Iraq Worse Than Vietnam -- in Number of Journalists Killed

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I was not trying to dishonor anyone, just tying to make a point.

I'm glad to hear that. Thank you for the clarification.

Now I'm going to work on sticking to my promise to myself about this forum. I should be able to hold out another week or so before I backslide again.

Originally posted by skippytjc


... I dont know, but it doesnt take a genious to say that the media coverage of this conflict is many times more than any other to date.

So from a percentage stand point I bet the mortality rate of media in Iraq is perportional to other conflicts.

the proportional issue got my attention.

yes, todays journalists on voluntary assignment
and accepting the recognized behaviorial conditions which the
US & Coalition Forces exact upon them...
might just make it more dangerous for todays' combat reporters.

but, i'm questioning more along the lines that;
the ratio of fatalities involving combat troop fatalities
as compared to fatalities to combat zone journalists.

it seems,
(you'll need a statistician/accountant/analyst for this),
the reporter/journalist mortality rate is high because of the nature of conflict, & the short amount of time involved....

But the greater number of reporter/journalists seems
disproportionate in comparison to the professional soldiers/troops,
who are fighting in the same conditions & environment.

which raises the question, are the journalists being too cowboy about
their assignments?
or are the Trained Troops so well versed & diciplined, they have kept
their mortality rate extremely low?

another possibility might be approached....
are the Troop casualties being fudged so as to keep the homeland
voters from reacting in a detrimental way toward the administration
and the neocons 'roadmap' & plans for Iraq?

thread feedback anyone

If you're a soldier, and you see someone stand up and point what could be a missile launcher, or laser designator at your position, you're gonna shoot first and ask questions later. The troops are going to defend themselves, and THEN try to determine who was doing what where.

Originally posted by St Udio


...but, i'm questioning more along the lines that;
the ratio of fatalities involving combat troop fatalities
as compared to fatalities to combat zone journalists...

...But the greater number of reporter/journalists seems
disproportionate in comparison to the professional soldiers/troops,
who are fighting in the same conditions & environment.

which raises the question, are the journalists being too cowboy about
their assignments?
or are the Trained Troops so well versed & diciplined, they have kept
their mortality rate extremely low?

another possibility might be approached....
are the Troop casualties being fudged so as to keep the homeland
voters from reacting in a detrimental way toward the administration
and the neocons 'roadmap' & plans for Iraq?

thread feedback anyone

A cameraman, by nature, must keep his camera on the action. Naturally, he will expose himself far longer than healthy or wise to enemy fire ("Cowboy").

Soldiers don't do that.

Journalists are getting themselves killed there...by being dumb.

There is no "fudging" of military casualties...please, that is one of the more ignorant statements that goes around here. Thousands of families would speak up noisily about where the hell their sons and daughters are....they aren't.

Also remember (if you are old enough to), that most journalists in Vietnam were simply not given carte' blanche' to roam the country willy-nilly as they are in Iraq. 95% of all news, updates, and reports were part of a reporting pool from Saigon and DaNang. Heck, even Al Gore remained in Bien Hoa for a his whole 4 months

I would be curious to know just a bit more than raw uncorrelated data, in this case, and I have been unable to locate even segments of relative information.

Generally, the article paints with a tremendously wide brush and the organization supports some enormous ‘generalities’ without any comparison other than absolute end result. More of an obvious attempt to make a political statement (and attention), ironically, rather than even a slight hint of remote 'journalism' from a bunch of 'collective jounalists'.


.

as posted by Souljah
But when I think again, I am not that Surprised, since this War on Terror is also a War on Media and War on Truth.

To the contrary, Souljah, it is the media who is and who has declared war on the truth, just as it did in and with Vietnam. Any decent student of history can vouch for this objectively.

The death of journalists in any conflict is sad, as with the loss of any life.
Having said that, perhaps if journalists, and the media companies that they work for, would not insist on being placed in the midst of frontline troops and units, and/or in harms way, their losses would not be as great as they are within their ranks?

