Ollie, get a clue! The media has nothing to do with recruiting problems. But as usual, you have to look for a scapegoat in order to defend a warped sense of patriotism. Your little attempt at blame is in essence saying Americas parents are stupid. Well, they are not. No parent in their right mind would have their children choose the military over an education with the current situation we find ourselves in. Better to worry about your kid quaffing a few and even learning what the birds and bees are really about than worrying about them being killed or maimed.

All of your rhetoric, your bombastic propaganda and pontificating will not change the face of the Middle-East...and neither will the US. So please, quit attempting to place blame where it doesn't belong...direct your rage at the core of the problem...the current administration.

Gordon

Nutty North's lemmings still cannot craft cogent propaganda, aren't you all being paid enough to at least make a "plausible" argument for the Nutmeister? For we know the gap-toothed self-styled hero is wholly incapable of spinning a tale on his own.

The most glaring factoid missing, the one the Cheney propaganda offensive pays Nutty and his "fourth estate" bretheren to obscure is the simple, yet powerful idea that nearly 4,000 of our brave servicemembers have died in Iraq--nearly half a division in lost combat capability. This is precisely the major reason young recruits do not want to join--to hold otherwise belittles the loss of our troops. In effect Nutty's lemmings are holding forth that it is the media's fault not the effects of these deaths nor the 28,000 plus wounded troops--totaling nearly three divisions--ya think that might be on the minds of them uninterested potential recruits?

Of course the largest whopper is the claim that "the homicide rate for 18-34 year old civilians who have never served in the military is actually five times higher than it is for those who are now, or who have recently been in, the Armed Forces." What!? Comparing a population of combat forces residing in a war zone with those civilians residing in complete freedom from IEDs, snipers, RPG attacks, mortar attacks, etc--in essence Nutty is holding forth that living in America is more dangerous than Iraq--wholly absurd.

More of the same, it's as if someone is wrapping themselves in the flag, basking in the glory of real veterans and yet keeps his Swiss bank accout updated--wait, certainly not Herr Nutty. Because that would be a thug, and we all know Nutty North didn't mug the Constitution.

So, LtCol North and the current administration are to blame for recruiting problems and Middle East issues? Your BLDS is flaring up again...

quote:

Originally posted by Kegler300:
So, LtCol North and the current administration are to blame for recruiting problems and Middle East issues? Your BLDS is flaring up again...

LTC(ret) North is not to blame for any policy of this Administration or any recruitment issues or anything other than his own record of service, both honorable and dishonorable. He is, to put it simply, not that important. In that the Administration (and by extention, the American people for voting them in and voting in the subserviant 107th, 108th, and 109th GOP Congresses) initiated this seemingly endless Iraq mess it is ultimately the Iraq mess that turns away potential recruits. That "mess" is a neck-deep sandpit of mixed results, 4000 deaths and counting, thousands more wounded, PTSD clearly evident in friends, family, neighbors, $15Billion a month and counting, the rich getting richer, gravely damaged American prestige and influence overseas, one horrific discovery of mismanagement after another (like that $8Billion lost the first year in Iraq by Bremer? or "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.") It is nothing less than ironic that O.N. disdains the media while he collects a handsome income and enjoys a globe-trotting life-style from it.

All dislike of Ollie aside the point is the many articles that have been printed as of recently with no checking of the actual statistics or any other stats that may have an effect on the story. and all the stories I have read lately are negative dipictions of the military.

bwf27:

As always, very well stated.

S/F Gordon
_______________________________________________
Posted Fri 18 January 2008 07:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Kegler300:
So, LtCol North and the current administration are to blame for recruiting problems and Middle East issues? Your BLDS is flaring up again...
LTC(ret) North is not to blame for any policy of this Administration or any recruitment issues or anything other than his own record of service, both honorable and dishonorable. He is, to put it simply, not that important. In that the Administration (and by extention, the American people for voting them in and voting in the subserviant 107th, 108th, and 109th GOP Congresses) initiated this seemingly endless Iraq mess it is ultimately the Iraq mess that turns away potential recruits. That "mess" is a neck-deep sandpit of mixed results, 4000 deaths and counting, thousands more wounded, PTSD clearly evident in friends, family, neighbors, $15Billion a month and counting, the rich getting richer, gravely damaged American prestige and influence overseas, one horrific discovery of mismanagement after another (like that $8Billion lost the first year in Iraq by Bremer? or "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.") It is nothing less than ironic that O.N. disdains the media while he collects a handsome income and enjoys a globe-trotting life-style from it.

