T1B

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:44 pm**

It's the fact that it's being depicted so negatively. It really is a great war. :roll:

I wonder if Senator Roberts has sent any of his kids to Iraq?

Army recruits shortfall blamed on Iraq war critics

By Vicki Allen 1 hour, 22 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Several Senate Republicans denounced other lawmakers and the news media on Thursday for unfavorable depictions of the
Iraq war and the
Pentagon urged members of Congress to talk up military service to help ease a recruiting shortfall.
ADVERTISEMENT

Families are discouraging young men and women from enlisting "because of all the negative media that's out there," Sen. James Inhofe (news, bio, voting record), an Oklahoma Republican, said at a U.S.
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Inhofe also said that other senators' criticism of the war contributed to the propaganda of U.S. enemies. He did not name the senators.

Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker urged members of Congress to use "your considerable influence to explain to the American people and to those that are influencers out there how important it is for our young people to serve this nation at a time like this."

The Army on Wednesday said it was 14 percent, or about 7,800 recruits, behind its year-to-date recruitment target even though it exceeded its monthly target in June. With extended deployments in Iraq and
Afghanistan, recruiting also is down for the National Guard and the Reserves.

"With the deluge of negative news that we get daily, it's just amazing to me that anybody would want to sign up," said Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), a Kansas Republican.

Facing flagging support for the Iraq war that has killed about 1,750 U.S. forces,
President Bush in a speech on Tuesday acknowledged the nation's doubts about the strategy but insisted the operation was worthwhile and portrayed Iraq as a key battlefield against terrorists.

Bush himself made a pitch for military service. "We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our nation's uniform," he said.

While Bush has rejected calls for a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), the committee chairman, pressed the Pentagon to declassify information on progress of training Iraq's forces, considered a key indicator of when U.S. forces can return home.

"The American taxpayer put a tremendous investment in that retraining and the equipping," Warner said. With that information, he said, "We can better translate where we are in terms of hopefully providing them (Iraqis) with trained individuals and equipment to eventually replace our forces."

Democrats questioned the Pentagon officials on how the Iraq war has strained the military's readiness for other potential conflicts and on delays in providing troops with adequate armor against car bombs and other explosives.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Massachusetts Democrat, said while Bush urged Americans "to raise flags" in honor of U.S. troops in Iraq, the president did not assure troops "they will have the equipment they need to fight the war, and he should have."

Schoomaker acknowledged up to 25 percent of the Humvees in Iraq still had the low grade of protective armor, but he said all should be equipped with higher grade armor in September.

He also agreed that in some cases the level of readiness of units was below desired levels because of the strain of the Iraq conflict and the Army's efforts to streamline its operations.

In his testimony, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee said readiness for battalion and squadron-sized Marine units had dropped by 40 percent because of the priority put on sustaining units in Iraq at the expense of the units that had rotated out of the war.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:52 pm**

Enlistment is down because CBS is a war-downer.

:roll:

Uhhh....okay.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:10 pm**

Well, the media during WWII helped foster an attitude towards the service, the war effort, and the sacrifices here at home.

While they were compelled by FDR to do so, through executive order, what it does show is that the media is very powerful.

Of course the media is powerful, if it wasn't, companies wouldn't pay premium rates for 20 seconds of time during the Super Bowl or something.

So we can see the power of the media.

Now how is it being used ?

In WWII, the media was compelled to foster a positive attitude towards the sacrifices of war. That war, was won.

In Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf War was too short to have any negative impact, and the current war, there are no such constraints.

Korea - Stalemate. A cease fire that exists to this today with varying degrees of cessation coming just short of full scale firefights.

Vietnam - The media's victory as they took the last pictures of the U.S. embassy being stormed by Vietnamese loyal to the U.S. cause trying to escape and left behind to face torture and execution. Symbollically, focusing on the ditching of the very vehicle that was to make war in Vietnam, efficient and handy ... the Helicopters. A war lost.

The Gulf War - They had a bunch of night vision shots. The lead-ins and promos lasted longer than the actual footage. The anomaly, a war won, at the time.

The Current War - It's surpassed the window of opportunity to not let an irresponsible media effect it. As of yet there are Executive Orders, only a Democrat could get away with such CENSORSHIP and encroachments on FREE SPEECH.

