• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

Military planting stories in Iraqi papers?

Pretty stupid idea if they are.
 
they have to do sth to change their reputation, and what better way than to use the local newspaper

and they have to do something, they keep getting blown up every 5 minutes
 
I'm not surprised in the least bit if it's true.
Politicians use the media for publicity stunts all the time. Why not do the same over there?
 
Z Draci said:
I'm not surprised in the least bit if it's true.
Politicians use the media for publicity stunts all the time. Why not do the same over there?

:lol: You misread. NO POLITICIANS, only "US soldiers".
 
My thoughts...

I see it from two angles.

1.) The Iraqis on the street reading the papers should know that the story isn't coming from some Iraqi reporter but rather straight from the American military (or in some cases, republican operatives). I'm really not a fan of concealment. It's like me writing a story about the war going badly but saying it was written by some marine captain.

2.) I've often said that fighting "the war on terror" etc can't be done militarily. You need to use information/communication. This is viable way to fight a war, and a useful tool. It's non-lethal as well, which is a plus.

I think both of those angles have their merits. There is a compromise though, put out the articles but identify where they are coming from.
 
Probably someone's idea in the J-5 shop. The reports indicate that the articles were actually correct, they just greased someone's palm to make sure that the word got out.

If only they thought to do that for the US papers. Together with the little disclaimer in tiny, 4-point font at the bottom saying 'this is an article paid by the federal government' to keep people happy.

I don't have overly much issue with the concept, but I think 'full disclosure' would require that any services for payment not be done entirely under the table.

NTM
 
Manic Moran said:
but I think 'full disclosure' would require that any services for payment not be done entirely under the table.

NTM

I agree

What I don't understand is how the Pentagon wouldn't know about something like this. Apparently a PR firm got a 100 million dollar contract to do this.
 
justin syder said:
Z Draci said:
I'm not surprised in the least bit if it's true.
Politicians use the media for publicity stunts all the time. Why not do the same over there?

:lol: You misread. NO POLITICIANS, only "US soldiers".

I know the soldiers are doing it. They are probably copying what their role models are doing back home.
 
So Politicians use the media for publicity stunts? :? Give me 3 examples.

How do you know the soldiers think Politicians are role models?
 
justin syder said:
So Politicians use the media for publicity stunts? :? Give me 3 examples.

How do you know the soldiers think Politicians are role models?

You only need three examples? I can give you hundreds if you have time . . .
1) the Monica Lewinsky fiasco
2) "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" show on USS Lincoln
3) pre-recorded, edited images of footage in "Iraq" replayed at convenient moments
Think of all the political agendas and publicity these three things have accomplished! Most ignorant citizens would easily be swayed by media stunts like these.

The soldiers think Politicians are role models because the President is their Commander in Chief. :p
Seriously though, soldiers have enough trust in politicians to be able to risk their lives in serving political motivations. Most politicians have served in an armed force and have taken part in a war. There's a really solid correlation between the soldier and the politician since George Washington took office.
 
I don't know a single soldier who trusts politicians. Some may agree with various politicians, but nobody I know trusts them implicitly. They don't "trust" the orders, they just carry them out, it's an obligation. Not every soldier goes into every situation thinking, "this is the best possible scenario and my superiors know what's best for me". That's pretty dumb. Most politicians in the states have not served in the armed forces, and there really isn't a strong bond between politicans and soldiers, I don't know a single soldier who has a politican for a role model.
 
zenkidori said:
I don't know a single soldier who trusts politicians. Some may agree with various politicians, but nobody I know trusts them implicitly. They don't "trust" the orders, they just carry them out, it's an obligation. Not every soldier goes into every situation thinking, "this is the best possible scenario and my superiors know what's best for me". That's pretty dumb. Most politicians in the states have not served in the armed forces, and there really isn't a strong bond between politicans and soldiers, I don't know a single soldier who has a politican for a role model.

Are you saying American soldiers are a bunch of senseless idiots who carry out their superiors' orders without question?
I personally wouldn't even think about joining an armed force if I was not comfortable dying for the politician's agendas. There are many people who genuinely believe President Bush 100%. I am most certain this includes soldiers.

If that isn't the case, why are American men serving in the armed forces? I doubt they are assuming they will come back alive and receive a lifetime of benefits . . . :roll:
 
Z Draci said:
zenkidori said:
I don't know a single soldier who trusts politicians. Some may agree with various politicians, but nobody I know trusts them implicitly. They don't "trust" the orders, they just carry them out, it's an obligation. Not every soldier goes into every situation thinking, "this is the best possible scenario and my superiors know what's best for me". That's pretty dumb. Most politicians in the states have not served in the armed forces, and there really isn't a strong bond between politicans and soldiers, I don't know a single soldier who has a politican for a role model.

Are you saying American soldiers are a bunch of senseless idiots who carry out their superiors' orders without question?

Actually, that is exactly what you were inferring in your statements about the soldiers.

I personally wouldn't even think about joining an armed force if I was not comfortable dying for the politician's agendas. There are many people who genuinely believe President Bush 100%. I am most certain this includes soldiers.

If that isn't the case, why are American men serving in the armed forces? I doubt they are assuming they will come back alive and receive a lifetime of benefits . . . :roll:

People don't join the armed forces to serve political agendas. They don't say, "Oh, I want to help bush, so I'll join the military". If it were that way, there'd be staffing problems every 4 to 8 years.

You don't join the military to serve the president and whoever up on capital hill. You join the military to serve your country. Most people choose to join the military because of the benefits you can gather, and will generally leave after their first enlisment/commision is up. Some may stay for a second term, but not as many will stay on to make the military their careers. But I can tell you right now, they don't make these decisions based on who is in office or what their plans are.

