War is hell
NwS
Bush Admin Bans Media Coverage of Dead Soldiers Returning..Why?
by Valis 71 Replies latest social current
-
-
DakotaRed
Continued pressure and monitoring from and with inspections (they weren't finding anything, imagine that).
12 years of that and 17 UN resolutions weren't enough time?
Coalition forces at the border in Kuwait (and if it's a true coalition, likely several other places too). Build a truely international coalition.
The support of some 40 odd nations isn't enough of a coalition? Does it only count when France and Germany have their way?
Use intelligence, creativity, and allies best interest to do that.
And what "intelligence?" CIA? Aren't they the ones who already supplied the intelligence many say was faulty? Creativity? Such as? Allies best interests? Doesn't American interests matter?
Then punative strikes if needed.
Like Clinton did that accomplished nothing?
Have a plan for the aftermath that includes the international community and the Iraqis themselves, and lets the Iraqis know that the entire world is behind their success.
Seems to me the plan is to be victorious. The only ones I'm aware of not behind iraqi success now are the Saddam loyalists. Do tell, what other war had an "exit strategy?" Why is their no outcry about no exit strategy for Kosovo? We still have troops there too.
And yes, lastly if needed, overwhelming force. Strike that, that's not last. Lastly, overwhelming force in quick and intelligent rebuilding, which is really the hard part.
Wasn't overwhelming force what was done, after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions? Hasn't the administration reached out to others for "quick" rebuilding?
As in all things, the journey is more important than the destination. Even more so in this case, as we could use all the friends we can pick up along the way. In a world of shadowy terrorist extremist, even a giant needs all the friends he can make.
And when these "friends" have been shown to be the very ones enabling and supplying banned weaponry, we need to appease them more?
First and foremost, not let an unecessary war for (? what ?) get in the way of a necessary war on terrorism.
Training camps outside Baghdad with a mock airliner, indicate what to you? This war on terrorism is just getting started. Iraq is merely a battle in it, not a diversion. Many of the same ones crying about Iraq are also crying about Afghanistan. Personally, I think this war on terrorism should have started 30 years ago, it has been let go too long and allowed them to gain too much strength. As always, free nations wait too long and it ends up bloodier than it should have been. But, that is a price we pay over and over again.
Iraq has w/o question stolen resources and focus away from the action against al queda and Bin Laden.
With Al Qeada forces within Iraq now and some evidence they have been there before, I do not see this as anything stolen from the war on terror, but the latest battle and a battle that must be fought. If not now, then later.
America's resources are not unlimited, and Americas sons and daughters are not supposed to be canon fodder for an ill-concieved war bought with trumped up motives.
Defeating the major forces in a short of time as they were is your idea of "ill conceived?" As for the aftermath, it's a pipe dream to think it will all be rosey afterwards. It wasn't after the Civil War, WW1, or WW2. It's taken many years to rebuild them and now Bush is expected to accomplish it immediately?
Sure, it is hindsight for me to say it now, but time really was on our side, there was no big hurry. The good news is that some saw that with foresight.
I really can't see where there has been any "big hurry" after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions. With such foresight of some, as you mention, odd that many of them have supported action all along, until it was Bush in office.
Maybe you should look up and read the words of Rep. Jim Marshall D. Ga. about his recent visit to Iraq. Read all of Kays report on WOMDs, not just the portions printed in the press. They seemed to have left out some relevant parts.
Could things have been done any better? Probably. But, war is very unpredictable. Each battle is unpredictable. So called "exit strategies" fall apart as clean up and rebuilding continue, especially when you have extremists that don't care who they kill or hurt.
Many with the "foresight" you mention are demanding a complete and immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. What then? Return Saddam to power and let him slaughter a few more million of his own people? Let some other radical extremist take over and immitate Saddam? Saddam would not have ever gone quietly or peacefully, he showed that over 12 years. He had every chance to comply with UN resolutions and was even urged to step down. He didn't. He just kept on rattling his own saber at what he perceived as a weak and divided US people.
