Page 1 of 2
What the military will and won't let soldiers hear
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:36 pm
by Mister Bushice
Here's a short list of banned / acceptable web sites the military blocks their soldiers in Iraq from accessing.
There's no censorship going on now, is there? :roll:
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:03 pm
by PSUFAN
what a joke.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:05 pm
by Mister Bushice
I know they can do that.
Funny how the only allowed sites are pro republican though, ain't it?
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:32 pm
by Mister Bushice
I agree. Allowing access only to Pro Republican / Pro Bush Administration websites is stupid and dangerous
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:53 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:They have no business with any internet access.
You would make a great WalMart manager.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:58 pm
by Mister Bushice
mvscal wrote:They have no business with any internet access.
Yeah. Hate to boost morale with any entertainment or anything.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:07 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:OPSEC takes precedence over entertainment. They're there to fight not blog.
WFT does that have to do with giving troops access to secured computers w/ Internet access? I'm pretty sure the troops aren't setting up their own wi-fi networks in the Green Zone.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:08 pm
by SunCoastSooner
They do this because of moral and because 90% of of the military heard those shows there would be a lot more dead muslims because of pissed off marines and army infantry.
My ex-girlfriend from high school's father was in Special Ops (along with my father) and he had a large stack democratic election posters that he used for target practice. First time I came over to meet her parents he was out back using them. I think he was trying to intimidate me so while speaking to his wife about my plans for our evenning and why she needed to be dressed up so nicely I politly informed her, as loud as humanly possible without making it too obvuious (pretending to try and speak above the discharge of the firearm), that we were going to be attending at function at the OClub on base withy my father the Full bird. Never had a problem with the Major after that. :D
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:12 pm
by Mister Bushice
Apparently that's not the case if it's bill oreilly.com as opposed to alfranken.com.
Funny how that is.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:19 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:BSmack wrote:mvscal wrote:OPSEC takes precedence over entertainment. They're there to fight not blog.
WFT does that have to do with giving troops access to secured computers w/ Internet access? I'm pretty sure the troops aren't setting up their own wi-fi networks in the Green Zone.
What does unrestricted internet access have to do with OPSEC?!?
The idiot is the one who brought up OPSEC to begin with. The idiot is the one who thinks the troops are blogging their secrets to al Queda. And the idiot is the one who, when spoken to in a reasonable manner, replies with unwarranted bluster and invective.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:31 pm
by SunCoastSooner
Like I said I bvelieve it has more to do with moral than censorship. The is inevitably some liberal asshole who is pissed about being absolutly surrounded by republicans and cons that he will blair that shit and somebody, be it a Major having a bad day or some Sergent who doesn't like him to begin with, will put a bullet in his foot. Either that or as I said before someone will take it out on the muzzies that they have to listen to the liberals back home whine. You think I am joking I am sure but I am not.
Another personal observation that I thought of is this. While Bill Clinton was running for office the first time I was still a youngster and my father was on assignment in Arkansas training some ArkNatGuard troops in special small team tactics and BC made an appearance at the Base in NLR. The Commanding General of the base had to literally order troops to shake the Democratic nominee for president's hand because they could only find a small handfull to do it without direct orders.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:36 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:BSmack wrote:The idiot is the one who brought up OPSEC to begin with.
The Army Chief of Staff? Stick with what you know which, evidently, is nothing. Fucking moron.
The fucking moron is the one who thinks this threads is about soldiers blogging.
It is not. Now pull your head out of your ass and kindly unfuck yourself.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:41 pm
by Mister Bushice
The point mvscal is avoiding is that IF it so vital for OPSEC, WHY are republican blog / message board sites allowed and liberal ones banned?
and it would be helpful if you guys would stop throwing poo at each other with the name calling. It's stupid.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:57 pm
by Mister Bushice
You're telling me that what the soldiers post is propaganda? What's to prevent them from posting negative comments on Oreilly? The answer is nothing. There is a double standard that is happening here. The propaganda is being played on our soldiers, not on the enemy.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:58 pm
by BSmack
Mister Bushice wrote:The point mvscal is avoiding is that IF it so vital for OPSEC, WHY are republican blog / message board sites allowed and liberal ones banned?
