 'crucify the military en masse'.

I've heard conservatives the last couple days whinging about this, but I haven't seen it. We want to know the truth, and we want anybody guilty of such crimes punished. And we want anybody guilty of covering up any crimes punished for it, too.

That's a lot different that what you're complaining about. It strikes me as overly defensive.

 

[VoodooAce]

Republishing the same story 50 times from a slightly different angle to create the illusion of a new story is not my idea of letting anyone know anything.

Ridiculous, RM. What are you talking about?

Sometimes a state needs to keep things secret, particularly when that state has nationals whose lives are depending on it.

Again, what are you talking about? Who's lives are depending on keeping secrets like this?

If you had your way, I suspect we'd have nothing but heroic stories 'from the front lines'.

You had better believe it, because that's the only thing that deserves to be published. Those abuse pictures and these stories have little difference from publishing instructions on how to build a bomb; material that can only harm the U.S. mission in Iraq.

Wow. If its so bad, then maybe they just shouldn't do it, eh? The good and the bad are all part of a whole package. It is this package that we, the American public, are to form an opinion on. How could you feel confident forming an opinion about something without knowing anything at all about it?

I'm all for giving the facts.

Ok, again. What are you talking about? You're whole post is about why you're not for giving the facts.

Here's an interesting fact that many, particularly on the left have seem to forgotten: these are allegations only, an investigation has started and no conclusions have been made yet. Here's another fact: broadcasting around the world that U.S. soldiers are a bunch of monsters doesn't help anyone, except for a few far-left radicals who get an erection every time an American is killed somewhere.

Nobodie's forgotten that they're only allegations, RM. Have I given reason to believe otherwise? Why do people keep saying this? Seriously. Has anybody in OT said otherwise? I haven't seen it, but I've seen this same statement over and again.

Who decides it now? A few newspaper editors and TV news anchors.

As it should be. Who else? A few generals and politicians????? What's your point? Or is that what you believe, and that's your point....that it would be better if it were generals and politicians?

The most important part of war is winning it. I don't care what the truth is, I want the mission completed with as few U.S. casualties as possible. If this comes at the expense of a few planted stories and phony news reports, fine.

Well, you answered my question:

"How can we possibly ever know what the truth is?".

with:

I don't care what the truth is.....

I hoped for an answer, but I must admit that I didn't believe you would admit to feeling this way. Wow. I mean, seriously. Wow.

Yet you say you don't 'blindly' follow. How can you possibly not be blindly following if you don't even want to know the truth? This is totally incompattible.

Either you blindly follow, or you open your eyes and seek the truth. You blindly follow, RM.

 

[amadeus]

Ridiculous, RM. What are you talking about?

The New York Times ran stories on Abu Gharib 28 days in a row on their front page. I don't think 9/11 got that much coverage.

Again, what are you talking about? Who's lives are depending on keeping secrets like this?

U.S. army personnel in Iraq. You don't think that publishing these stories time and time again causes Iraqis to sympathize with our goals, do you?

Wow. If its so bad, then maybe they just shouldn't do it, eh? The good and the bad are all part of a whole package. It is this package that we, the American public, are to form an opinion on. How could you feel confident forming an opinion about something without knowing anything at all about it?

What opinions need to be formed about this? Somebody alleges something bad happened and now they're investigating it. What opinion could you possibly hold on that?

Ok, again. What are you talking about? You're whole post is about why you're not for giving the facts.

These facts are being twisted to fit an agenda.

Nobodie's forgotten that they're only allegations, RM. Have I given reason to believe otherwise? Why do people keep saying this? Seriously. Has anybody in OT said otherwise? I haven't seen it, but I've seen this same statement over and again.

It isn't you specifically, it's others. It's pretty clear who I'm talking about here.

As it should be. Who else? A few generals and politicians????? What's your point? Or is that what you believe, and that's your point....that it would be better if it were generals and politicians?

The point is that there will always be an entrenched class of individuals that have access to broadcasting information on a wide scale.