Anyhow, it is the media who is at war with the truth in that it is media that is the one calling Iraq unwinnable, just as it did in Vietnam.
It is the media that is calling Iraq a quagmire, just as it did in Vietnam.
It is the media that is calling Iraq another Vietnam, just as the media called Vietnam another Korea.
It is the media that is anti-war, just as it was during Vietnam.
It is the media that is insisting on placing journalist within frontline troops and units, in harms way, just as it did in Vietnam.
It is the media that is now crying foul over those journalists that have died/killed, just as it did in Vietnam.
It is the media that is calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, just as it called for in Vietnam.
It is the media who is now stuck in, paralyzed by, and is preaching defeatism, just as it was and did during Vietnam.
The Media Quagmire

On all these matters and more, I would humbly advize that some here read a most excellent and critical book concerning the misconceptions on and related to the Vietnam War, all orchestrated and perpetuated by the media. Furthermore, it extensively investigates the role media played in the anti-war movement and the Vietnam war itself, just as the media is doing with Iraq!
Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation was robbed of its heroes and its history
Stolen Valor






seekerof

[edit on 29-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Seekerof,

Nice,
Very well put.
The Media IS trying to run the war..

If there was a beach, CNN would be there..Greeting our Navy Seal teams, with floodlights..

Hear yah. But would like to see a report of their Salary/Fees before and then during their being embeded within the onslaught of of the U.S. Army's offensive?

Dollars for risk to promote the Aired segment of a News Station and its instantly increased viewing audience.

Look at CNN's Roger Walters and the extreme reporting he did going into that well known Bagh party Iraq city near the end of the last offensive and getting the windows shot out of his Van.

Dallas

I don't think there is any doubt that journalists will somtimes give their life to report the cause. I also doubt anyone disagrees that as media gets more commercial, the more the up front and personal style/reality TV mentality it gets. It sell's, they are in the business of selling "news". If they happen to fudge the numbers, or specific's a bit it doesn't matter, most of the country has got ADD anyway, and those that don't will be labeled conspiracy nuts.....

Originally posted by Seekerof
To the contrary, Souljah, it is the media who is and who has declared war on the truth, just as it did in and with Vietnam. Any decent student of history can vouch for this objectively.

Judging from the statements you wrote, I think that you probably hold the Media responsible for the Defeat in Vietnam too, huh? Just what part of "Loosing the War" should then be reported to the Public at Home? Replasing Loosing with Winning is the Only solution huh? Usually the first casualty in the War is the TRUTH - and that goes for Vietnam and Iraq. And since the Army wants us to see only Their picture of the War (which is all the times Good and Great - after all it's the Army and the Army must portrait their "Job" as Great!"). So, why are there more journalists killed in Iraq then in Vietnam? Because they are more pushy and nosy? Because they are more courious? OR Because these journalists want to report the Truth and that gets them in the way of one or the other side - usally Pentagon is the Worse enemy then the "Al-Jazeera Network" that represents the other side. If you are not embedded with Pentagon - you will end up dead. And that does not mean that the Insurgents will get you killed - but the Coalition troops also. Especially if you report "the Wrong Way". I wonder why this Reuters Journalists got killed - he probably saw something he shouldn't if you ask me. After all I have the Right to ask myself this, we are on a Conspiracy Forum, aren't we?

Souljah you have a right to your never ending conspiracy theories and that’s fine, just don’t try to push them on us as if they are fact.

[edit on 30-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Souljah
Judging from the statements you wrote, I think that you probably hold the Media responsible for the Defeat in Vietnam too, huh? Just what part of "Loosing the War" should then be reported to the Public at Home? Replasing Loosing with Winning is the Only solution huh? Usually the first casualty in the War is the TRUTH - and that goes for Vietnam and Iraq. And since the Army wants us to see only Their picture of the War (which is all the times Good and Great - after all it's the Army and the Army must portrait their "Job" as Great!"). So, why are there more journalists killed in Iraq then in Vietnam? Because they are more pushy and nosy? Because they are more courious? OR Because these journalists want to report the Truth and that gets them in the way of one or the other side - usally Pentagon is the Worse enemy then the "Al-Jazeera Network" that represents the other side. If you are not embedded with Pentagon - you will end up dead. And that does not mean that the Insurgents will get you killed - but the Coalition troops also. Especially if you report "the Wrong Way". I wonder why this Reuters Journalists got killed - he probably saw something he shouldn't if you ask me. After all I have the Right to ask myself this, we are on a Conspiracy Forum, aren't we?

