Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (172337)	7/4/2006 11:09:48 AM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793731

These measures have been put in place, largely because of one incident that happened five years ago. A sailor broke into an elderly ladies house, was caught by the lady in her home. He ran out of the house with her purse and in the process pushed her down. She broke her leg falling. That would be considered a serious crime in any country, no matter who the perpetrator was. The press in Greece, which is extremely negative toward the American military, went on a field day publicizing the event. Are you surprised by that? It is, after all, an extremely unusual occurrence. Resentment against the presence of American bases and/or ships can be found in just about every country (including neighbors of same within our own country, by the way). Are you suggesting that someone should have censored the Greek press? Who has the power to do that? The perpetuator got 5 years in a Greece cell. As well he should have. "Can't do the time? Don't do the crime." This incident and other more minor infractions, caused leadership to clamp down on liberty out of fear of losing the strategically important facilities in Greece. I don't understand your point here. As you say, this is an operational decision made by the military brass, not by others.

To: greenspirit who wrote (172337)	7/4/2006 11:26:19 AM
From: Constant Reader	Respond to of 793731

Never before has our military been under the microscope like it is today. True. We live in an age of instant access to information of all kinds. As a result of cellphones, digital cameras, handheld video cameras, computers and other such devices, it is next to impossible for anyone to control the free flow of information. Just ask the Chinese government how well they are doing at it. And the problem is, it's largely a negative filter that's used, instead of a clear one showing both good and bad incidents. Stop reading the New York Times, Michael. ;-) Seriously, I see positive pieces about the men and women in uniform all the time. Long before this war started, it was well-known that bad news sells and good news doesn't. ("If it bleeds, it leads.") That's the economics of the news business. IIRC, many years ago, someone did try to start a "good news" paper but it never took off, or never got anywhere at all, because no one was interested.

To: greenspirit who wrote (172337)	7/4/2006 11:41:27 AM
From: ig	Respond to of 793731

...what has happened is the N.Y. Times and other "against the war effort" tabloids have gone on a crusade to broadly publicize just about every incident. Their broad based effort to give incidents which are under investigation page after page of space, serve our enemy just as much as the perpetuators serve our enemy with their acts. First of all, we know terrorists are not ignorant on how to use the media to further their cause. So, these things have an effect. Some, are no doubt planted by terrorists and given to the media who are more than willing write anything negative about the American military. I'm probably further to the "right" than you are on this, Michael, which I expressed by saying: "Even though these stories -- Abu Ghraib and the rest -- are being used by the anti-American mob as levers to bring down the country, that doesn't mean it's somehow anti-American, partisan politics, or just generally naive about (in)human nature to be especially upset by stories of this sort." In fact, Lindy has called me out more than once for being too conspiratorially-minded. g Secondarily, not many Americans realize the cost to military personnel when these incidents are publicized and given a lot of airing. Liberty is severely curtailed and often not allowed, or draconian measures are taken which negatively impact the quality of life people have while serving their country. I'll give you a recent example; in Greece, when a ship pulls in the only way someone can go on liberty is by going with three to five other military members. Curfew is 10pm. No one can spend the night in town, rent a car, rent a moped, or venture further than specific areas of the surrounding city. These measures have been put in place, largely because of one incident that happened five years ago. A sailor broke into an elderly ladies house, was caught by the lady in her home. He ran out of the house with her purse and in the process pushed her down. She broke her leg falling. The press in Greece which is extremely negative toward the American military went on a field day publicizing the event. The perpetuator got 5 years in a Greece cell. This incident and other more minor infractions, caused leadership to clamp down on liberty out of fear of losing the strategically important facilities in Greece. The same sort of thing is happening all over the world. The quality of life of decent hard working military personnel is being severely impacted by overzealous tabloids looking for ways to punch the American military in the nose. Americans who play into their hands only serve the interest of our enemies. I think that's a well-made point. In making such a point, however, I think it would be more effective to refrain, as much as possible, from pointing your finger at those you hope to persuade to your point of view. Being provocative and accusatory is not an invitation to reason. We see that here every day, and of course we see it endlessly in the media. The Kos crowd thinks it's being effective by provoking hate and anger on both sides, but it's not. They are shooting themselves in the foot, alienating the reasonable Democrats they're hoping to "persuade." And it's too bad to see it happening so much on the Right now. Getting angry about the NYT and degenerating into name-calling and finger-pointing is not the way to go. It does more harm than good and the Right is starting to fall for it. There's an Angry Right developing now, and it plays right into the hands of You Know Who. (Sorry, Lindy! g) Does that mean we should ignore or condone the illegal acts of the few military personnel who perpetuate them? Of course not, but we should have a certain level of faith in the court system of the military and how it goes about exacting justice when crimes are committed. We shouldn't assume that unless pictures are beamed around the world, and hundreds of stories are written nothing will be done about the incident. Never before has our military been under the microscope like it is today. And the problem is, it's largely a negative filter that's used, instead of a clear one showing both good and bad incidents. I agree with all that, but you and I might differ on how best to solve that problem of too much anti-American propaganda. I think you're about 90% on-track by simply pointing out the consequences of such efforts (you're doing that part very well, I'd say), but maybe off-track a little by setting up adversarial relations with those you'd like to persuade. I think that whichever side gets the hang of persuading without alienating will prevail. But it's a tough thing to learn and understand in this "culture of argument" of ours. I'm no good at it myself, but I'm trying to learn. Yes, they represent the American people and should be held to a high standard of professionalism. I agree, but let’s also not forget they are largely young male Americans whose background doesn't often contain the right kind of moral examples needed to be successful in life under stressful situations. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. Nicely said. ig