I hoped for an answer, but I must admit that I didn't believe you would admit to feeling this way. Wow. I mean, seriously. Wow.

Yet you say you don't 'blindly' follow. How can you possibly not be blindly following if you don't even want to know the truth? This is totally incompattible.

I absolutely want the truth, but once you let the cat out of the bag, it stays out. There's no way to censor or filter that information to the Iraqis or the greater Middle East.

Either you blindly follow, or you open your eyes and seek the truth. You blindly follow, RM.

I think Iraq is a mess that we should have handled with force rather than our present do-gooder mindset. Who can I be following? The Republicans won't have anything to do with it and the Democrats haven't supported an effective means of acheiving a goal since WWII.

 

[Neomega]

What are we defending, if we cannot defend the right of the American Public to know the truth?

Who elects our leaders? A cabal of people who know better, or the United States public?

If we only let those who "know better" know the truth, only they will be the ones who pick our leaders.

There are a lot of people in history who have thought they "knew better", and they inspired in men the deaths of millions for Empire.

The Constitution states, under no uncertain terms, that the United States of America belongs TO THE PEOPLE.

For the people of the United States to pick the right leader, and choose who they believe is the best person for the job, they must know what is going on, no matter how ugly.

If this was World War II, the people of the United States would shrug something like this off. they shrugged off the ATOM bombs, but this just in from Walter Kronkite.....




....pssshttkkzzzczakwhiiieeeewwwwww...................................Iraq is not World War II, I repeat, Iraq is not World War II....kzzczzznzccsswheeeewwwweeeooooooop!

 

[C~G]

The most important part of war is winning it. I don't care what the truth is, I want the mission completed with as few U.S. casualties as possible. If this comes at the expense of a few planted stories and phony news reports, fine.

The real question is, what is the cost of the war and the winning to Iraqis. Apparently what I have read about your opinions, your concerns are whether US accomplishes it's mission and wins the war, the public image of US and US military casualties. Rest of worry you leave for others.
Some other people are much more concerned of those Iraqi civilians that only want live in peace but couldn't do so in the past and cannot still do so.
No need to shine the everrotten armor of US army. Believe me, most of the people have lost the illusion of brave knights long time ago. There was this one war during last century which made people see things in different light. Too bad some young people have already forgotten all about it. They don't seem to know what war is really about and what it causes.

For those who feel that US military has right to do whatever they want in order to achieve it's goal because they have the power to do so...It's probably great for them living without feeling of empathy and being not able to think that you and your family could be one of those killed.
It must be a true bliss, but I still almost pity you.

As said earlier these are only allegations which must be investigated from top to bottom. Does your average G.I. Joe do this kind of stuff?
Yes, they do. Not regularly perhaps but sometimes. At right time and in right place. Or however you want to call it.

Of course media makes it look sensational, but those are real dead people. Like you and me. Possible innocent victims of soldiers of US.
Nothing is going to change that or make that image turnaround.

 

[Xenocrates]

Part of Robert Fisk's article in today's Independent newspaper:

Robert Fisk: On the shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq
Could Haditha be just the tip of the mass grave? The corpses we have glimpsed, the grainy footage of the cadavers and the dead children; could these be just a few of many? Does the handiwork of America's army of the slums go further?
Published: 03 June 2006

I remember clearly the first suspicions I had that murder most foul might be taking place in our name in Iraq. I was in the Baghdad mortuary, counting corpses, when one of the city's senior medical officials - an old friend - told me of his fears. "Everyone brings bodies here," he said. "But when the Americans bring bodies in, we are instructed that under no circumstances are we ever to do post-mortems. We were given to understand that this had already been done. Sometimes we'd get a piece of paper like this one with a body." And here the man handed me an American military document showing the hand-drawn outline of a man's body and the words "trauma wounds".
What kind of trauma? Indeed, what kind of trauma is now being experienced in Iraq? Who is doing the mass killing? Who is dumping so many bodies on garbage heaps? After Haditha, we are going to reshape our suspicions.

