You know there are actually a lot of people protesting against the war… and there are rumors of troops being pulled out of Iraq right now. but I just don’t want other people to go through the hell I went through.
And complete control of the media helped the Soviets win in Afghanistan?
I’ve indeed heard that it is much worse despite the mantra of the gov’t and certain partisans about the media “only showing the negative” stuff…
It’s hard to be positive about a Shiite (“Iraqi”) gov’t that refuses to deal with the Sunnis, thus ensuring indefinite civil war.
It helps me decide if my f_____ing tax dollars are being well spent, or if I’m being lied too by incompetent leaders!
Well think about it… If the Iraqi government was run by Kurds… we dont have to worry about getting blown up every time you step foot outside.
Negitive Stuff? the stuff they show in the media makes this war look good. most of the time the “negitive” stuff inst as bad as the stuff that really happened. I saw my best freind get blown all to hell by an IED. So if a civilian reads a news paper and sees an overturned humvee and say that is bad. they got problems!
What, precisely, is ‘the U.S.A. cause’?
The failure to define that from the outset has been one of the reasons Iraq is such a shambles, for America and the poor bloody Iraqis who endure most of the suffering.
How does showing what the enemy does weaken the other party?
If you applied the same approach consistently, there should have been a total media blackout about 9/11, because it showed what the other side was doing.
If anything, showing the other side harming your side is more likely to increase rather than diminish support for the home team.
Anyway, allowing governments to control every aspect of what their people know is a feature of dictatorships of the worst kind, which is not what America is or stands for.
It’s a testament to the strength of American democracy that such things are available to their people. If it applied around the rest of the world, we’d have a lot fewer problems.
You know there are actually a lot of people protesting against the war… and there are rumors of troops being pulled out of Iraq right now. but I just don’t want other people to go through the hell I went through
Thats fine to me.
Unfortunately the internet today is a double edged weapon and served to the foe and friend alike.
What, precisely, is ‘the U.S.A. cause’?
I dont know precisely but I am sure that it does not involves the widespread broadcast of his own losses.
I have no time know I will answer the other later.
Wait a minute here. Didn’t you originally say that your father was out in Iraq at the moment, and give an age for him that implies you’re most probably in your teens at the moment?
I’m not trying to start a witchhunt here, but if that isn’t the truth please edit your post (I’ll then delete this one) and move on. Pretending to be something you aren’t is totally unacceptable, and can ultimately lead to being banned if you keep it up.
If you really did see that and feel the need to talk about it, the internet is probably not the best place. I’m not sure what the US equivalent to Combat Stress is, but I’m sure we can find out for you.
It appears to be:
1.) George Bush’s (shitty) legacy
2.) Proctoring yet another foreign civil war that we contributed to the making of
3.) Getting out of Iraq without a genocide taking place
That means the “friend” must get off their asses and explain what the purpose is then, doesn’t it?
And the internet is far more a weapon of freedom that it is of tyranny. Which is why it is so abominable that Google and others bend-over for the Chinese dictatorship by enabling their censorship…
I dont know precisely but I am sure that it does not involves the widespread broadcast of his own losses.
I have no time know I will answer the other later.
So, not on the internet. Does that mean that newspaper accounts will also be forbidden?
“Post traumatic stress disorder” or PTSD in the US. I think perhaps we have a case of Preemptive Troll Disorder here though. 
NIck: I agree that is a tool, but I think the right word but you know with terrorism some "special measures " need to be taken , To knock out the pages spreading his videos and allegations would be a good start.And I insist Youtube is not helping.The newspaper account are always lees graphic than a video, so I dont see any trouble with that.The british way, you need to use the british way to deal with this images.
[i]—It appears to be:
1.) George Bush’s (shitty) legacy
2.) Proctoring yet another foreign civil war that we contributed to the making of
3.) Getting out of Iraq without a genocide taking place—[/i]
That sound like a good explanation, sadly, some years ago one was prepared to believe that with Saddam knock out the all zone in middle east would be more stable…but it was completely the other way.
Sorry, should have been clearer. Combat Stress are a UK charity who help former servicemen with PTSD and similar disorders when the government simply doesn’t care. They were set up after WW2 by the families of those still suffering from PTSD, shell shock and the like and have been doing magnificent work ever since.
Sgt Dorr, I’m still waiting for your reply - happy to take it either in the forum or by PM.
PDF, I don’t think you’ll hear any more from Sgt Mitty.
I first noticed his presence yesterday on a wpns thread, and was immediately suspicious of his claim to be in a PMC as he was talking utter bolocks.
The young lad, probably quite correctly, idolises his father for who he is and for doing his duty, it’s just a shame that the adolescent imagination got the better of common sense.
Ah well, its best to nip these things in the Bud so to speak. Whoever he is/was at least he provided something positive here.
Cheers.
That warm feeling when you realise: “Ah, WALT !” ?
Yes well, there’s a difference between terrorists attacking your civilians and Iraqi insurgents conducting legitimate military operations against our forces, isn’t there?
To knock out the pages spreading his videos and allegations would be a good start.And I insist Youtube is not helping.The newspaper account are always lees graphic than a video, so I dont see any trouble with that.The british way, you need to use the british way to deal with this images.—It appears to be:1.) George Bush’s (shitty) legacy2.) Proctoring yet another foreign civil war that we contributed to the making of3.) Getting out of Iraq without a genocide taking place—That sound like a good explanation, sadly, some years ago one was prepared to believe that with Saddam knock out the all zone in middle east would be more stable…but it was completely the other way.
It’s not YouTube’s job “to help.” And taking away the freedom of expression is one of the terrorists key aims.
Sometimes I despair when clarity of thought challenges emotional attachment to the home team.
Pretty much the opposite of what we’ve had from Dubya & Co.
What would happen if governments operated on this sort of disturbing clarity of thought?
It’s not YouTube’s job “to help.” And taking away the freedom of expression is one of the terrorists key aims.
In which case Dubya would qualify as a potential terrorist for wanting to bomb al Jazeera for daring to broadcast stuff he doesn’t like.
Which is a bit odd, as Dubya’s at the forefront of the war against terror. Or is he, as Borat famously said at the rodeo, at the forefront of the war of terror?
This reminds me of that old lesbian-porn writing hag Lynn Cheney on CNN one day, in which she admonished Wolf Blitzer (in and interview) for CNN’s playing of “terrorist propaganda” - showing a US soldier right before he was hit by and Iraqi Sunni insurgent sniper. Of course, this came right after Bill Clinton’s interview meltdown where he lashed out at a Fox reporter for insinuating with a question that 9/11 and al Qaeda was all his fault by asking him why he didn’t do more or go further in regards to stopping them in what was perceived as an “ambush” interview. It starts at the 4:15 mark of part 1:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBwrqcgfEXI
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rz4OgaVABQ
But what her own idiotic replies indicated semantically were that US Marine and Army snipers were also terrorists" because they were also shooting armed enemy combatants. :rolleyes: