Media on the Military

Colleges and Universities A-Z Service Academy Parents
41

<p>We went to war for the following reasons:</p>

<p>1) To deny Saddam Hussein Weapons of Mass Destruction.</p>

<p>Status: ACCOMPLISHED (unless you think he has a nuke in his jail cell)</p>

<p>Please don't tell me had had no WMD. The Iranians and Kurds he gassed would disagree with you. Also, please don't tell me it was a lie by Bush, because if he lied, so did Clinton, Kerry, Gore, British Intelligence, Israeli intellignece, Russian Intelligence, and the UN.</p>

<p>2) To threaten the region with a modern, democratic, and America-friendly republic in the midst of the fundamentalist cesspit that is 99% of the rest of the Middle East.</p>

<p>Status: UNDER WAY.</p>

<p>Spare me the "It;'s taking so long!" argument. It took the United States 11 years to finalize the Constitution, and we occupied Germany and Japan for YEARS after the war. The fact we are succeeding is the utter desperation the other side is showing: They no longer concentrate on us. No, they're now bombing mosques to try annd turn one faction against the other. In the meantime, we've got the terrorists pinned down over there instead of over here. Doesn't mean there are NONE here, but we sure are kicking them in the butt over there.</p>

<p>3) Establish a base to use against Iran.</p>

<p>Status: COMPLETED.</p>

<p>Look at a map.</p>

<p>Now, is everything going perfectly? Of course not. Nothing ever does. It's called reality. But I'm wondering what you think of all the troops over there who almost universally ask the question, "Why does the media only concentrate on the bad things when we are doing so much GOOD over here?"</p>

<p>It's because the old adage, "If it bleeds, it leads", is alive and true. Throw in the "Blame America first" attitude, and you have our current media coverage.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
We had the perfect venue to which to draw terrorists out into the open and destroy them---it was and still is Afganistan.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right, which was and still is opposed by folks on your side of the political spectrum, who instead think we should have sat in a big circle and hummed and tried to figure out why they hate us so much that they changed the most famous skyline in history.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
Z, You come back with a lot of glib answers, long on emotional content, short on facts, logic and analysis

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you come back with a lot of elitist snobbery that has no connection to reality.</p>

<p>I'm not surprised one bit that my pointing out reality to you comes across as "glib answers, long on emotional content, short on facts, logic and analysis", because you obviously have no idea what facts, logic, and analysis are.</p>

<p>I wonder what your liberals neighbors think about your kid being at USMA. Have they called him/her a baby-killer yet? :rolleyes:</p>

44

<ol>
<li><p>I see few democrats (in fact few of any group) who didn't and don't support the invasion of Afganistan and the overthrow of the Taliban. All the people I know, Republicans and Democrats support the mission to hunt down those terrorists and their leaders. Afganistan was a direct and undisputable link to 9/11, Al-Queda, and Osama. In fact, we had the clear support of the WORLD. On that point you are clearly wrong.</p></li>
<li><p>Saddam used his gas on the Kurds and Iranians many years before 9/11. The Kurds in the 1980's and early 1990's and the Iranians in the 1980's. Not exactly recent history. Especially given the fact THAT STOCKPILES OF NERVE AGENT JUST WEREN'T THERE WAITING FOR US IN 2003. As far as nukes, its easy to disarm someone from a weapon they never had nor was even capable of making. Those are weak arguments and the only one's left over to use when the primary justification for the iraq invasion dissapated in a puff of reality. I don't have to tell you he had no WMD's, its already been proven, although by your logic since the Babylonian empire was the greatest in the world in 623BCE then they must still be pretty tough. Unfortunately wrong again.</p></li>
<li><p>We invaded Iraq to gain a base to use against Iran? Are we making this up as we go along? 160,000 troops are going to hold Iraq together AND invade Iran? Please. That was never a goal of the Iraq invasion, stated or otherwise. Not even the liberals in the New York Times could have thought of that one Z :) Iran is a different and far more dangerous animal. Frankly, if I were the US military I would want to be no where in the range of those Iranian missiles should things get dicey. Iran would be strictly an "air show" and we don't need bases in Baghdad to do that. Wrong Again.</p></li>
<li><p>The best and most logical place to "pin the terrorists down" was and is Afganistan where they were and still are, not to invite them to Iraq. The reason "they" "are concentrating on civilians in Iraq and not American's" as you say, has more to do with the fact there is a civil war in Iraq now and it is being waged by Iraqi's. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>5."To threaten the region with a modern, democratic, and America-friendly republic in the midst of the fundamentalist cesspit that is 99% of the rest of the Middle East." Certainly not the stated reason to the World or the American people. Which speech by George Bush, Colin Powel, our UN ambassador, are you quoting?</p>

