CNN reports a study done in Iraq

[wilberhum]

CNN? Right :skeleton:

Do you really believe the OP didn't know that?

It is now obvious why the source was not given.

Even Al Jazeera won't even validate the article.

Al Jazeera is not responsible for the content of external websites

Now it may all be true. But Al Jazeera doesn't even provide a link the source of the study.

 

[caroline]

That's because it isn't from CNN, in fact, it isn't an LA Times news story either. It is from the Opinion section. For those unfamiliar with Western journalistic standards, columns printed in the opinion section of a newspaper are not routinely fact-checked by editors and are not even meant to be news stories. The informed reader is supposed to understand that such columns represent the opinions of the author. That is why the call it the Opinion section. It is designed to permit the airing of opposing points of view.

Here is the author....CHRIS HEDGES....who is the author, most recently, of "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."


There is some collection of troop "interviews" published in the july 30 issue of The Nation, which is sort of like the Washinton Times of the far Left.

More to follow.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/04/iraq.main/index.html

You will notice the article starts with the phrase: The latest PENTAGON SURVEY....

:statisfie

 

[caroline]

CNN? Right :skeleton:

.

CNN/Pentagon

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/04/iraq.main/index.html

 

[Jayda]

marines especially frighten me... it seems like the ethos of their branch is obsessed with killing and acting barbaric... and when they come home they have this attitude that they should be allowed to take whatever they want because they 'defended freedom'

 

[caroline]

Back on topic:

In response to the question "What do you expect?"

First of all, I would expect a government representing the people to abide by the wishes of the people... uh, that is democracy after all. The question is not whether or not Iraq will be a democracy -- it's whether or not the United States will be a democracy. The overwhelming majority of US citizens wanst us to leave Iraq and stop this war. In a democracy the government would abide by that, or at the very least ACKNOWLEDGE it and begin to REPOND.

Secondly, I expect soldiers that represent the United States to make an educated and ethical decision about whether or not to participate in an illegal war.

Thirdly, I expect soldiers representing the United States to act ethically. I expect them to respect the value and dignity of innocent civilians, women and children. I expect them to abhor the very notion of torture. I expect them to abide by the Geneva Conventions. I expect them to report other soldiers for not doing these things.

After all, we say that we are not the terrorists, we are not the backwoods guerillas fighting for our little plot of land. We are the noble defenders of right, the warriors in defense of democracy. What I expect is for our soldiers to behave as soldiers should -- with honor and respect and conscience. And if they can't they should not have access to weapons.

 

[Jayda]

Study: Anxiety, depression, acute stress in combat troops

Does that mean that you knew that the original post title was false?

no... it means you didn't read the article. scroll down to the part that says 'see report here' and then look at page 34 of the report.

 

[caroline]

Now, can we get back to the topic?

 

[Intisar]

Now, can we get back to the topic?

Please. :blind:

If you guys don't, I'm afraid that I'm gonna have to close this topic.

 

[wilberhum]

Please. :blind:

If you guys don't, I'm afraid that I'm gonna have to close this topic.

Well you have "Closed" the topic for me.
It is just a game. I post, you delete.

But of course not all negative remarks to me are deleted, just my remarks.

 

[Intisar]

Well you have "Closed" the topic for me.
It is just a game. I post, you delete.

But of course not all negative remarks to me are deleted, just my remarks.

Is it so hard for you to comment on the topic at hand instead of taking little ridiculous jabs at people? If you could stay on topic, I'm sure I wouldn't have to delete anything.

PS. Stop making yourself out to look like the victim, I don't only delete your posts but anyone who does not follow this section's (or forum's) rules.

With that being sad, have a great day.

 

[wilberhum]

Is it so hard for you to comment on the topic at hand instead of taking little ridiculous jabs at people? If you could stay on topic, I'm sure I wouldn't have to delete anything.

The debate is a fallacy. It is based on a lie.

So I find Challenging the lie to be very much on topic.

 

[Cognescenti]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/04/iraq.main/index.html

You will notice the article starts with the phrase: The latest PENTAGON SURVEY....

:statisfie

Nice! On your fourth try your are getting warmer. Here is the actual source from teh Mental Health Advisory Team of the DOD.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/05/04/mhat.iv.report.pdf

The survey was on mostly line infantry units (the guys that do most of the fighting) (Marines and Army). The survey was conducted in April 2006.

Let's examine some of your claims:

These are some of the results of a study done on over 1,000 US soldiers NOW in Iraq.

False. That was 20 months ago. Most of their tours are therfore over, though some may have been redpeloyed

CNN study of American Soldiers in Iraq

False...it was a Pentagon study. Note how just about nobody here would believe anything else the Pentagon said.

47% of all soldiers and only 38% marines think innocent civilians deserve dignity and respect

False.....and purposely deceptive on your part. The actual question was "All noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect". Note your substituion of "innocent civilians" for "noncombatants". They are not the same thing. Your editorial substitution is deliberately inflammatory. Now, it wont' be long before an America-hater will counter that the figure is still too high. Perhaps, but these are enlisted men and they do have officers and the officers do enforce the rules. Only 8% said their units "modify" rules of engagement to accomplish their missions. Your linkage to Abu Ghraib is also deliberately inflammatory and deceptive.

This one is rich too.

Over 1/3 say torture should be allowed

False....The actual question was..."torture should be allowed if it will save the life of a Marine or soldier". Can you not see the difference? They are being asked the abstract question if the rules should be changed to permit torture to save their own lives. How would you answer that question?

Lets' Recap...your score now...0 for 4

Thanks for the interesting discussion founded on a false premise.