Overall, I feel this entire matter rests with the Iraqi people. Polls conducted there show the average Iraqi supports the US and wants us to stay there for a while. What France, Germany or any other nations feels about it, ultimately, it is what the Iraqis feel that should matter the most. last I heard, they are getting more and more upset, not at the US, but at the other foreign nationals that have entered the country to fight the US. Yes, and these people have targeted the Iraqi people as much as they have US forces.
Finally, I find your "plans" to be vague and without much substance, just surface speaking about a very big problem. If you expect so much from the Bush administration, I would think your palns would be better, they weren't, just more general and vague rantings.
-
SixofNine
Jesus Lew, I can excuse you for not having foresight, hell I didn't either, but you could at least have hindsite. I can listen to a politician if I'm in the mood for spin, positive or negative.
If all those other things failed to come together? Yeah, after all those years, we'd just have to wait some more. You can't tell me Iraq was keeping you up at night 2 years ago, or even one year ago. It was an arrogant blunder.
And who is calling for a pullout Lew? A few nuts yeah, but who really? But that doesn't mean Rove's boy shouldn't be held accountable.
-
DakotaRed
Jesus Lew, I can excuse you for not having foresight, hell I didn't either, but you could at least have hindsite. I can listen to a politician if I'm in the mood for spin, positive or negative.
Not too condescending, huh? Foresight and hindsight? That should be easy after the first gulf war and how many died afterwards because we left them high and dry. As for politicians, who listens to them only? Not me. As for spin, I get too much of that from mainstream media as well. I look for many sources, usually trying to get it as straight from the horses mouth as I can.
If all those other things failed to come together? Yeah, after all those years, we'd just have to wait some more. You can't tell me Iraq was keeping you up at night 2 years ago, or even one year ago. It was an arrogant blunder.
And how long is a more appropriate wait? David Kays report did include evidence of WMDs programs being restarted. It also uncovered many banned weapons he had, some from our generous allies that wanted to wait. No, Iraq didn't keep me up at nights, but I also knew back in '91 that it was a blunder to listen to the UN and our "coalition" that didn't want to remove Saddam then. That the first Bush encouraged uprisings for the Iraqi people and then never supported them did and does bother me. That Clinton carried that same failed policy over bothered me as well. The only blunder I see was in allowing that madman and his party to remian in power and rebuild and rearm, as he had.
And who is calling for a pullout Lew? A few nuts yeah, but who really? But that doesn't mean Rove's boy shouldn't be held accountable.
The voices of those "nuts" accomplished just that thirty years ago and we let a nation fall to oppression, didn't we? Seems to me, as well being held accountable, "Rove's boy," as you so lovingly say, should also be receiving credit where credit is due. So far, he has received none, just lies and slander from those such as "Swimmer" Ted Kennedy and nearly all the Democratic hopefuls. So far, they too are long on rhetoric and finger pointing, but short on actual ideas. To be so rapidly judging this on such a short timetable is folly. Never has any American President been expected to accomplish or solve anything in such a short period of time. Never has any President been faced with such a devastating attack on our civilian populace as Bush has. If you think back, within a week of 9-11, Democrats where screaming then because Bush hadn't responded to the attacks. Now that he has, they are screaming that he did. To put it in a more humorous perspective;
The Pope is visiting DC and President Bush takes him out for an afternoon on the Potomac... sailing on the presidential yacht, the Sequoia. They're
admiring the sights when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat (zucchetto) blows
off his head and out into the water. Secret service guys start to launch a
boat, but Bush waves them off, saying "Wait, wait. I'll take care of this.
Don't worry."
Bush then steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Holy Father's little hat, bends over and picks it up, then walks back to the yacht and climbs aboard. He hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence.
The next morning the topic of conversation among Democrats on the Hill, the
New York Times, Hollywood celebrities, and in France and Germany is:
"Bush Can't Swim." -
Abaddon
I saw a documentary on the BBC a few weeks ago about the US troops in Iraq.
On one hand you saw young scared men with guns acting like young scared men with guns, being quite brutal in their treatment of people, herding them like cattle and knocking them down. I guess it is easy to get brutalised when (some of the) people are being brutal to you and you are losing friends to sneak action by covert agitators.