I think we all know the answer to that question. This administration HATES critiscisim more than they hate bin Laden. This is the same reason why it quite literaly took an Act of Congress to get ANY kind of progressive talk radio on Armed Forces Radio. And even then, the Administration tried like hell to shut out real dissent.
Armed Forces Radio Tunes Out Liberal Show Host
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 18, 2005; Page C01
Liberal radio talker Ed Schultz was eagerly anticipating his debut yesterday on Armed Forces Radio, which agreed last month to carry his program to nearly a million soldiers around the world.
But at 7 a.m., Schultz's producer got a call from Allison Barber, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary for internal communications, who said without explanation that the deal was off.
Perhaps, Schultz said in an interview, it was just a coincidence that he spent the end of last week chastising Barber for coaching a group of U.S. soldiers in Iraq before a teleconference with President Bush.
"It kind of floored us," Schultz said from his studio in North Dakota. "The fact is, they don't want dissenting voices or any other kind of speech unless it's going to be promotional for them. Obviously, these people are making sure they're not going to have any opinion other than the Rush Limbaughs of the world."
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) won approval last year for a nonbinding resolution urging Armed Forces Radio to offer more political balance in programming. Limbaugh strongly objected, noting that the network carries National Public Radio and declaring, "I am the political balance."
Late last month, Manny Levy, chief of the radio division for Armed Forces Network, told Schultz's distributor, Jones Radio, by e-mail: "AFN Radio has squared away everything on our end to begin carrying the first hour of 'The Ed Schultz Show' each day, beginning Monday, October 17, 2005."
Levy added: "I'm sorry that there were so many panicked, 'I need an answer soon' calls, false starts and unexpected delays on our end. An awful lot of people in the government had (or tried to have) a hand in [the] program selection process that ended with the decision to add 'The Ed Schultz Show.' "
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said last night that Levy "got ahead of the process" and that no decision had been made in a review of which programming to add to the network. When asked about Schultz's insistence that his criticism of Barber played a role, Whitman called that "an unfortunate misperception on his part. That has nothing to do with this."
Barber was seen repeatedly on television last week asking mock questions to soldiers in Iraq, who generally gave responses similar to those they would momentarily provide to the president. Schultz played some of these clips on his show. The Pentagon said the soldiers were not rehearsed but apologized for "any perception that they were told what to say."
Barber was traveling and could not be reached yesterday. Schultz says Barber told his producer she could not say when, or whether, Armed Forces Radio would carry the show.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01666.html
Of course the listeners of Shultz's program rose up and bombarded Congress with a boatload of nasty emails and AFN AGAIN relented and is now airing the 1 hour of Shultz's program they originaly agreed to air.
This situation is no different in that the folks in charge of the information flow don't want anything anti-Administration getting out.
and it would be helpful if you guys would stop throwing poo at each other with the name calling. It's stupid.
Give it a rest. These threads are linear. You can see who's doing what and who's doing what first. If you, as a mod, don't like it, then clean it up. I'm not going to suffer mv's crap quietly and nobody else is either.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:12 pm
by Mister Bushice
yeah. There's no conflict in fighting for freedoms you aren't allowed to have, right?
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:25 pm
by Mister Bushice
Then why is Oreilly allowed and not franken? Certainly there are more efficient ways to brainwash the troops.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:33 pm
by War Wagon
Mister Bushice wrote:Then why is Oreilly allowed and not franken? Certainly there are more efficient ways to brainwash the troops.
Yeah. I'm sure that Joe Grunt gets back to the barracks from a hard day of patroling for insurgents and his first priority is rushing to a computer to check out what O'reilly has to say.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:56 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
mvscal wrote:That being said, troops shouldn't be on the internet at all.
This aint Zhukov's Red Army preparing to encircle Berlin, mv.
If you don't let the troops unwind in the manner of their choosing, on their own time, and within
army regulations, they're gonna go psycho.
That can either happen in Iraq, or back home on Civvy Street.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:07 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:Mister Bushice wrote:Then why is Oreilly allowed and not franken? Certainly there are more efficient ways to brainwash the troops.
Because O'Reilly isn't going to be dishing up a stream of non-stop anti-war propaganda like the douchebags on Err America.
In other words, the slice of home served up to our troops is the slice the Administration wants them to see.