Can you point out any instance of the insurgents offering to let western journalists accompany them on their missions? Or that they are willing to let outside observers view them in action? If not, then shut your hole. You are just pointing out your subjective view with no proof to back it up.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Can you point out any instance of the insurgents offering to let western journalists accompany them on their missions? Or that they are willing to let outside observers view them in action? If not, then shut your hole. You are just pointing out your subjective view with no proof to back it up.

"Shut Your Hole"?

Thats a clear Insult, and I think that is against the rules of this Board.

This is a Debate Forum that is used for exchange of Opinion, not Exchange of petty insults.

I sugges you read the Thread I have posted a while ago - which I have mentioned numerous times here, but since nobody really reads or listens to anything people say or write, I will write it again - In Bed With Pentagon. Maybe things will get clearer for you. If not, try again. I know - knowing the Truth hurts. Truth is like a Very Strong Spotlight - when you show it to somebody, they instictivly turn away or close their eyes. Which one did you do?

I know - knowing the Truth hurts. Truth is like a Very Strong Spotlight - when you show it to somebody, they instictivly turn away or close their eyes. Which one did you do?

See Soulja here is the problem I have with you, you take opinions and speculation and if it fits your own views you say it’s the truth or fact.

Originally posted by Souljah
Judging from the statements you wrote, I think that you probably hold the Media responsible for the Defeat in Vietnam too, huh?

'Television brought the brutality of war into the comfort of the living room. Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America--not on the battlefields of Vietnam.' --Marshall McLuhan, 1975

I agree.

Originally posted by Souljah
Just what part of "Loosing the War" should then be reported to the Public at Home? Replasing Loosing with Winning is the Only solution huh?

Example: Two very solid and professional journalists of the Vietnam era and writers of the New York Herold Tribune Marguerite Higgins and Joseph Alsop attacked, warned a berated young Saigon ‘correspondents’ and accused them of collectively and intentionally falsely reporting that the war in Vietnam was being lost.

The above happens to agree with the following statement

Originally posted by Souljah
Usually the first casualty in the War is the TRUTH - and that goes for Vietnam and Iraq.

However; there are some very familiar, eerie similarities between Vietnam theater journalism and Iraq theater journalism:

Neil Sheehan, David Halberstam, and Peter Arnett brought unambiguously bad news to their readers early in the American war in Vietnam, even before the commitment of large American formations to the war. Their message had in common a variety of themes:

Political leadership in Hanoi promised sacrifice, unification, and the ejection of the imperialists, while Saigon promised corruption, palace coups, and endless muddle.

North Vietnamese army troops and Viet Cong auxiliaries were skilled and prepared to die for their cause, while the Army of the Republic of Vietnam was inept, unwilling, and unlikely to improve.

Neither the American Embassy nor top US military leadership in Saigon had a clue about the war in the boondocks (because they did not get out of Saigon), while competent US advisers in the boondocks had to bribe reluctant Vietnamese officers to conduct operations with poorly motivated and poorly trained troops.

The enemy's willingness to endure the uncongenial physical and psychological environment of close combat contrasted sharply with a wish--by Saigon and American senior advisers--for a deus ex machina: helicopters, armored personnel carriers, people sniffers, electronic gadgets.

Don't Kill the Messenger: Vietnam War Reporting in Context---Henry G. Gole (pg 150)

As to why the number of journalists killed in Iraq is greater than that of Vietnam? One answer may be the immense wealth which can be obtained by reporting agencies, bureaus and individuals was learned in relative ‘real-time’ Vietnam, specifically about how war ‘truly sells’, how war can be packaged; the power which potentially may be created and wielded; which is now being exploited today by much, much, much greater numbers fighting for the very same cut of the pie.


.