I was going to comment as best as I could about this article, but then I saw the author of this article. Figures. Amazing that he doesn't even cop a clue that he himself is "puffing up" his own war agenda by the same news tactics as he claims the New York Times is using. Seeing it as it is; bogus!

quote:

Originally posted by uh34d:
Ollie, get a clue! The media has nothing to do with recruiting problems. But as usual, you have to look for a scapegoat in order to defend a warped sense of patriotism. Your little attempt at blame is in essence saying Americas parents are stupid. Well, they are not. No parent in their right mind would have their children choose the military over an education with the current situation we find ourselves in. Better to worry about your kid quaffing a few and even learning what the birds and bees are really about than worrying about them being killed or maimed.

All of your rhetoric, your bombastic propaganda and pontificating will not change the face of the Middle-East...and neither will the US. So please, quit attempting to place blame where it doesn't belong...direct your rage at the core of the problem...the current administration.

Gordon

I often talk to my sons friends, high school & college. It would be nice if they were basing their decisions for their futures on facts, and not distortions. Currently, they are being exposed to many distortions from the mainstream media, as Ollie has explained accurately. Maybe, like you believe, it has no bearing on recruiting. It does have a bearing on the perception they have of veterans, like there is something wrong with someone who has served in the military. Based on that, do you truly think distorted news reports have no influence on career choices that could include military service?

Ollie, Get a grip on reality. Military recruiting problems are the fault of the Bush Administration for engaging the world's only superpower in a war of choice in Iraq, which will soon commence its sixth year in the sandbox. The very fact this war is being paid with debt (aka Budget supplemental requests for funds) clearly show the Administration was not expecting it to be a protracted mission. The use of the inadequately equipped finite all-volunteer Army and Marine Corps, including National Guard and Reserve forces is more evidence this war was expected to be short lived. No effort was made to mobilize the country and call for Americans to expect to make sacrifices. Why? Because neo cons of the Bush Administration believed the Iraq war would be a cakewalk; therefore, no need to distract Americans from shopping, which would slow the growth of the US economy.

Well, after five years of struggle the fat's in fire and absolutely no one in the Administration or otherwise has any idea how or when it will be extinguished. So far nearly 4,000 GI's have been killed, over 28,000 wounded, of whom 13,000 are seriously wounded. The cost paid with DEBT exceeds $600 billion and increases at the rate of $12 billion each month. It is expected the total cost may exceed $1.5 trillion.

President Bush and VP Cheney, et al, for five years have told us "Saddam posed an immediate threat to us, Iraqi oil revenue will pay for the war, we're winning, the enemy is in its last throes, our troops may come home soon, it's a long hard slog, we must be patient, the Iraqi politicians are forming a government of reconciliation, a US troop surge is needed to provide security for the new Iraqi government." Lately, we're being told we may be stuck in Iraq for 10 more years.

No wonder over 65 percent of Americans are convinced going to war in Iraq was a huge foreign policy mistake. Consequently, why shouldn't parents and high school guidance counselors tell our best prospective recruits that they have too much potential to waste in the military.

Ollie, One statement in your piece is in fact the truth: [There is no 'good news.' It's very discouraging."] But that's definitely not the fault of the so-called mainstream media.

This collection of sensational headlines is an effective gimmick – but it ignores reality. The homicide rate for 18-34 year old civilians who have never served in the military is actually five times higher than it is for those who are now, or who have recently been in, the Armed Forces.