<p>As far as my daughter is concerned, I am not aware of her or any other cadet at West Point being called a "baby killer." I haven't heard that term used since the Vietnam days. My neighbors certainly haven't taken issue with me and the 20' flagpole in my front yard with the US and USMA flags that fly there every day. People who use that term are just as ignorant of the facts as those that blame "liberals" for all they disagree with. They probably listen to too much talk radio too. A glib comment but hardly rooted in reality.</p>

45

<p>"Zaphod waits for the inevitable response: "We need to cut military spending and raise taxes on the rich.""</p>

<p>Nope, we need to cut spending in general (the current republican president and congress are unwilling to do so) or at the very least spend more wisely, we need to reinstate the draft and call a war "a war", and we need to ensure ALL Americans pay their fair share in taxes to support both.</p>

46

<p>"Meanwhile, millions of WOMEN across the world are actually getting to VOTE for the first time in GENERATIONS"</p>

<p>As many other Americans are you are confused by the "facts" spoon fed you by your media of choice---In Iraq women have had the right to vote since 1980. It is Afganistan where we have enabled the right of women to vote again---</p>

<p>Lesson number 1---Iraq and Afganistan are two different realities.
Lesson number 2---the best outcome we can hope for is a US friendly theocracy in Afganistan and Iraq with at least some vestiges of democracy. A US style republic is just not in the cards. Just bother to read the constitution recently adopted in Iraq.</p>

<p>Here's a piece paraphrased:</p>

<p>"Article 2 of the final version of the constitution makes Islam the official religion of the state, cites it as a basic source of legislation, and says that no law can be passed that contradicts its "undisputed" rulings. Interpreting this provision will fall to the Supreme Court, which the new constitution says may include clerics; their number and method of selection were not specified, but will be defined by a subsequent law that must be approved by a two-thirds majority of parliament.</p>

<p>Many secular Iraqis worry, however, that Article 39 will lead instead to an Iranian-style theocracy, which would severely limit women's rights in particular. Adnan Pachachi, the former Iraqi foreign minister and a secular Sunni leader, told The New York Times in August that although he agreed with much of the new constitution, he was troubled by its more overtly Islamic provisions. "They want to inject religion into everything, which is not right," he said. "I cannot imagine that we might have a theocratic regime in Iraq like the one in Iran. That would be a disaster."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060101faessay85104-p0/isobel-coleman/women-islam-and-the-new-iraq.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060101faessay85104-p0/isobel-coleman/women-islam-and-the-new-iraq.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

47

<p>Let me add that NONE, not one, of my liberal neighbors--and I am in the most liberal part of Texas, has ever said one negative thing to me about the Brigade of Midshipman flag that flies when my son is home.<br>
Shogun is correct, the baby-killer epithet is a Vietnam-era legend that gets drug up by neo-cons looking to inflame their core believers.</p>

<p>I have a question for you Zaphod. Why are you on these threads?
Most of the kids on these threads are here looking for information. The parents on these threads are looking for information or otherwise working to educate themselves about college information. In this context, the military academies. Thus, we are either kids in college or we have kids in college. You fit neither category.</p>

<p>The adults on these threads are middle-aged, nearing the end of their careers, with kids in or about to be in college. We [or at least I] would be the first to admit that our lives are boring; kids, responsibiliites, etc. will do that to y ou. You, however, are a relatively young man, one whould should be ascending in your career.<br>
In a creepy sort of way, I think it odd that you choose to spend so much time here on CC. [Over 6 posts per day!] making declarative statements that sometimes have little basis in fact as the "liberals' you accuse of doing the same thing. [See Confused23.] Constantly looking for reassurance or otherwise looking to remind everybody of the great times you had at USNA? I have had ups and downs in my career; I certainly wouldn't be on this site had it not been for my son. I don't imagine I will be on this site too much longer; I certainly don't spend as much time on it as you do!</p>

<p>For example, you posit that the liberals want us to lose in Iran. I have seen no polls with results that support this. I haven't even seen any quotes to this effect by "the liberals."
You, in another thread, said that you are an American first; you didn't want to be judged by what you were but by what you have accomplished. Yet, from before the time you were born, you were the beneficiary of your heritage. No other immigrant group is treated as favorably as Cuban. If your parents had not been Cubans, it is just as likely that you would not be an American citizen right now. You, therefore, at your very core have benefitted from affirmative action.
Other mids have pointed out how some of your informaiton is incorrect and you even call them names, e.g. "junior" and "wet behind the ears," in an display of some sort of arrogance that is . . . just strange.</p>