 

[wilberhum]

Cognescenti,
Well done. A great post. You have proved my point, thank you.

Thanks for the interesting discussion founded on a false premise.

I could never have said it better.

 

[Jayda]

cognescenti your points are completely trivial... you might as well have provided a list of spelling mistakes from the report. caroline's central point remains just as valid as it did before... and the reluctance of american 'patriot's' posting here to accept the atrocious attitudes of america's military only frightens me further...

 

[wilberhum]

cognescenti your points are completely trivial... you might as well have provided a list of spelling mistakes from the report. caroline's central point remains just as valid as it did before... and the reluctance of american 'patriot's' posting here to accept the atrocious attitudes of america's military only frightens me further...

If you think Cognescenti point's are completely trivial, you should read your's. :?

 

[caroline]

cognescenti your points are completely trivial... you might as well have provided a list of spelling mistakes from the report. caroline's central point remains just as valid as it did before... and the reluctance of american 'patriot's' posting here to accept the atrocious attitudes of america's military only frightens me further...

As I noted on another thread, those kinds of responses are typical when people are faced with embarrassing facts about the US or our soldiers. Look how the pictures of actual torture of prisoners in Iraq got minimized, justified and quickly swept out of the public eye. It's a necessary tactic of the herd mentality to avoid the real issue by personal attacks or splitting hairs about non-issues. They'd rather shoot the messenger than confront the facts head on and do the work it takes to change things. I don't let it discourage me because more and more people are waking up every day and seeing that these attempts at justifying the unjust are smoke screens.

The point of the topic was that our soldiers have some pretty scary things to say about their ethics (or rather, lack of) and what do we think about THAT. So let's overlook the stinky herring and get back on topic, shall we?

thanks

 

[caroline]

One other note (perhaps this should be another thread?):

I have noticed on a few other threads that this tactic is quite effective.

1. A strong topic is presented.

2. An opposing camp comes in and starts leveling personal attacks and getting people off topic with red herrings.

3. Moderator and sincere posters try to get back on topic but the personal attacks and distractions continue until the thread gets closed.

4. Arguments not agreeing with the persons ideas who created the distractions are no longer on the table.

This needs to stop. If one or two people can't stop leveling attacks and distracting then their attacks should be stopped so others can continue to discuss the topic at hand.

 

[Jayda]

hola,

in my opinion the results of this poll are frightening, but i do not think out of the ordinary for soldiers fighting in wars. soldiers are indoctrinated to kill and hurt their enemy... and when they are put into the fight i think fear and self preservation make them constantly angry at their circumstances and in turn the people they are fighting.

wars are evil. they don't accomplish anything except to hurt a lot of people... the best thing to do is not resort to them as a matter of policy, and in the unfortunate instance a war is started the best thing to do is to end it quickly... 'blessed are the peace makers.'

 

[Cognescenti]

cognescenti your points are completely trivial... you might as well have provided a list of spelling mistakes from the report. caroline's central point remains just as valid as it did before... and the reluctance of american 'patriot's' posting here to accept the atrocious attitudes of america's military only frightens me further...

They are most certainly not trivial. When conducting a poll, the wording of the question is absolutely critical. The psychologists who did the study for the Pentagon understood this. That is why it is deceitful by the thread starter to substitute a phrase like "innocent civilians" for "noncombatants". That may seem compulsive to you but is no "spelling mistake". It changes the entire meaning of the question. It's called going to the original source.

Imagine a pollster came to your door and asked "Would you use a weapon to defend your child"? Most people would probably say "Yes". Now imagine when the poll was published, the question read "Would you use a weapon?"

Do you think that would be a fair representation?

What seems to be lost on almost everyone here is this was a study commissioned by the Pentagon to better understand the stresses their soldiers and Marines were under. Don't you people know anything about management? The brass are on it. They ordered the study. They know if you put a bunch of volunteers (mostly men) age 18-24 and give them a bunch of guns and put them in a difficult situation where it is difficult to tell the enemy from the good guys and then have them witness the death of their freinds they are going to be a bit aggressive. That is why they have Rules of Engagement and that is why they have officers and NCO's with more experience. Note that the study also showed they were overwhelmingly (>90%) strictly following the rules of engagement.

What is needed is for the war to be over. That will happen when AQI runs out of brainwashed madrassa-bred idiots (age 18-24) willing to have their hands taped to the wheel of truck full of explosives and/or when the locals determine that foreign jihadists are a a corrsovie and self-destructive influence (as is already happening in Iraq).

Can we have a show of hands on who wants the war in Iraq to be over?

BTW...please cool it with the annoying "patriot" insults.

 

[Cognescenti]

One other note (perhaps this should be another thread?):

I have noticed on a few other threads that this tactic is quite effective.

1. A strong topic is presented.

2. An opposing camp comes in and starts leveling personal attacks and getting people off topic with red herrings.

3. Moderator and sincere posters try to get back on topic but the personal attacks and distractions continue until the thread gets closed.

4. Arguments not agreeing with the persons ideas who created the distractions are no longer on the table.

This needs to stop. If one or two people can't stop leveling attacks and distracting then their attacks should be stopped so others can continue to discuss the topic at hand.

Caroline;

When a poster fraudulently claims an original source, but in fact, is citing an opinion piece, and when the meaning of the original publication has been altered, and when others rebut this claim........that is not a personal attack. Why do you think the forum rules require a source when the poster claims to be reporting another's work?


If she started a thread that said simply..."I think all American servicemen are murdering, bigoted rapists...so there! <makes raspberry sound>", do you think people would attach credibility to that?


It seems to me what you find troubling is losing the "debate".