That statement in itself belies the inability of the author to form his own cognizant argument.
What I mean is: what is the ratio of 18-34 year old civilians versus military members?
If there are 500,000 18-34 year olds in the military and 50,000,000 18-34 year old civilians than that means that for every 100 civilians murdered, 1 soldier is murdered.
But if the ratio of civilians is higher than what would the rate be? If the ratio is lower what would the rate be?
The author gives no information to substantiate his claims. I find it incredulous that he would make such an unfounded statement.
Then there are all of the other issues that are not widely reported about how servicemembers are taken care of....like the VA issues...TBI issues...pay and allowances......
What happens when you get injured and can't do what the military wants you to do? AFLAC doesn't exist in the military (lol), but seriously, they just toss you out like yesterdays garbage.
I will not encourage anyone I know, love or remotely care about to consider the Armed Forces until the overpaid, underworked, uncaring, ungrateful, uninformed members of (our) government start taking care of the men and women that THEY sent into harm's way. And a 3.5% pay raise just doesn't cut it.
How about they reverse the way the benefits work. After 4 years in the military you get a guaranteed pension and lifetime medical (free of course) and only after 20 consecutive years in the legislative branch do you get a 50% pension and whatever medical plan equates to the current Tri-care????
I seriously doubt that my scenario would ever happen, but, it appears that we have things bassackwards. The politicians, who only have to worry about their next dinner date, have had it too good for too long and what is their sacrafice for this country????
Mr. North seems to be defending the wrong side of this argument.

Hey libs, I know you hate it, but we are winning in Iraq, and we are going to set up a lasting democracy there, because conservatives are the most unselfish people on the planet when it comes to helping people help themselves. It really gets under your skin that we are now working hand in hand with local Iraqi leaders to make real lasting progress. This would have come about much more quickly with less casualties if we avoided the two major blunders of Bremer: totally disbanding the Iraqi army and baring all Baathist members from a role in the new government. It would also help if the liberal media would report accurate and balanced news about the military and Iraq, instead of the constant one sided stream of propaganda in a systematic effort to demoralize the american public (troops dont have time to read that crap because they are too busy on achieving measurable results on the ground). So is Oliver incorrect in pointing out that current or recent soldiers located in the US are five times less likely to engage in homicide than the general population? Would it be too much for the NYTimes to present figures like that in their news stories so that readers can easily frame daily news events into larger trends? I think it is not because the NYTimes is not smart enough, its because they hate America and its opportunities for class mobility, rather than the entrenched elitism that they so desire, and they will try to stop the spread of America's core, fundamental, and universal values from empowering people of other cultures at any cost. Libs, stop bickering and lets just get the job done - because we have no other choice, so stop the political posturing. And if you really want to help our economy, simplify the tax code so it is not such a paper work burden on our small businesses, which is the engine of job growth!

catahoulagill:

Posted Fri 18 January 2008 06:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by uh34d:
Ollie, get a clue! The media has nothing to do with recruiting problems. But as usual, you have to look for a scapegoat in order to defend a warped sense of patriotism. Your little attempt at blame is in essence saying Americas parents are stupid. Well, they are not. No parent in their right mind would have their children choose the military over an education with the current situation we find ourselves in. Better to worry about your kid quaffing a few and even learning what the birds and bees are really about than worrying about them being killed or maimed.

All of your rhetoric, your bombastic propaganda and pontificating will not change the face of the Middle-East...and neither will the US. So please, quit attempting to place blame where it doesn't belong...direct your rage at the core of the problem...the current administration.

Gordon


I often talk to my sons friends, high school & college. It would be nice if they were basing their decisions for their futures on facts, and not distortions.

(And what distortions might that be? Let's see; an education, hopefully a good paying job and success, possibly raising a family, living to a ripe old age or, no education, a low paying job, the chance of being killed or maimed and not living to a ripe old age. Hmmm, I wonder which choice makes the most sense to a parent?)

Currently, they are being exposed to many distortions from the mainstream media, as Ollie has explained accurately.

(Ollie hasn't explained a damned thing accurately for years. His little rant changes nothing and the facts remain the same. Given a choice, the majority of parents will opt not to see their child in uniform.)

Maybe, like you believe, it has no bearing on recruiting.

(You, like Ollie must think parents are stupid with such a comment. Parents do not need the media to know the difference between a more secure future for their child (children) and one that is fraught with additional danger.)


It does have a bearing on the perception they have of veterans, like there is something wrong with someone who has served in the military.

(The above has nothing to do with the military. Veterans at this point in our history are treated for the most part with the respect due them. I do not see anyone going after veterans, demeaning their service or insulting them as happened with Nam vets. Sure, there may be a few wacko's out there critical of veterans but they are marginalized and on the fringe and not many pay attention to them.)

Based on that, do you truly think distorted news reports have no influence on career choices that could include military service?

