So we have this story...
Then we have stories about resolutions letting everyone know some of us want to give up...
and another with Hillary wishing she had a time machine so she could not vote to go to war...
Man, what leadership...
Monday, January 29, 2007
Iraqis: at Least 200 Insurgents Killed
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I wonder what compelled them to actually report enemy dead for a change and not just U.S. dead. Were they to have always reported enemy dead, how would that have affected American resolve?
great point Marshall. If had a media that was not rooting for the other side maybe people would be a bit more supportive of their country. Maybe not rooting for the other side, but definately rooting against anything Bush does...we would have NEVER won a war if we had the liberal media in the past
I've used the example of the Tet Offensive in past postings. The number of U.S. casualties were constantly splashed all over the news. There were something like 2-3000 if I recall the tale. This was just one event as opposed to 3-4 years. The people were aghast! That's awful! How could we send our boys to be ground up??!! Had they equally trumpeted the number of NVA dead, something like 20,000 or so, the context would have provoked a different response from the people. It's war. Some of our people will die. It'd be great if it could be done without it, but it kinda goes with the territory. But when the enemy is reported to be losing 10 or more to each of ours, there then is a sense of the reality and who's winning. An end can be imagined. Instead, we get just the amount of our guys killed and that's all people hear about. Not hard to imagine in the face of it why so many would be reconsidering their support. It feeds the defeatism and it's seditious, whether intended or otherwise.
It wasn't easy to count the NVA and Viet Cong dead because their soldiers pulled them away specifically to keep the effectiveness of the South Vietnamese and American efforts in doubt.
The reason there is no coverage of enemy deaths in Iraq is that this administration doesn't report those numbers. Ask them why.
They damn well knew enough about the casualty count in that specific battle to know that the disparity was striking. The media, led at the time by Cronkite, went out of their way to dress it up as a failure.
I doubt that counts in this war are hidden beyond a wiley reporter's ability to report a decent estimate. And if what you say is true, then it seems to me that going ahead with only US deaths can serve no other purpose than to demoralize the populace. Which it has. They make sure they put every face in the papers with stories highlighting the family's grief. What other effect can it possibly have but to put an unnecessary spin on an already sad situation when there's nothing to balance the story? It's irresponsible, but intentional. No doubt about it.
Yeah, I guess you're right. We should just ignore the humanity of those who actually sacrifice. When you think of it, they are just numbers, their faces are inconsequential. And showing their faces and printing their names really has no purpose but to try to embarass the greatest president in US history.
Are you telling me that you are incapable of empathy for the plights of our military and their families without their sorrow highlighted in the media? Do you need to have it spelled out for you that such tragedies occur in wartime? Is your attention span so short as to need pictoral reminders on a daily basis? Give me a break.
Post a Comment