But at least he was kind enough to "footnote data with linky" so we could all see how he made himself look stupid.
My point was that the deaths seem to be the major media's story from Iraq. Samarkland emphasized this when he said: Originally Posted by Samarkand "Since when is any of this stuff more important than American servicemen dying?" My point is that prior deaths, in major American wars, was not the media's story! For example: Landing in Normandy during World War II. What was the story? That we landed in Normandy and established foothold in Europe of battle deaths associated with landing during Operation Overlord? When have you heard news stories coming from Iraq that mentioned we liberated area of insurgent terrorists? Note any mention about the massive insurgency near Fallujah, Tikrit, Mosul, and Karbala? You know why? American operations there have worked! Expect to hear this on NBC, CBS, or ABC? I doubt it!
That might be your belief (and one I do agree with you on), but it wasn't your point. Even if one stretches to imagine it was, it was very, very poorly constructed. Now what I really want to know is will you own up to your hugely bad cut and paste mistake?
I am actually banging my head on the keyboard. judfsasfajsv[in'adfbnda;fsdsndfb 2,183,000 deaths (Total Servicemembers) in Gulf War. Wow. That's a sizable portion of the population of America.
No. Yes. You retard...that number is servicemembers, not US deaths. Oh...and, no. No. And, again, you're retarded. No. And, again, you're retarded. No. And, again, you're retarded.
See prior post and my original adjusted citation on Post 15... but that wasn't the point was it, despite your attempt to derail thread? The point is the liberal media is making deaths in Iraq THE MAJOR POINT despite real and achieved success in the field WHICH IS NEVER COVERED... -When did you last hear about total insurgent terrorist deaths? -Objectives met by U.S. soldiers? -Accomplishments of coalition forces? Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is absolutely correct; the liberal media is hurting the war effort! {I see now my mistake in citation becomes the point du jour to derail thread}
Please Shut up, would you Stick to soccer and not the military for topics You are in so far over your head here that even Mitch Bucahon couldn't save you
I think that's the problem, amigo. The word "liberation" is fairly meaningless to insurgency and guerilla warfare in general. They strike, they leave. They do it again. They do it where they want to--right now, they are doing it in Baghdad, etc. You might kill some of them, but you don't "liberate" a specific piece of real estate. That terminology simply doesn't seem appropriate. "Make more secure" or "cause them to lose interest and move on" might work better.
I nearly feel compelled to post the bunny again, but 3 times in answer to 3 of your posts might just be overworking the poor guy............(btw, my original post Since when is any of this stuff more important than American servicemen dying?) Anyway, I'll try and use small words and if you go slowly, there's at least a 10% chance you'll understand - you know what that means, right? - what I'm saying. Read Slowly Here! Mouth Every Word!! Iraqi (of or from Iraq) roads and schools being built are not as (newsworthy....D'oh! big word) much news as Americans servicemen being killed to the American public. Read Slowly Here! Mouth Every Word!! That. is. why. the. news. people. tell. us. about. the. deaths. of. American. soldiers. which. happen. every. day. rather. than. roads. being. built. That. is. also. why. the. news. people. tell. us. about. the. deaths. of. Iraqi. people. killed. by. bombs. That. happens. every. day. also. BTW, in relation to the Civil War, who is the 'we' of which you speak?
Given that we were the invading force, the only way to liberate the area is to leave it. And you're still full of it. Your point was "The current War on Terror, statistically speaking, based on men in arms involved in coalition, longetivity thus far, and number of casualties, is one of the safest wars in American History, in terms of injured and dead." Which is just plain bullshit, as evidenced by the very information you cited. The Gulf War had 665,476 servicemen in-theater and only 529 deaths in-theater. That's 1 death for every 1258 servicemen. I don't know how many servicemen have served in Iraq in the current "war", but given the in-theater deaths of 1,744 to date, there would have to have been 2,193,952 servicemen in-theater to be "statistically ... safer" than the Gulf War. And there's no way that many servicemen have rotated through Iraq.
ITN does scrape at a larger truth here: death sells papers. No one really gives a rat's arse if roads are being built here, Iraq, or in North Dakota--but death, mayhem, and destruction is always newsworthy, even in North Dakota, or Iraq, and deaths of American servicefolks is doubly so. But that's just a rule of journalism. You want to make Iraq less newsworthy, or to focus on different events? Stop the killing. Until that happens, everything else rates as much less interesting. To ignore the casualties would require special effort on the parts of the media, when are they covering American deaths both in America and abroad constantly. How would not reporting their deaths be supporting the troops?
Fine. Add 89 coalition deaths to the 1,744 and you have 1,833, so there would have had to be 2,305,914 total coalition troops rotate through there. You can even go ahead and add in the mercenaries, if you want, and you're still never getting near that number of servicemembers in theater. Hell, you can probably add the Iraqi army under Hussein, and not reach that number. Even if you cut that number in half (since this war has gone on for two years), you're not going to hit it. Face it - you were just wrong. For once, buck up and admit that point. You're right they are not showing schools being built, because as others have mentioned, no one (liberal, conservative or anarchist) gives two shits about a school being built over there - especially when their own kids are going to a school that is falling down around them. If it bleeds, it leads. That's not political bias. That's standard sensationalism.
Well, I sincerely disagree... and I'm sure the Iraqis disagree... schools are better than what they got under Saddam... But you won't hear that from the major liberal media, who only break from reporting deaths to bring us stories such as Abu Grahib ad nauseam. But news on infrastructure improvements, educational improvements, democratic votes, women's equality, etc.? No way! YOU SEE, THE LIBERAL MEDIA DID THIS BEFORE, IN VIETNAM! So they have practice... What story do all the media want to cover the most? -Democracy in Iraq? -Success in Iraq over insurgent terrorists? -Bodybags arriving at Dover? The latter, every time! It worked before! Even with the President! What was covered when he spoke on aircraft carrier following initial invasion of Iraq? -His speech and what he had to say? -Reaction to speech by servicemen? -Background banner which erroneously said "mission accomplished"? The latter! You know it!
It hurts the war effort if that is all that is reported, or that is major point. A balanced appoach is needed by the media showing objectives attempted by soldiers, objectives achieved, and overall results, wherein injuries or death can be part of story, but not the story. I realized the mistake and corrected it or attempted to... my apologies... in my rush to cite war's involvement I flubbed citation reference; but it was hardly related to the point I was trying to make, which was the total number of servicement involved in war(s) past and present versus the deaths, and the media and their propensity to use war deaths to fan the flames against war, as was done so successfully by the media in Vietnam...
As opposed to the major conservative media who only break from reporting on the dissapearence of a white girl, or the trial of a pop icon, or the bias of the liberal "majority" to bring us stories such as Abu Grahib ad nauseam? Give it up Scott "Stretch" McClellan.