I'd also like to mention the official report into one of the recent massacres. I don't remember which one. It said that US troops were following procedure, when 11 people including women and children were killed. This is what we feared; that the procedures were suitable for war fighting but not for policing. It's the wrong tool for the job and it's the commading officers that decide which procedures to use and so the buck stops with them.

 

[blackheart]

What difference does it make? Dead is dead. My attitude isn't going to bring them back to life.

Then why do we learn about the Holocaust in schools and other genocides? SO WE DON'T REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKES. Your attitude will determine the consequences for those events. If you want to be aphetic, that's your problem, but remember where apathy will lead you..

Civilians don't know the code of conduct of the U.S. armed services. If you wanted to try them in a civil court, wouldn't that be under the jurisdiction of the Iraqis, and would you want to trust them with our nationals?

And inversely, would I trust some of our courts to try Iraqis? The ICJ or The Hague or any other court that has tried war criminals would be a good start.

You call it news, I call it sedition.

Then you've lost touch with what democracy means.

It is an anomaly. Almost nobody here would make the claim that these actions are so widespread as to represent a significant portion of the U.S. military deployment in Iraq.

That still doesn't warrant the callous and uncaring attitude.

Remember blackheart, innocent until proven guilty. Let the military justice system do their jobs.

Innocent until proven guilty indeed. But punishment for guilt? The military doesn't have a good track record of punishing its own massacres.

 

[blackheart]

Then why are some people so opposed to investigations and want to crucify the military en masse without knowing what's going on?

People some people are prejudiced?

Sometimes a state needs to keep things secret, particularly when that state has nationals whose lives are depending on it.

You had better believe it, because that's the only thing that deserves to be published. Those abuse pictures and these stories have little difference from publishing instructions on how to build a bomb; material that can only harm the U.S. mission in Iraq.

Well, then we shouldn't publish anything negative from Iraq, at all. Because any negative material would surely put our solders' lives in danger. America is an democracy, not a fascist state that suppresses the press. Seriously, where are you coming from? Do you want to rewrite history as well to paint everything in a glorious bathing light for America? Would you like to follow the communist ideas of historical revisionism, or would you rather side with America's ideas of truth and liberty?

I'm all for giving the facts. Here's an interesting fact that many, particularly on the left have seem to forgotten: these are allegations only, an investigation has started and no conclusions have been made yet. Here's another fact: broadcasting around the world that U.S. soldiers are a bunch of monsters doesn't help anyone, except for a few far-left radicals who get an erection every time an American is killed somewhere.

Here's an interesting fact: you're stereotyping. Nowhere have I seen an America newssource call America soldiers monsters. Broadcasting around the world that the military has done something wrong is an inherent part of American democracy, American freedom, and American nature.

Who decides it now? A few newspaper editors and TV news anchors.

Not the evil conspiracist mediamen who control our lives!

The most important part of war is winning it. I don't care what the truth is, I want the mission completed with as few U.S. casualties as possible. If this comes at the expense of a few planted stories and phony news reports, fine.

What planted stories and phony reports? The Haditha massacres? I care what the truth is. The rest of America cares as well. What happened rmsharpe, turning back on the very core values that make America?

 

[blackheart]

U.S. army personnel in Iraq. You don't think that publishing these stories time and time again causes Iraqis to sympathize with our goals, do you?

So publishing the truth would cause some not to like us, what's the loss? Would you rather have us run a full-time Bin Laden propeganda machine then?

What opinions need to be formed about this? Somebody alleges something bad happened and now they're investigating it. What opinion could you possibly hold on that?

Something like what you said, "The most important part of war is winning it. I don't care what the truth is, I want the mission completed with as few U.S. casualties as possible. If this comes at the expense of a few planted stories and phony news reports, fine."

These facts are being twisted to fit an agenda.

bullfeathers. I thought you didn't believe in conspiracy theories.

The point is that there will always be an entrenched class of individuals that have access to broadcasting information on a wide scale.