Now, I don't like you calling my brother and his pals a bunch of senseless idiots, but when it comes to orders, soldiers are to carry out any and all lawful and legit orders. If a soldier is truely concerned about the nature of his orders, he can question them.

Also, understand that the military is not micromanaged. Not every order that is made comes from President Bush. More than likely the only orders Bush has probably made were the orders to deploy and to declare the "official" end to the war--maybe a few here and there, but very little. I highly doubt that President Bush himself, the Pentagon, or all the high brass, were involved in the decision making process to order my brother to fix a broken water pump on an LMTV.

So, in the end, I fail to see how politicians are the "role models" of today's soldiers, because knowing my dad, my brother, and everyone else I know in the military, it isn't so.
 
Some senior US military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon have criticized the operation, saying it could ruin the US military's credibility in other countries and with the US public.



What are they, Living in denial?

They lost it LONG TIME ago.
They got no Credibility left NONE what so ever.
 
YF19pilot said:
Actually, that is exactly what you were inferring in your statements about the soldiers.

People don't join the armed forces to serve political agendas. They don't say, "Oh, I want to help bush, so I'll join the military". If it were that way, there'd be staffing problems every 4 to 8 years.

You don't join the military to serve the president and whoever up on capital hill. You join the military to serve your country. Most people choose to join the military because of the benefits you can gather, and will generally leave after their first enlisment/commision is up. Some may stay for a second term, but not as many will stay on to make the military their careers. But I can tell you right now, they don't make these decisions based on who is in office or what their plans are.

Now, I don't like you calling my brother and his pals a bunch of senseless idiots, but when it comes to orders, soldiers are to carry out any and all lawful and legit orders. If a soldier is truely concerned about the nature of his orders, he can question them.

Also, understand that the military is not micromanaged. Not every order that is made comes from President Bush. More than likely the only orders Bush has probably made were the orders to deploy and to declare the "official" end to the war--maybe a few here and there, but very little. I highly doubt that President Bush himself, the Pentagon, or all the high brass, were involved in the decision making process to order my brother to fix a broken water pump on an LMTV.

So, in the end, I fail to see how politicians are the "role models" of today's soldiers, because knowing my dad, my brother, and everyone else I know in the military, it isn't so.

I don't know how you misunderstood me and thought I called everybody senseless idiots. If you do not love your country passionately and respect those in charge, then what is the point in serving in the military? Are you saying that the people you know don't do that?

There are many people who joined an armed force to "fight terrorism." Who coined the phrase "fight terrorism" in the first place? POLITICIANS!

Even if your brother wasn't ordered directly by Bush to fix a broken water pump on a LMTV, he is still under the command of Bush himself. If you cannot admire your Commander in Chief, you are not fit to be a soldier.
 
Everyone I know joined the military for money, training and benefits, not giving a second thought to politics. We all love our country, but that has fuckall to do with politicians. I know quite a few soldiers in my family and some of my friends that think Bush is full of shit. You are not supposed to have blind faith in your President, you can vote and have your own opinion on things. The army isn't a facist SS unit that does whatever for the party, that's a pretty dumb idea. Have you looked up to and blindly respected all managers you have had in your work? I doubt it, but you follow the intructions given by your superiors because that's how things are done. Same in the military.

Very few soldiers I have ever met have been altruistic about thier service, ready to die for thier leaders, fight for justice blah blah blah. The military offers training, money for college, great benefits, travel, and for some people it's the last chance they have in life, that is the appeal. You seem to have the idea of a brainwashed machine of robotic men whose purpose it so serve the mighty president, which is very very far from the truth.
 
Z Draci said:
I don't know how you misunderstood me and thought I called everybody senseless idiots. If you do not love your country passionately and respect those in charge, then what is the point in serving in the military? Are you saying that the people you know don't do that?

There are many people who joined an armed force to "fight terrorism." Who coined the phrase "fight terrorism" in the first place? POLITICIANS!

Even if your brother wasn't ordered directly by Bush to fix a broken water pump on a LMTV, he is still under the command of Bush himself. If you cannot admire your Commander in Chief, you are not fit to be a soldier.

You sir, have misunderstood me as well. I said that those in the military join to serve their countries. I think that infers that you do love your country. And you respect the rank, not nessicarily the ones wearing it, if you understand what I'm saying.

And in WWII people joined the army to "fight Nazis." That was something coined by FDR, a politician. But does that mean those soldiers went to fight Nazis for FDR? No, they fought Nazis for life, liberty, and the United States of America. Today's army "fights terrorism" for America, not for President Bush. Yes, politicians tell the soldiers that terrorists are the enemy and a threat. Yes, President Bush does make the order to fight, and is their commander in chief. But the mentality of the soldier is that you are doing this for your country. If you fight for a politician rather than your country, then you are not fit to be a soldier, because then you are placing your loyalty with a person not with your country.

You don't have to admire your commanders, only respect them (or at least their ranks), and follow their orders. It's as zenkidori said, you don't have to admire your boss, but you respect his/her position and do what they say.
 
The military offers training, money for college, great benefits, travel, and for some people it's the last chance they have in life, that is the appeal.

Actually, I'm in it out of a sense of community responsibility, and because it's fun. The other listed benefits are a nice side-effect. When I signed on, I was quite happily plugging away in my IT job.

If you do not love your country passionately and respect those in charge

I don't think there's any requirement to respect the people above you, as long as you respect (and recognise) their position and the authority that position gives them.

Most American soldiers weren't too keen on Clinton, but he was still the Commander in Chief, duly elected by the processes of the Constitution which soldiers are sworn to defend and protect. That's good enough for us.

NTM
 
Top