Those are the facts. They're not looking good. Hopefully, our military has learned to adjust to having an enemy sympathizer within their own home. But we'll see.

UNWAR American Senators, Actors and Actresses being the enemy's PsyOps.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:12 pm**

You can't blame Vietnam on the media.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:20 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:You can't blame Vietnam on the media.

Sure I can.

I might not be correct in my assessment. But far more intelligent experts and experienced people than me conclude it was a detriment. About the only people that don't are ..... media people, and leftists. So I'm in pretty good company if I am siding with the incorrect conclusion.

The pattern is there. Just let the facts speak for themselves and don't get so emotional about it. Like I said before, there's probably no ill intent involved, but unfortunately the consequences and end results are the same as if there was.

Here's some propaganda for you. I guess all these guys wanted to do was sit around and discuss the efficacy of Rubin's remarks.

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2005/jun ... ractor.wmv

:roll:

Our media does not exist in a vacuum. It either helps or it hinders. If you're suggesting the words and images don't have an effect on the psyche, you should go into consulting. There's a lot of people wasting their money on advertisements.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:22 pm**

Where are you folks seeing all this negative war imagery?

I don't see any imagery at all on your nightly news.

It's like "What if they had a war and nobody cared?"

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:24 pm**

Martyred wrote:Where are you folks seeing all this negative war imagery?

I don't see any imagery at all on your nightly news.

That might be part of the problem. Back in the day they'd go to the "talkies" to see NewsReel footage of D+1 on any given beachhead.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:27 pm**

Don't bother clicking your ruby slippers three times, Tommy.
You can't go back to 1945. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:29 pm**

Martyred wrote:Don't bother clicking your ruby slippers three times, Tommy.
You can't go back to 1945. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever.

I wouldn't want to, I'm just noting historical facts. Besides, if we don't contain this current threat we'll probably all be propelled back to 4th or 5th Century anyway so, even if I'm somewhat of an anachronism, I'll be ahead of my time.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:32 pm**

You could have fooled me with all your laments for an era long gone, where the the media was an extention of foreign policy.

Don't worry. It still is.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:39 pm**

Martyred wrote:You could have fooled me with all your laments for an era long gone, where the the media was an extention of foreign policy.

Don't worry. It still is.

You're projecting your own emotionalism and nostalgia.

I'm merely examining patterns and collecting information.

But if we were to dream, me OSS soon to be CIA, you NKVD soon to be KGB. The fifties spent being plyed by gorgeous German, Swedish, Italian, French, and British women for "documents" ...with sexual favors.

What could have been Marty. That's depressing, what could have been between us.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:43 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:But if we were to dream, me OSS soon to be CIA, you NKVD soon to be KGB. The fifties spent being plyed by gorgeous German, Swedish, Italian, French, and British women for "documents" ...with sexual favors.

Real women?

Not in.

Sincerely,

J. Edgar Hoover

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:47 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:
Martyred wrote:You could have fooled me with all your laments for an era long gone, where the the media was an extention of foreign policy.

Don't worry. It still is.
You're projecting your own emotionalism and nostalgia.

I'm merely examining patterns and collecting information.

But if we were to dream, me OSS soon to be CIA, you NKVD soon to be KGB. The fifties spent being plyed by gorgeous German, Swedish, Italian, French, and British women for "documents" ...with sexual favors.

What could have been Marty. That's depressing, what could have been between us.

Da, comrade. Da.

Of course, I'd send some hag-faced East German assasin to kick you with her poison spiked shoe. James Bond style.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:56 am**

Tom In VA wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:You can't blame Vietnam on the media.
Sure I can.

I might not be correct in my assessment. But far more intelligent experts and experienced people than me conclude it was a detriment. About the only people that don't are ..... media people, and leftists. So I'm in pretty good company if I am siding with the incorrect conclusion.

The pattern is there. Just let the facts speak for themselves and don't get so emotional about it. Like I said before, there's probably no ill intent involved, but unfortunately the consequences and end results are the same as if there was.

Here's some propaganda for you. I guess all these guys wanted to do was sit around and discuss the efficacy of Rubin's remarks.

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2005/jun ... ractor.wmv

:roll:

Our media does not exist in a vacuum. It either helps or it hinders. If you're suggesting the words and images don't have an effect on the psyche, you should go into consulting. There's a lot of people wasting their money on advertisements.