<p>Your posting of the reasons we went to war do not square with reality at all. Yet, you continue to lambaste and denigrate anybody that offers a view that is slightly different than yours. Regardless of established facts. [It would be interesting to see if you would risk a 30+ year career and resign in protest over a policy that was not to your liking. Easy to say, difficult to do, when there are family and pensions in play.] It gets old. [And, if you are at all like this in the real world, I suspect this is not the first time that you have been told something like this.]</p>

<p>I am not suggesting that only smart people can be policy makers--or, however it was that you twisted my writing--but, if you are so much smarter than everybody else in the area of policy, it seems you should have pursued this as a career. Once again, easy to spit out statements here on a web site devoted to college stuff, very difficult to do in fact.</p>

<p>Not all of the parents on this site are liberal, commie-pinkos, looking to dismantle the government. Probably not even very many. And, someday, when y ou have kids that are old enough to be were our kids are, when you are on the downside of your career, when you have about 15 years more of life experience, you too will come to appreciate some of what others have to say in a more considerate fashion.</p>

<p>Good luck to you in any event.</p>

48

<p>Bravo shogun and bill! </p>

<p>and people wonder how our kids ended up training as combat leaders...</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
In Iraq women have had the right to vote since 1980

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, they just had one person to vote for, and if they voted for anyone else, Uday and Co. would pay them a visit.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
Let me add that NONE, not one, of my liberal neighbors--and I am in the most liberal part of Texas, has ever said one negative thing to me about the Brigade of Midshipman flag that flies when my son is home.
Shogun is correct, the baby-killer epithet is a Vietnam-era legend that gets drug up by neo-cons looking to inflame their core believers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then you haven't been paying attention. Go to any of the anti-war rallies, and you'll see tons of banners and posters saying just that, and that the troops should shoot their officers, and other nice statements like that.</p>

<p>If it's not as prevelent as during Vietnam, then that must be because they know the American people don't go for that garbage anymore.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have a question for you Zaphod. Why are you on these threads?
Most of the kids on these threads are here looking for information. The parents on these threads are looking for information or otherwise working to educate themselves about college information. In this context, the military academies. Thus, we are either kids in college or we have kids in college. You fit neither category.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am an alumni of USNA, and I came here (and still come here) to offer what advice I can to those seeking to attend the Service Academies in general, and USNA in particular. As such, I fit into a category that few here fit into: having BTDT.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You, however, are a relatively young man, one whould should be ascending in your career.
In a creepy sort of way, I think it odd that you choose to spend so much time here on CC. [Over 6 posts per day!]

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Being single has its advantages.</p>

<p>
[quote]
making declarative statements that sometimes have little basis in fact as the "liberals' you accuse of doing the same thing. [See Confused23.] Constantly looking for reassurance or otherwise looking to remind everybody of the great times you had at USNA? I have had ups and downs in my career; I certainly wouldn't be on this site had it not been for my son. I don't imagine I will be on this site too much longer; I certainly don't spend as much time on it as you do!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And?</p>

<p>
[quote]
For example, you posit that the liberals want us to lose in Iran. I have seen no polls with results that support this. I haven't even seen any quotes to this effect by "the liberals."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Tellm me. If they wanted us to lose, would they sound any different than they do now?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You, in another thread, said that you are an American first; you didn't want to be judged by what you were but by what you have accomplished. Yet, from before the time you were born, you were the beneficiary of your heritage. No other immigrant group is treated as favorably as Cuban. If your parents had not been Cubans, it is just as likely that you would not be an American citizen right now. You, therefore, at your very core have benefitted from affirmative action.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I haven't. My parents came here before any of the laws concernign Cuban exiles were passed. They applied for residency from Canada because U.S. immigration law at that time required them to do so. They got NOTHING in terms of special treatment.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Other mids have pointed out how some of your informaiton is incorrect and you even call them names, e.g. "junior" and "wet behind the ears," in an display of some sort of arrogance that is . . . just strange.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have done that to one and only one Mid who ran his mouth off in ways that several parents and even other mids agreed was improper. I have been (quite happily) corrected by current mids at other times and thanked them for the correction. I've never claimed to know it all, and very often prefix my responses to questions with an acknowledgement that my information may have changed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It would be interesting to see if you would risk a 30+ year career and resign in protest over a policy that was not to your liking. Easy to say, difficult to do, when there are family and pensions in play

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When lives are on the line? Yep. I'd do it. I've done similar things before, though obviously not with that level of import.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Once again, easy to spit out statements here on a web site devoted to college stuff, very difficult to do in fact.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Never said it was easy. Who is twisting who, now?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Not all of the parents on this site are liberal, commie-pinkos, looking to dismantle the government. Probably not even very many. And, someday, when y ou have kids that are old enough to be were our kids are, when you are on the downside of your career, when you have about 15 years more of life experience, you too will come to appreciate some of what others have to say in a more considerate fashion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, no, they are not all of that description. Never said they were. As for taking things with consideration, I have, and I have rejected what I consider to be foolish arguments.</p>