Thank you for playing.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:08 pm
by Mister Bushice
mvscal wrote:Mister Bushice wrote:Then why is Oreilly allowed and not franken? Certainly there are more efficient ways to brainwash the troops.
Because O'Reilly isn't going to be dishing up a stream of non-stop anti-war propaganda like the douchebags on Err America.
Well then, the Don and Mike show doesn't dish up a stream of anti war propaganda, but it is Anti Bush.
It's an administration thing.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:13 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:BSmack wrote:In other words, the slice of home served up to our troops is the slice the Administration wants them to see.
Sincerely,
The Dawn of Time
That doesn't make it right.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:39 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:BSmack wrote:mvscal wrote:
Sincerely,
The Dawn of Time
That doesn't make it right.
It doesn't make it wrong either. This isn't a debate team, fuckhead.
You were the one who brought precedent into this conversation. So don't chicken out on me now.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:58 pm
by War Wagon
BSmack wrote:
In other words, the slice of home served up to our troops is the slice the Administration wants them to see.
Thank you for playing.
Playing? Seems to me that you and Bushy are the one's who're
playing. I mean
spinning, trying to get the desired re-action.
At this point, all the troops have been rotated in and out of Iraq at least once. Some probably multiple times. They realize just who's saying what back home, and for the most part don't give a fuck what either side has to say on the matter. They're there to do a job and if the politicians and spinmeisters in the media and clueless handwringers who post on message boards stay out of their way, By God, they'll get it done.
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:27 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
War Wagon wrote:They're there to do a job and if the politicians and spinmeisters in the media and clueless handwringers who post on message boards stay out of their way, By God, they'll get it done.
"Spinmeisters" are standing in the way of the US military stabilizing Iraq?
And if they "got out of the way" the troops could "get it done"?
Right. Nothing stiffens haji's resolve like a Janeane Garafalo rant.
Plant those IED's...Faster! Faster! I shall now give you US troop locations
hidden in secret code in one of my pissy monologues..."
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:42 am
by SunCoastSooner
Taking political notes from someone who flunked out of college and became a bike messanger is the status quo for Democrats now?
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:45 am
by Mister Bushice
War Wagon wrote:
At this point, all the troops have been rotated in and out of Iraq at least once. Some probably multiple times. They realize just who's saying what back home, and for the most part don't give a fuck what either side has to say on the matter.
Then if that's the case, why not allow them free access to both sides of the issue?
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:09 am
by War Wagon
Mister Bushice wrote:
Then if that's the case, why not allow them free access to both sides of the issue?
Who cares? It's a non-issue to me. Not that I have any inside skinny on this, but I doubt many of the troops actually care, so why make a big deal out of it?
And if they
do care, I'm with mv. Cut off all internet access, period.
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:26 am
by War Wagon
Martyred wrote:
"Spinmeisters" are standing in the way of the US military stabilizing Iraq?
And if they "got out of the way" the troops could "get it done"?
I didn't say "got" out of the way. I said "stay" out of the way. Did I stutter when you read that, or was that your pathetic attempt at spin?
Leave that to the pros, like B squared.
Yes, given the time and support, they will stabilize Iraq. Maybe not on
your time and support, though. Not that that matters.
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:12 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
War Wagon wrote:
And if they do care, I'm with mv. Cut off all internet access, period.
"Support Our Troops"
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:22 am
by War Wagon
Martyred wrote:
"Support Our Troops"
Damn straight. The last thing they need is to be distracted by idiots like you on the internet whilst trying to avoid getting their asses blown up.
When they come home, there will be plenty of time to play on the internet.
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:30 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
I'd like to see you head over to Iraq, face down a bunch of troops, tell them they're too
stupid to discern between criticism and propaganda, and then yank the ethernet cable out of their modem.
"Listen boys. Now, you probably don't know me, but I've been fighting this damn war from
my cum-stained recliner back Stateside. You pussies need to log off your damn MySpace
accounts and get out there and kill!"
WAR ~ a mouthful of broken teeth
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:02 am
by War Wagon
They're quite able to discern propaganda from criticism.
That was sorta' my point to begin with, or didn't you notice?
Wait, aren't you the guy who went spelunking in Blondie cavern?
The mouthful of broken teeth must certainly hit close to home.