And there will always be an entrenched class of individuals that have access to controlling the government, corporations, Disney, etc. What's your point?

I absolutely want the truth, but once you let the cat out of the bag, it stays out. There's no way to censor or filter that information to the Iraqis or the greater Middle East.

From your previous posts, it looks like you would rather conveniently ignore the truth. And why would we want to continue feeding lies to other people? Because the propeganda will make us look better? You know why tried to do that? Communists and fascists.

I think Iraq is a mess that we should have handled with force rather than our present do-gooder mindset. Who can I be following? The Republicans won't have anything to do with it and the Democrats haven't supported an effective means of acheiving a goal since WWII.

This isn't a convetional war, and convetional brute force didn't/doesn't/won't work. You and the rest of the war planners need to realize this fact.

 

[amadeus]

Then why do we learn about the Holocaust in schools and other genocides? SO WE DON'T REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKES. Your attitude will determine the consequences for those events. If you want to be aphetic, that's your problem, but remember where apathy will lead you..

We didn't make the mistakes to begin with. As I recall, all of the concentration camps were in German-occupied territories, not the U.S.

And inversely, would I trust some of our courts to try Iraqis? The ICJ or The Hague or any other court that has tried war criminals would be a good start.

I take it you aren't one for swift justice then? U.S. servicemen could be detained for 20 years waiting for a trial verdict.

Then you've lost touch with what democracy means.

Sabotage is not a part of democracy.

That still doesn't warrant the callous and uncaring attitude.

Who are you to say what attitude I should or shouldn't have?

Innocent until proven guilty indeed. But punishment for guilt? The military doesn't have a good track record of punishing its own massacres.

William Calley, life in prison, reduced to 3 1/2 years house arrest.
Charles Graner, sentenced to 10 years in federal prison.
Ivan Fredrick, sentenced to eight years in federal prison, dishonorable discharge.
Jeremy Sivits, one year in prison, bad conduct discharge.
Armin Cruz, eight months in confinement, bad conduct discharge.
Sabrina Harman, six months in prison, bad conduct discharge.
Megan Ambuhl, reduction of rank and loss of half-month's pay.
Lynndie England, three years in prison, dishonorable discharge.

Well, then we shouldn't publish anything negative from Iraq, at all. Because any negative material would surely put our solders' lives in danger. America is an democracy, not a fascist state that suppresses the press. Seriously, where are you coming from? Do you want to rewrite history as well to paint everything in a glorious bathing light for America? Would you like to follow the communist ideas of historical revisionism, or would you rather side with America's ideas of truth and liberty?

What truth is there in republishing the same story over again? What truth is there in painting the U.S. military as a group of organized war criminals? I'll say it again; I'm all for the truth, but the truth doesn't sell newspapers. Kills pay the bills.

Here's an interesting fact: you're stereotyping. Nowhere have I seen an America newssource call America soldiers monsters. Broadcasting around the world that the military has done something wrong is an inherent part of American democracy, American freedom, and American nature.

They aren't saying it, they're projecting that image, though. It isn't always the U.S. media, either. Look at Arab propaganda outlets like Al Jazeera.

Not the evil conspiracist mediamen who control our lives!

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. News from around the globe usually comes out of one of a few sources, all of which engage in some level of self-censorship.

What planted stories and phony reports? The Haditha massacres? I care what the truth is. The rest of America cares as well. What happened rmsharpe, turning back on the very core values that make America?

Again with charging me as being "anti-American?" What happened to "dissent is patriotic?"

Phony stories? How about the Koran in the toilet at Gitmo? More than a dozen people were killed in Afghanistan over that story.

So publishing the truth would cause some not to like us, what's the loss? Would you rather have us run a full-time Bin Laden propeganda machine then?

If we can shut down propaganda outlets and just tell the truth without trying to drum up anti-war sentiments or incite violence against Americans, we shouldn't have to do anything.