<p>At all times I have defended the military before all else. I defend it against attacks from wherever they come, including internally. I will not apologize for that. The media in this country is a hair away from openly hating our military, and if you don't want to take my word for it, then just ask those who are serving. They'll give you all the examples you'd ever ant to hear.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Good luck to you in any event.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thank you. Likewise.</p>

<p>And, I may add, I thank you, and Shogun, and the other parents who, despite their philosophical differences with matters of politics, are still supportive of their kids and the Academies. It is a very real sacrifice, and I do not diminish it one bit. Quite the contrary. You are to be respected and admired for that, and for the record, I DO repect and admire you all for that. If I have ever left any doubt of that, then I openly apologize to all those who may have misunderstood me.</p>

<p>Yes, I am aggressive. Yes, I may even overdo it, but I will ask you to remember what the root idea is. If I were just a political troll, I'd be over at the Berkeley threads raising hell. I'm not. I simply defend those I served with and those who serve now (in many cases the same thing). You can call me on my methods, but not my passion or goal.</p>

<p>Good grief, this post is long! :eek:</p>

51

<p>i think we ended that on a good note :)</p>

52

<p>I certainly hope so.</p>

<p>Sorry, folks. I take support for the military very seriously. VERY seriously. You know the attacks I'm defending against.</p>

<p>Where I may have gone wrong (and I'm fairly certain I have, at least in some cases here), is assuming those here agree with those out there. That assumption (as with so many others) is probably wrong. I simply want these kids supported and respected for what they do, and for why they are doing it. </p>

<p>Can you imagine if I had one of my girls at USXA? LOL! :D</p>

53

<p>Zaphod: I agree completely with you about getting reliable news and information. Did you know that Savage has a PHD from Berkeley? My husband and I get really frustrated with the broadcast news and the papers even though we tune in all the time to that as well. Also, I wish you all a Happy Easter!!!</p>

54

<p>What's really sad about the modern workd is the following:</p>

<p>1) There is SO MUCH going on that can, directly or indirectly, affect our lives.</p>

<p>2) There is a limited number of outlets for the news to flow through.</p>

<p>3) ALL those sources are biased. They either choose their stories selectively, skew the reporting with intended bias, or simply lie through their teeth.</p>

<p>4) Some outlets are completely unreliable. Others throw out misinformation just to see what happens.</p>

<p>So what's the result? Here we are, trying to live our lives, and having to sift through all this crap for the one morsel of truth that MAY be in there.</p>

<p>And people wonder why the media isn't trusted?</p>

55

<p>If you're interested in US Navy news, you should add the official US Navy website to your bookmarks/favorites on your web browser:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.navy.mil/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.navy.mil/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>News and photos change daily.</p>

<p>Don't miss the slide show at the top of the page titled 2005 Year in Review. It's beautiful and inspirational. Now, that's the best way to fight terrorism.</p>

<p>Turn up the sound and get a tissue because it's going to bring tears to your eyes. Go Navy!</p>

56

<p>well, this is a little above what I saw in the beginning concerning newspapers....but I just wanted to say Fox is awesome, it tells it straight and honest, I'd watch it all day if I could, cough cough</p>

57

<p>did anyone watch 2005 Year in Review?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.navy.mil/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.navy.mil/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I showed it to all 180 of my students on my LCD projector with auxilary stereo speakers blasting. Now half of them are joining NROTC in high school. I could be a Navy recruiter!;) Let's see if Army can even come close to matching that spectacular piece!</p>

58

<p>WAY TOO COOL!</p>

<p>Thanks, Mom! Put a smile on my face for the rest of the day!</p>

<p>GO NAVY! :D</p>

59

<p>Excellent discussion tonight on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer about the six retired generals' criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld, between Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense (ret. US Navy), and Gen. John Keane, Ret. U.S. Army. Read the transcript:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june06/rumsfeld_4-18.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june06/rumsfeld_4-18.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

60

<h1>This is the essence of the current debate:</h1>

<p>“And let me tell you something else I think is important: When Condi Rice, Secretary Rice, came out and said, "We've made thousands of tactical mistakes," she's basically saying it's the military's fault for the mess we're in Iraq. </p>

<p>It's a strategic mistake. And if you read General Newbold, he was the Marine general who wrote in Time magazine, he pointed out this wasn't a tactical thing. These were big strategic mistakes. And he says he should have spoken up more on active duty.”
-Lawrence Korb
NewsHour, April 18, 2006</p>