On the other hand you saw outstanding soldiers; several young black officers struck me particulary. One was in charge of providing a football (soccer) field for a local community. He was completely enaged with his responsibilities, treated the Iraqis he dealt with in an admirable fashion, was acutely aware of the personal danger he was in (a family man and all), aware of the complex and risky changes being wrought in Iraqi society, and, as with many of the troops interviewed, feeling more than a little neglected by Uncle Sam and decreasingly sure of there being a good reason for him to be there.
It made me think that, although the US & UK et. al. did go in without a consensus with the UN, to now let them stew in it is unfair.
Despite it perhaps being a good lesson for future American foreign policy it's unfair un the poor bastards who are there for a good cause and the Iraqi people; I hope that through the UN it will become less an Americo-Anglo thing and more a UN thing.
Please bear this in mind as I respond to the follwoing comments;
SevenofNine
There's absolutely no way that anyone should view those coffins before the familes and loved ones of the deceased have.
Your opinion, one which I would love for you to explain. Given the established freedoms of the press and a public interest, I can't see how any such a measure would smack of anything more than concealment and spin; a few column inches of names is far less attention grabbing than a shot of a coffin, don't you think? It's okay to die for your country but not to be seen to die for your country? We're proud of them until they get shot?
It hasn't had that impact in the past and it's not going to today.
Yes, of course... that's why they want to stop it, because it doesn't have an impact...
The dead soldiers no longer belong to the government.
The live ones don't 'belong' to the government.
Expatbrit
5,000 people a month were dying when the Saddam regime was in power. That's a lot of dead piling up, yet it would seem not enough for the left wing to want to do anything about it.
Please don't insult your own intelligence, let alone that of other people, by making such pathetic strawman arguments. Please cite which left wingers "didn't want to do anything about it". This is about freedom of information and freedom of press. I'd be slightly less sceptical of your attitude if you had shown concern for the fact that the US administration in Iraq has no idea of the numbers of Iraqis killed by US Troops since the end of major war operations.
The UN sanctions that killed half a million kids?
See above comment about the US Administrations bad bookeeping before blaming the UN on deaths caused by Saddam's mansion building and corruption.
And you might rather politicians lie and decieve the public; I'd rather they didn't.
-
Seven
Your opinion, one which I would love for you to explain. Given the established freedoms of the press and a public interest, I can't see how any such a measure would smack of anything more than concealment and spin; a few column inches of names is far less attention grabbing than a shot of a coffin, don't you think? It's okay to die for your country but not to be seen to die for your country? We're proud of them until they get shot?
Yes it's my opinion and I'll stand by it. No cameras until the families have first viewed the remains of their loved ones. Then the media is free to shoot until their heart's content any ceremonies they choose at the individual service member's hometown. Who was concealing and spinning back in November of 2000 during the last days of Big Chill Bill's admin when the no camera policy was made "military-wide policy"? It's been Dover policy for at least 12 years that there is to be no public events at the base when the remains arrive. Out of total lack of respect it's been ignored.
No I hardly think that a coffin has the same impact as photos of soldiers who have made the supreme sacrifice shown on CNN every 20 minutes or video of families grieving at a memorial.
You ask:
It's okay to die for your country but not to be seen to die for your country? We're proud of them until they get shot?
What the hell are you talking about? Allowing the family first viewing means I/we are not proud and appreciative of their sacrifice? My turn to my eyes back at ya along with a . I for one am very proud and saddened at the same time and will watch all memorial coverage shown from the soldier's hometown. I'll grieve right along with them.
Let the Moms, Dads, wives, children, brothers, sisters, boyfriends and girlfriends have their first moments of pain alone and in private at the local mortuary. Not too much to ask imo.
-
Abaddon
SevenofNine:
Yes it's my opinion and I'll stand by it. No cameras until the families have first viewed the remains of their loved ones. Then the media is free to shoot until their heart's content any ceremonies they choose at the individual service member's hometown.