Well they certainly do have an effect. Vietnam was one of the first openly reported wars, due mostly to advances in communications but also partly to the lack of censorship.

However, there are some incontrovertible facts:

1. We underestimated the tenacity and organization of the VC and NVA.

2. We could not stop the movement of troops or supplies to the south along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, as well as the tunnel system we never could shut down. Pretty damn hard to take out your enemy when they're moving and living underground.

3. Americans were not prepared for the body count. No matter what your journalistic controls are, that is a difficult thing to hide.

4. Each administration made promises they never fulfilled in terms of working towards peace and ending the war asap. What occurred was escalation, not peace. It drove LBJ away from running for a second full term, it helped make Nixon tremendously unpopular.

5. You cannot deny a cultural awakening. In spite of the war, the whole culture, starting with music and art, and went through a revolution from the button down conservative 50's and it started way before the war was a factor. It was only a matter of time before protests against the war got rolled into the changes, because the culture of change - the youth - was the one most affected by the war.

6. The draft was a death knell. What we ended up with were soldiers who didn't want to be there. Morale was very low and drug problems were very high.

So the government didn't sell the war well. Why? Pretty damn hard to. It wasn't like a WWII, where the threat was real, where the news depicted hitler marching across Europe towards England taking over the continent, where U boats were spotted off the coast of Maine, where ships between the US and England were being attacked. Vietnam was a far away place that didn't intrude on american life except in the news, and none of it was very directly threatening to american life, and none of it was good news.

In the end the media depicted the war for what it was, a totally purposeless event that spanned decades.

This war is headed down that path. The insurgency in Afghanistan is getting stronger, and the one in Iraq shows no signs of letting up.

And we can't stop foreign journalism, which did not exist in daily American life during WWII. No one is reporting this war in the way you would hope, to sugar coat reality in order to garner support for it.

The problem with that is people get tired of being lied to and deceived, and eventually it snaps back to hurt the ones who do the deceiving.

You mention Korea and Vietnam as failures because of the media. I really think the wars themselves were just not of the same calibre and importance of WWII, and everyone knew it. Our losing ( or should I say "Not winning") those two wars did not negatively affect our lifes here, except in terms of the lives that were lost in them.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:29 am**

Martyred wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:
Martyred wrote:You could have fooled me with all your laments for an era long gone, where the the media was an extention of foreign policy.

Don't worry. It still is.
You're projecting your own emotionalism and nostalgia.

I'm merely examining patterns and collecting information.

But if we were to dream, me OSS soon to be CIA, you NKVD soon to be KGB. The fifties spent being plyed by gorgeous German, Swedish, Italian, French, and British women for "documents" ...with sexual favors.

What could have been Marty. That's depressing, what could have been between us.
Da, comrade. Da.

Of course, I'd send some hag-faced East German assasin to kick you with her poison spiked shoe. James Bond style.

Aww c'mon, I should at least rate some Natasha Kinski in her prime nympho who'll slip me some poison in the throes of passion.

RACK RadioFan's J. Edgar reset.

Bushice,

You're another one. Nobody is saying the media alone. It was just a contributing factor. The pattern displays it has been a contributing factor in losses and wins.

I'm sure from a strategic and tactical perspective mvscal can objectively point out some things the military could have done better. Like actually holding turf guys bled for.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:37 am**

Never the less, we whipped their asses every time out.

Except of course, in the end when it mattered.

6. The draft was a death knell.
We did alright in the Civil War, WW1 & WW2.

Vietnam doesn't compare to the Civil War, WWI or WWII and you know it.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:40 am**

Mister Bushice wrote:
Never the less, we whipped their asses every time out.
Except of course, in the end when it mattered.

6. The draft was a death knell.
We did alright in the Civil War, WW1 & WW2.
Vietnam doesn't compare to the Civil War, WWI or WWII and you know it.

Yeah I know. In the Civil War the traitors were being killed, in WWI and WWII they weren't given any press.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:59 am**

nice dodge ;)

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:23 am**

You can't blame Vietnam on the media.

Not entirely.

they had plenty of help from leftists cowards and useful idiots demonstrating for Hanoi and from Quisling politicians.

T1B

Of course, it's not the war itself

Of course, it's not the war itself