(And what distortions are you referring to? What, PTSD is not real? Men and women suffer the loss of life, are maimed for life? We have a poor and dysfunctional system that for the most part fails our troops and their post military service?

Sorry but, your little propaganda rant doesn't cut it. Like Ollie, you wish to ignore the obvious and deny relevant evidence. The Press has little to nothing to do with military recruiting. The common sense and the wish by parents to protect their child (children) doesn't need the Press to be of paramount importance to them in their attitudes regarding military service.)

S/F Gordon

It amazes me how consistently Mr. North's column seems to attract people whose only interest or point is to insult or argue with him. Allow me, as an active servicemember, to point out where the majority of you have gone wrong:

The NYT article was the single most blatant, arrant smear campaign against the U.S. Military that I have witnessed in 8 years in the Service. The article included drunk driving cases as "homicides", in order to generate a final number of 121 "homicides committed by or charged against Iraq veterans since 2003".

The article, and Mr. North, were not referring to the murder rates in the form of how many were dying, they were referring to how many were killing. What Mr. North was saying was not that the U.S. was more dangerous than Iraq, but that per capita, returned vets are less likely to commit murder (or other violent crimes) than civilians in their age group.

READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU FREAKING COMMENT ON IT! AND STOP DEFENDING THE LYING, TRAITOROUS SCUM AT THE TIMES!

you know, it was interesting - 17 years ago there was another war and another Bush, but that one went a little smoother - yes there was demonstrations, yes there was mistakes, yes there was the news. BUT NO ONE can blame the people on the front end of it all, and that Bush did listen to his Generals and put more than enough boots on the ground - we did have a clear and concise objective, but for the one of the few times the US listened to the UN we didn't finish it!! we knew there was known aggression, we knew there was WMD, and we got in and got out (too quickly though)!!!!! there were no lies, no mis-representation of the facts by those in the know, and we (me and my other 525,000 buddies) were on the top of the world!!!! so, i think history speaks for itself!!!

Our biggest domestic enemies are, indeed, the national rags that have been taken over by political hacks & wannabes from the extreme left. We don't need nor have to defend Ollie North on this fact. It used to be that the average American, worker & manager alike, got their daily news based in factual reporting from their local & national rags across America. Now most have turned into dangerous purveyors & publishers of warped fantasy & fiction. I would say to them, that if the day should ever come that our extremist enemies "do", in fact, gain control & take over this Nation; that business as usual for them will cease to exist...it is something for them to well remember & consider before publishing tomorrow's next edition....

So the media and what it reports has NO impact on recruiting? To a very very tiny extent I'll agree in so far as from personal experience most Marines who enlist would do it regardless of what the current situation is.. its more of a calling.

So my question out there to all you nay sayers.. if the media doesn't impact recruitment numbers.. where do potential recruits get their info from to base their decisions off of? I have an idea... because the media and the liberals in this country who AREN'T actually there and who NEVER supported or even WANTED TO BELIEVE we could win say there is no hope.. lets just disband the military all together? Its only logical. Think of it! That's hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that won't die or get hurt. On top of that we won't be spending all that money. I mean really, what do we need the military for? Why did I or my brothers in arms, past, present, and future bother to enlist? Its not like anyone would ever attack us here at home... right?

To say no parent in their right mind would choose for their child to go to war vs. college is a no "crap" sherlock kind of statement. I'd imagine most parents in WW2 didn't want them to go either. But what would those of you on this board say to the parents who understand that SOMEONE's children have to go? And don't gimme this patronizing crap about "we appreciate your sacrifice". Its too easy to say these days. From some people its heartfelt and you can tell who those people are, but you can also tell who says it just to make themselves feel better

The Rightwing Kool-aid runneth over.

quote:

Hey libs, I know you hate it, but we are winning in Iraq, and we are going to set up a lasting democracy there, because conservatives are the most unselfish people on the planet when it comes to helping people help themselves.