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:06 am
by Mister Bushice
Whitey, you're way off base here. If they're so capable, why the censorship? Life must be pretty much hell on a daily basis over there. If they're given access anyway, why such stilted towards republicans and the Bush adminsitration.?
Why? Because the war is not going well, and the majority of the soldiers want it to end, so the government is trying to control where they can go and what they can see.
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:30 am
by SunCoastSooner
Mister Bushice wrote:Whitey, you're way off base here. If they're so capable, why the censorship? Life must be pretty much hell on a daily basis over there. If they're given access anyway, why such stilted towards republicans and the Bush adminsitration.?
Why? Because the war is not going well, and the majority of the soldiers want it to end, so the government is trying to control where they can go and what they can see.
I disagree. My family is damn near entirly military. I lost my cousin last summer, fresh out of West Point, to a bullet through the throat passing out bottled water to children. He supported the war. I have two other cousins over there still (one of them is the brother of the fallen cousin) and they are both supporters of the war. I have a couple of friends over there as well, one is National Guard and had to leave College when he was called up. All of them to a T are supportive of the war. I am on a bunch of my father's former fellow officers in the Army mailing lists. Many of them are over there and I get updates saying they are alive through the net but not much other than that and them asking for our support in the cause they believe in.
I think you are pretty off base on how the soldiers feel about the war Mr.Bushice. Atleast those are my observations. Infact really thinking about it right now and I can't think of a single person in the military that I know who does not vocally support the war in Iraq.
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:38 am
by War Wagon
Yes, war is hell. And if I were a soldier, I'd want it to end too.
How is this any different from the way war has always been?
Can you imagine the tales you'd here from Iwo Jima or any other battlefield that has ever existed should the soldiers have had todays technology to communicate?
Can you imagine what people like you would have been saying then if they had the same means as they do now?
Probably not, unless you understood German or Japanese.
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:54 am
by Mister Bushice
SunCoastSooner wrote:Mister Bushice wrote:Whitey, you're way off base here. If they're so capable, why the censorship? Life must be pretty much hell on a daily basis over there. If they're given access anyway, why such stilted towards republicans and the Bush adminsitration.?
Why? Because the war is not going well, and the majority of the soldiers want it to end, so the government is trying to control where they can go and what they can see.
I disagree. My family is damn near entirly military. I lost my cousin last summer, fresh out of West Point, to a bullet through the throat passing out bottled water to children. He supported the war. I have two other cousins over there still (one of them is the brother of the fallen cousin) and they are both supporters of the war. I have a couple of friends over there as well, one is National Guard and had to leave College when he was called up. All of them to a T are supportive of the war. I am on a bunch of my father's former fellow officers in the Army mailing lists. Many of them are over there and I get updates saying they are alive through the net but not much other than that and them asking for our support in the cause they believe in.
I think you are pretty off base on how the soldiers feel about the war Mr.Bushice. Atleast those are my observations. Infact really thinking about it right now and I can't think of a single person in the military that I know who does not vocally support the war in Iraq.
I was basing it on this:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
You only know of about 12 people. That's a far smaller sample.
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:00 am
by SunCoastSooner
Interesting but I would like to know the size of the sample from the NG, Reserves, and Active compenents. As well as just what Units were included in this sample. Sorry I have grown up a military Brat and live in a pretty damn military area of the world. There are pretty much only two kinds of people in this part of Florida, the obscenly rich and Air Force and I have seen nothing but support for the war.
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:14 am
by Mister Bushice
Again, you are only in Florida and its a big country. If you read the article, it does break it down somewhat.
Certainly NG and reserves would have a higher tally, because for the most part they didn't think they'd be getting shot at and killed when they joined.
But it's a broad sample.
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:16 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
War Wagon wrote:
How is this any different from the way war has always been?
Can you imagine the tales you'd here from Iwo Jima or any other battlefield...
This ain't Iwo Jima, sunshine.
This is walking on patrol on a busy urban street, people minding their own business, life going
on as people shop at the market and kids play, then...
BAM! ...
You wake up in Landstuhl with no fucking legs, and being fitted for a colostomy bag...
...or, a nail bomb blows your fucking eyes out as you lift the cover off a donkey cart.
Support
that.