erynthered Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Damned if you do, damned if you dont. http://washingtontimes.com/article/2008032.../259963993/1003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Hard to draw any conclusions from that article. "Linked" is a lot different than cause and effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Hee, Hee, blame the media, the lawyers and liberals for the incompetent getting into and running of the war... I am sure this snipet has a small basis in truth, but is only a tiny fraction of the problems faced by the military in Iraq. Sounds like some interest statistical manipulation anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Darn, if everyone would just fall in line behind Bush everything would be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 Hard to draw any conclusions from that article. "Linked" is a lot different than cause and effect. Ms. Chenoweth said the study could be improved if the authors included what she called "pro-resolve statements" as well. Thats why I said "Damned if you do, damned if you dont" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Didn't we learn this lesson during the Vietnam War after the Tet Offensive? We actually kicked their ass but the media reported it as a loss and that, in part, helped to change many American's views on the war leading to our eventual pull out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Didn't we learn this lesson during the Vietnam War after the Tet Offensive? We actually kicked their ass but the media reported it as a loss and that, in part, helped to change many American's views on the war leading to our eventual pull out. Not exactly. Johnson was running around declaring light at the end of the tunnel, progress and the virtual end of the war there. Then the Vietnmese smuggled weapons and fighters into every major area of south Vietnam and launched spectacualr attacks. How could they have done that if thing were going so well? What did it tell people that the enemy was able to infiltrate the entire f'n country and no one knew. Why didn't the South Vietnmese tell us? The attack showed how rotten to the core was the war effort, and it exposed many of the lies the Johnson administration had been telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 and it exposed many of the lies the Johnson administration had been telling.** **Yet I'm a big government liberal. Signed, Molson Another great post, hypocrite. I doubt anything will live up to the pearl you gave yesterday - though it won't be for lack of trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 This seems like as good of a place if any to bring it up: Are you guys aware that the Reverend Sun Myung Moon owns the Washington Times and UPI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 **Yet I'm a big government liberal. Signed, Molson Another great post, hypocrite. I doubt anything will live up to the pearl you gave yesterday - though it won't be for lack of trying. In your world, steak and cow sh-- are the same thing because they both come from a cow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 This seems like as good of a place if any to bring it up: Are you guys aware that the Reverend Sun Myung Moon owns the Washington Times and UPI? Yes. I avoid the Washington Times like the plague. It makes the New York Post look credible. Even when it has a point - which it does, this time around. Iraqi insurgents and terrorists do monitor our media for insight into how to apply pressure on us, and whether or not that pressure is working. It ain't causal, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 So we should silence the doubters, so we can win the war. Winning the war will maintain our freedom? Then the enemies won't hate us? But I thought they hated us for our freedoms? I have it, if we give up all of our freedoms they won't hate us anymore. Where's Ferd in 80 when you need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Didn't we learn this lesson during the Vietnam War after the Tet Offensive? We actually kicked their ass but the media reported it as a loss and that, in part, helped to change many American's views on the war leading to our eventual pull out. Okay, I will play... We kicked their asses! Does that mean you are implying that we should have stayed in Vietnam past 1975? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Okay, I will play... We kicked their asses! Does that mean you are implying that we should have stayed in Vietnam past 1975? In case you haven't noticed, Vietnam has been among the highest recipients of western investment capital recently (as more companies are looking to diversify out of China). If that's not an admission by the communists that "we were wrong 30 years ago," I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Hard to draw any conclusions from that article. "Linked" is a lot different than cause and effect. Researchers at Harvard say that publicly voiced doubts about the U.S. occupation of Iraq have a measurable "emboldenment effect" on insurgents there I totally agree. To take it further, measurable and measured are two different things. It is very subtle, but a tool that this weak article uses to fool its readers. Being in college, I'm sure you picked up on it. If this paper wanted any credibility, it would run some negative stories and distribute them to specific areas within Iraq. Then they could measure how many more attacks and dead soldiers appear in those regions as opposed to the regions without the stories. Then they could say they measured it, not just that it was measurable. This would be more responsible of them. Until then, they should not crticize papers like the NY Times and Washington Post for running negative stories over and over and over. If they don't know how many more soldiers have died, just that it "can be measured" they should either measure it or shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Okay, I will play... We kicked their asses! Does that mean you are implying that we should have stayed in Vietnam past 1975? Do you know anything about the Tet Offensive? Apparently not. Yes, we did kick their ass, though at great cost to us in lives. I mentioned that battle because it was widely reported by the MSM at the time that we lost, when in fact we defeated the VC and denied them of their objectives. Certainly, there was an anti-war movement before this event, but the negative reporting of the battle helped to create momentum for those who wanted us out and is when protests started to get violent here in the States. I'm not saying this is the only reason for the events of the day, but using it as an example of the power the media has in influencing the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 I totally agree. To take it further, measurable and measured are two different things. It is very subtle, but a tool that this weak article uses to fool its readers. Being in college, I'm sure you picked up on it. If this paper wanted any credibility, it would run some negative stories and distribute them to specific areas within Iraq. Then they could measure how many more attacks and dead soldiers appear in those regions as opposed to the regions without the stories. Then they could say they measured it, not just that it was measurable. This would be more responsible of them. Until then, they should not crticize papers like the NY Times and Washington Post for running negative stories over and over and over. If they don't know how many more soldiers have died, just that it "can be measured" they should either measure it or shut up. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts