Oaf's on the right track with my point...

I know we need the media, psoper, but seeing how we know our military is limited in every aspect, why do we keep an extremely close eye on them and the mission? I know, I know about freedom of the press but it's a catch22 during a war.

I can understand keeping a close eye on our troops if the media wasn't anywhere near as biased as it is, but it's ultimately damning to the troops morale and mission.

You can be damn sure we'll hear about the handful of soldiers that farted in the wind before we hear anything about the 100,000+ doing their jobs above & beyond the call of duty. Likewise, you'll hear about how a handful of insurgent cells are on the brink of world domination. When everything's said and done, it can't be worth anything positive in the sandbox.

When you read that article in the Chronicle about another kidnaping and begin to shake your head in disbelief as to why we're in Iraq, there's a solider in Iraq losing morale because he has little support from you after having read that article.

 

What is with all this "our military is limited in every aspect" crap?

Our military is the best equipped, most technologically advanced, most capable fighting force the world has ever witnessed.

But if they are led by incompetent profiteers into illegal wars, things are bound to get stinky.

We posess far more "weapons of mass destruction" than any other country, we're the only country that's used nuclear weapons against civilian populations, we spend more of our GDP on weapons and military expenditures than any other country, and yet we are supposed to be the shining beacon of democracy and freedom with a free press and all that good stuff.

There is no such thing as a bias-free media, just as there are really no bias-free viewpoints on anything- but there are basic priciples of civilized behavior, sadly, those generally get thrown out in war.

The real problem is that war is a violation of the basic tennets of civilization itself.

The argument of "well would you have let Hitler run over the world?" no- because Hitler started wars against his neighbors, he was the responsible party and had to be stopped.

Even before that, whoever started a war was guilty of several internationally recognized crimes, but following WW2 there were several more international laws and agreements specifically intended to prevent such an event from recurring.

The Geneva and Nuremburg conventions established clear definietions of war crimes that the US is undebateably guilty of in the instance of Iraq

This administration has thrown out these few delicate ties that we as a nation held to civilization, they ridicule the UN, they refuse to recognize any international agreements on ANY subject- the simple fact that bushcheney inc. are not in prison is clear enough evidence for most of the world that our country has given up any pretense of wanting to see a peaceful world.

The US has become the preeminent threat to world peace under the imperial aspirations of the bush administration, this is clear in their policy statements and it is clear to just about everyone outside of this country, and its clear to at least half of the people within this country who have been voicing their opposition to this gang since they hijacked the white house 4 years ago.

All of our media has become almost a total mouthpiece for these criminals, and don't give me that "Bbbbut Dan Rather!!!" crap- he was clearly set up for the fall by someone who knew.

Our media is beyond biased- to such a degree that there are pretty much no viable opposition viewpoints being expressed, despite the clearly wrong direction the country is on.

Stifling the press is one of the classic first steps into totalatarianism, but at this point we're so far down that road already, nobody's noticing...and you'll all march right along in the interest of "National Security"


wake up- it's already happened, welcome to 1984+20.