Now heres something your not gonna get from the accursed MSM....
The Corpse on the Gurney
By Tom Engelhardt



The other day, as we reached the first anniversary of the President's announcement of his "surge" strategy, his "new way forward" in Iraq, I found myself thinking about the earliest paid book-editing work I ever did. An editor at a San Francisco textbook publisher hired me to "doctor" god-awful texts designed for audiences of captive kids. Each of these "books" was not only in a woeful state of disrepair, but essentially D.O.A. I was nonetheless supposed to do a lively rewrite of the mess and add seductive "sidebars"; another technician then simplified the language to "grade level" and a designer provided a flashy layout and look. Zap! Pow! Kebang!
During the years that I freelanced for that company in the early 1970s, an image of what I was doing formed in my mind -- and it suddenly came back to me this week. I used to describe it this way:
The little group of us -- rewriter, grade-level reducer, designer -- would be summoned to the publisher's office. There, our brave band of technicians would be ushered into a room in which there would be nothing but a gurney with a corpse on it in a state of advanced decomposition. The publisher's representative would then issue a simple request: Make it look like it can get up and walk away.
And the truth was: that corpse of a book would be almost lifelike when we were done with it, but one thing was guaranteed -- it would never actually get up and walk away.
That was in another century and a minor matter of bad books that no one wanted to call by their rightful name. But that image came to mind again more than three decades later because it's hard not to think of America's Iraq in similar terms. Only this week, Abdul Qadir, the Iraqi defense minister, announced that "his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq's borders from external threat until at least 2018." Pentagon officials, reported Thom Shanker of the New York Times, expressed no surprise at these dismal post-surge projections, although they were "even less optimistic than those [Qadir] made last year."
According to this guesstimate then, the U.S. military occupation of Iraq won't end for, minimally, another ten years. President Bush confirmed this on his recent Mideast jaunt when, in response to a journalist's question, he said that the U.S. stay in Iraq "could easily be" another decade or more.
Folks, our media may be filled with discussions about just how "successful" the President's surge plan has been, but really, Iraq is the corpse in the room.
"Success" as a Mantra
Last January, after announcing his "surge strategy," the President called in his technicians. As it turned out, Gen. David Petraeus, surge commander in Iraq, has been quite impressive, as has new U.S. ambassador to that country, Ryan Crocker. Think of them as "the undertakers," since they've been the ones who, applying their skills, have managed to give that Iraqi corpse the faint glow of life. The President asked them to make Iraq look like it could get up and walk away -- and the last year of "success," widely trumpeted in the media, has been the result. But just think about what the defense minister and President Bush are promising: By 2018, the country will -- supposedly -- be able to control its own borders, one of the more basic acts of a sovereign state. That, by itself, tells you much of what you need to be know.
In order to achieve an image of lifelike quiescence in Iraq, involving a radical lowering of "violence" in that country, the general and ambassador did have to give up the ghost on a number of previous Bush administration passions. Rebellious al-Anbar Province was, for instance, essentially turned over to members of the community (many of whom had, even according to the Department of Defense, been fighting Americans until recently). They were then armed and paid by the U.S. not to make too much trouble. In the Iraqi capital, on the other hand, the surging American military looked the other way as, in the first half of 2007, the Shiite "cleansing" of mixed Baghdad neighborhoods reached new heights, transforming it into a largely Shiite city. This may have been the real "surge" in Iraq and, if you look at new maps of the ethnic make-up of the capital, you can see the startling results -- from which a certain quiescence followed. Powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a longtime opponent of the Bush administration, called a "truce" during the surge months and went about purging and reorganizing his powerful militia, the Mahdi Army. In exchange, the U.S. has given up, at least temporarily, its goal of wresting control of some of those neighborhoods from the Sadrists. Despite hailing the recent passage of what might be called a modest re-Baathification law in the Iraqi Parliament (that may have little effect on actual government employment), the administration has also reportedly given up in large part on pushing its highly touted "benchmarks" for the Iraqis to accomplish. This was to be a crucial part of Iraqi political "reconciliation" (once described as the key to the success of the whole surge strategy). It has now been dumped for so-called Iraqi solutions. All of this, including the lack of U.S. patrolling in al-Anbar province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency, plus the addition of almost 30,000 troops in Baghdad and environs, has indeed given Iraq a quieter look -- especially in the United States, where Iraqi news has largely disappeared from front pages and slipped deep into prime-time TV news coverage just as the presidential campaign of 2008 heats up. The surge was always, in a sense, a gamble for time, a pacification program directed at the "home front" in the President's Global War on Terror as well as at Iraq itself. And if this is what you mean by "success" in Iraq, Bush has indeed succeeded admirably. As in the Vietnam era, when President Richard Nixon began "Vietnamizing" that war, a reductio