Something like what you said, "The most important part of war is winning it. I don't care what the truth is, I want the mission completed with as few U.S. casualties as possible. If this comes at the expense of a few planted stories and phony news reports, fine."

Right. Why shouldn't we engage in information warfare? You're saying yourself that it isn't a conventional war. Should we be planting stories in Iraqi newspapers about how rotten the U.S. soldiers are?

I thought you didn't believe in conspiracy theories.

I don't.

And there will always be an entrenched class of individuals that have access to controlling the government, corporations, Disney, etc. What's your point?

My point is that it's counterproductive to our mission in Iraq.

From your previous posts, it looks like you would rather conveniently ignore the truth. And why would we want to continue feeding lies to other people? Because the propeganda will make us look better? You know why tried to do that? Communists and fascists.

I've been all for the truth since this thing started.

The ones that aren't for the truth are the propagandists that try to incite violence against the U.S. military. If we're really supposed to be interested in the truth, how come we don't shut down Al Jazeera? How come we let hostile countries broadcast lies about America?

This isn't a convetional war, and convetional brute force didn't/doesn't/won't work. You and the rest of the war planners need to realize this fact.

Just how do you propose to win a war?

 

[blackheart]

We didn't make the mistakes to begin with. As I recall, all of the concentration camps were in German-occupied territories, not the U.S.

You don't have to be wily about it, it was an example.

I take it you aren't one for swift justice then? U.S. servicemen could be detained for 20 years waiting for a trial verdict.

And accused felons could be held up to 10 years in prison waiting for trial. Your point?

Sabotage is not a part of democracy.

I see no sabotage.

William Calley, life in prison, reduced to 3 1/2 years house arrest.
Charles Graner, sentenced to 10 years in federal prison.
Ivan Fredrick, sentenced to eight years in federal prison, dishonorable discharge.
Jeremy Sivits, one year in prison, bad conduct discharge.
Armin Cruz, eight months in confinement, bad conduct discharge.
Sabrina Harman, six months in prison, bad conduct discharge.
Megan Ambuhl, reduction of rank and loss of half-month's pay.
Lynndie England, three years in prison, dishonorable discharge.

I was talking in terms of a previous massacre, My Lai.

What truth is there in republishing the same story over again? What truth is there in painting the U.S. military as a group of organized war criminals? I'll say it again; I'm all for the truth, but the truth doesn't sell newspapers. Kills pay the bills.

They aren't saying it, they're projecting that image, though. It isn't always the U.S. media, either. Look at Arab propaganda outlets like Al Jazeera.

Again I repeat, are we reading the same news sources? I haven't seen any mainstream ones say that American soldiers are monsters. If that's what you get from the news, then that's your own views.

Again with charging me as being "anti-American?" What happened to "dissent is patriotic?"

Phony stories? How about the Koran in the toilet at Gitmo? More than a dozen people were killed in Afghanistan over that story.

Here's what you said: "The most important part of war is winning it. I don't care what the truth is,". Sounds like a pretense for mass censorship.

If we can shut down propaganda outlets and just tell the truth without trying to drum up anti-war sentiments or incite violence against Americans, we shouldn't have to do anything.

Right, like any news source will be completely unbiased. But what do you suggest until then? Not report anything at all?

Right. Why shouldn't we engage in information warfare? You're saying yourself that it isn't a conventional war. Should we be planting stories in Iraqi newspapers about how rotten the U.S. soldiers are?

Again with the planting stories. Here, find some proof for it otherwise stop bringing it up.

I've been all for the truth since this thing started.

The ones that aren't for the truth are the propagandists that try to incite violence against the U.S. military. If we're really supposed to be interested in the truth, how come we don't shut down Al Jazeera? How come we let hostile countries broadcast lies about America?

You don't care for the truth, as you said: "The most important part of war is winning it. I don't care what the truth is,"
Al Jazeera isn't an American company so we don't have jurisdiction, not to mention they haven't broken any laws?

Just how do you propose to win a war?

The conventional war was already war, now it's time for the occupation war.