Who was concealing and spinning back in November of 2000 during the last days of Big Chill Bill's admin when the no camera policy was made "military-wide policy"? It's been Dover policy for at least 12 years that there is to be no public events at the base when the remains arrive. Out of total lack of respect it's been ignored.
And now it's being enforced... at the start of a period where there will be, unfortunately, a lot of bodies coming back... great timing.
This is nothing to do with Bush or Clinton; although I think the American publics obsession with a blowie was a trifle odd, I've given details before of occasions where I know for certain the Clinton admin has lied, and stated that my postion is that politicians lie.
No I hardly think that a coffin has the same impact as photos of soldiers who have made the supreme sacrifice shown on CNN every 20 minutes or video of families grieving at a memorial.
I'm not so sure; we live in a culture where many TV channels fill their schedule with trailers and promotional material. Just as we tune out adverts, we tune this material out, even if we don't flick the channel.
The tributes to the dead from Iraq, although different in intent, ultimately fall victim to our ability to tune essentially repetative non-program material out.
I actually think that these tributes would not impact upon people in the same way as national news coverage where people are watching in a more active fashion.
Limiting coverage to local news would also reduce the impact upon people; most communities will only occasionally lose people and see the coverage, rather than every one being exposed to a weekly running total.
These two factors, the de-sensitisation and the limitation to parochial coverage, mean that people could be lulled into a state-of-mind whereby in a few years they will say; "Jesus Christ; when did the casualty count go over 1000?"
And besides, I still think the restriction of press freedom is unconstitutional, something you've not touched upon.
You ask:
It's okay to die for your country but not to be seen to die for your country? We're proud of them until they get shot?
What the hell are you talking about? Allowing the family first viewing means I/we are not proud and appreciative of their sacrifice? My turn to my eyes back at ya along with a . I for one am very proud and saddened at the same time and will watch all memorial coverage shown from the soldier's hometown. I'll grieve right along with them.
I still say if you're that proud, why hide the nasty part of it? Are the war dead only acceptable when they are in nice smart coffins with flags over them and a band in their hometown? To me it smacks of consumerism; not really caring how the burger got in the bun, as long as everything is presented nicely.
Let the Moms, Dads, wives, children, brothers, sisters, boyfriends and girlfriends have their first moments of pain alone and in private at the local mortuary. Not too much to ask imo.
First moments of pain? Come on, that doesn't even make sense, the people will have died weeks ago. You also seem to be assuming that each coffin will be identifiable from a long-shot by camera (the coverage I'm familiar with in the UK) or that names will be read out or something. No, don't think so.
What I cannot see as justifiable is preventing the shooting of footage of removing the bodies from planes in the transit coffins; it's got nothing to do with individual families grief, and a lot to do with preparing a country for a lot of young dead people.
-
expatbrit
Hello Abaddon:
Please don't insult your own intelligence, let alone that of other people, by making such pathetic strawman arguments. Please cite which left wingers "didn't want to do anything about it". This is about freedom of information and freedom of press.
Insulting myself is the only form of insult I consider legitimate. Anyway, do you actually want a list of names? Well, you could start by printing a list of continental-European politicians. Make sure Chirac and Schroeder appear prominently. And you could print a list of the members of the American Acting Academy, or whatever it's called, and make sure Michael Moore (stupid white-guy), Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins feature on the list. Or you could take a roll-call of the thousands of anti-war protestors and left wing groups who organised protests.
I notice that you italicised the word "anything" in your quotation for emphasis. Your next post would be to ask me to demonstrate that these people didn't want to do "anything" about the Iraq situation. My response to that would be that the complete lack of realistic alternatives to war offered by the anti-war advocates before conflict started qualifies as not wanting to do anything. "A difference which makes no difference is no difference" to quote Mr Spock. A typical pre-war conversation with an anti-war advocate would go something like this:
E: "Saddam's regime is brutal. The sanctions are brutal. War is unpleasant but is the least worst option"
Anti-war person: "But war will kill thousands of Iraqi's!"
E: "Not as many as will die if the war isn't fought"
Anti-war person: "We should find other ways!"
E: "OK, what do you have in mind?"
Anti-war person: [Insert utterly unrealistic alternative here]
E: "Yes but Saddam may not know the words to Kumbaya, and he may not want to link hands and sing it."
Anti-war person: "You right-wing baby killer!"
I'd be slightly less sceptical of your attitude if you had shown concern for the fact that the US administration in Iraq has no idea of the numbers of Iraqis killed by US Troops since the end of major war operations.
Scepticism is a virtue as far as I'm concerned. However, the above is a bit of a meaningless statement. If the US (and everyone else, for that matter) has no idea of the number of Iraqi's killed by US troops since the end of the war, then the number could range from 0 to hundreds of thousands. Until some reasonable quantification can be placed upon the amount, this argument suffers from irrelevance.
However, there are news media in Iraq, who do report extensively on every attack involving the loss of life of Servicemen and civilians. If the troops were really blowing away Iraqi's in large numbers, don't you think this would be reported on by those media? Bad/controversial news is sellable news, and massacres of Iraqi civilians certainly qualifies as that. And I know you're no conspiracy theorist, so you wont subscribe to the ridiculous nootion that there is some great plot to cover it all up.
See above comment about the US Administrations bad bookeeping before blaming the UN on deaths caused by Saddam's mansion building and corruption.
The half-million figure is based upon studies by UNICEF and Amnesty International. I started a thread upon it before the war. The US administration needs better bookkeepers for sure, but this figure is not theirs.
And you might rather politicians lie and decieve the public; I'd rather they didn't.
LOL...what was that you were saying about strawmen? I would rather that politicians never lied because I would rather see the electorate being educated/enlightened enough to always reach a correct consensus based on enlightened self-interest. I accept the reality that this is often not the case, and that politicians will lie for their own ends, and that occasionally such lies may be necessary because the majority of the electorate sometimes gets it wrong. My opinion is that if it turns out this way in the case of the Iraq war, this will be one of those occasions.
Expatbrit
-
SixofNine
Let the Moms, Dads, wives, children, brothers, sisters, boyfriends and girlfriends have their first moments of pain alone and in private at the local mortuary. Not too much to ask imo.
If indeed that is their wish, then of course. But I'd wager that the majority of families of servicemen killed would prefer to see some kind of formal state acknowledgement of their arival home and ceremonial acknowledgement of their service on foreign land. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's just my hollywood trained sensibilities talking, but it just seems to me that that is what most families would want. But yeah, I'd let the families make that decision.
There is a continual and pressing fear on the part of servicemen and their families of being forgotten by their country, of being used and cast off. Things like this fuel that fear, imo.
-
SixofNine
And how long is a more appropriate wait?
As long as it takes. Impatient boys may do well on prom night and in backseats, but keep them out of the decisions that affect the earths future.
No, Iraq didn't keep me up at nights, but I also knew back in '91 that it was a blunder to listen to the UN and our "coalition" that didn't want to remove Saddam then. That the first Bush encouraged uprisings for the Iraqi people and then never supported them did and does bother me. That Clinton carried that same failed policy over bothered me as well. The only blunder I see was in allowing that madman and his party to remian in power and rebuild and rearm, as he had.
I may be wrong, but I'm not aware that there was any real pressure from the UN for the coalition not to remove Saddam in Gulf 1. "That the first Bush encouraged uprisings for the Iraqi people and then never supported them did and does bother me." It bothers me too, very much. And up till recently, I'd have agreed with you that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad in '91. Now I'm not so sure. Reason being, it doesn't have to be either/or; even back then, we could have supported the Iraqis, protected them, using more than just "No Fly" zones. Perhaps we couldn't have stopped all atrocities, but we could have made it very painful for Saddam to carry them out. We could have virtually annexed the north and the south. The point is, if we care about bringing humanity and modernity to the middle east, then we've bitten off more than America was prepared to chew, and if we're gonna have to eat the whole thing, then Americans deserve to know exactly what to prepare for. Conversely, if we don't care about bringing humanity and modernity to the middle east, then c'est la vie to Iraq and bonjour Syria, let's kick some ass and let god and the brown people sort it out.