Originally posted by Souljah
Judging from the statements you wrote, I think that you probably hold the Media responsible for the Defeat in Vietnam too, huh? Just what part of "Loosing the War" should then be reported to the Public at Home? Replasing Loosing with Winning is the Only solution huh? Usually the first casualty in the War is the TRUTH - and that goes for Vietnam and Iraq. And since the Army wants us to see only Their picture of the War (which is all the times Good and Great - after all it's the Army and the Army must portrait their "Job" as Great!"). So, why are there more journalists killed in Iraq then in Vietnam? Because they are more pushy and nosy? Because they are more courious? OR Because these journalists want to report the Truth and that gets them in the way of one or the other side.........

I studied the Vietnam War for two semesters in college, Souljah, from two perspectives:
1: That of the military and the politicians
2: That of the general population and the media.

I mentioned what I did, and despite your attempt to twist and blow by what was said, other member have stepped forth and presented evidences to back what I initially asserted. Interesting, no?

You are correct, the first casualty of war is the truth.
Who determines the truth, Souljah?
Who presents the truth to the people/general public, Souljah?
The military can only try to contain or restrict [censor] such stuff being reported, when deemed necessary, but basically the military has little to no control over the truth and how it is presented to the general population via radio or TV or other media means, Souljah; it is your beloved anti-war media that makes the truth the first casualty of war, not the military.....





seekerof

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Seekerof]

remember that during Battle of Mogadishu where the CNN recorded the draggin of the dead American soldier which President Clinton watched and was influenced by the images that persuaded him to pull the troops out. not to mention the American population who watched it as well.

remember that during Battle of Mogadishu where the CNN recorded the draggin of the dead American soldier which President Clinton watched and was influenced by the images that persuaded him to pull the troops out. not to mention the American population who watched it as well.

That’s where the jihad’s got their view of kill a few Americans and they will leave. That view has cost us dearly, yet we have the truth to thank for it.

yep i remember one of Osama's quotes where he considers America's military power a paper tiger. look where it got him at.

Originally posted by Seekerof
You are correct, the first casualty of war is the truth.
Who determines the truth, Souljah?
Who presents the truth to the people/general public, Souljah?

Good Questions.

What Determines the Truth: What is the Truth?

The quality of being true

The truth the real facts about a situation, event or person

A fact or principle which is thought to be true by most peopleđ

So - which of these three definitions of "The Truth" does the Military Not break in its Spreading of Pro-War Propaganda? Do you think that the Military does not "Distort" the numbers in their favour? Do you think when people do not agree with the war in the majority, that the military HAS to "Adopt the Truth" in order to keep the People convinced that the War is "All Good"? Isn't it Pretty much OBVIOUS that in EVERY WAR the Military MUST use Pro-War propaganda in order to make their Job easier and keep their Business Rollin'? And today we are seeing the War FOR Truth - since all sides are battling for the bits and pieces of information which gets through the media. Mostly the Internet is a great communication invention, which allows more information t be send all around without any Military Censorship. That would be really hard to do during the WW2 - or earlier. Facts are that the president of the US Lied in the first place about all main points for War in Iraq. Facts are that US goverment alongside the Pentagon and the CIA are hiding evidence and pushing away any civilian authorities. The goverment, altho a Civilan Body of the State, has gone "Berserk" and is out of control. You know whats the Mortal Enemy of the State? The Truth. That's the Truth.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

Your current goverment was elected in a very suspecious count of votes - a faked count and a faked election. President G.W.Bush actually did not win the Majority of the Votes of the People of the US - but he won the majority of the votes of the People IN CONTROL of the US.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
--Josef Stalin

And who are these People? Corporate/Politicial Friends, like Vice-President DICK Cheney - director of Halliburton, the Corporation that has benefited from this "War on Terrorism" since day one, the 9-11. Karl Rove: the Mighiest Man in the World, that's NOT a Politican. Hmmm. Paul Wolfowitz - "intellectual high priest of the Bush administration's hawks", a "Veteran" from several Presidental Administrations and a Hardcore Zionist, coming from a Polish Family, who in the early 80's said that Iraq is, Radical-Arab stance, Anti-Western attitudes, Dependence on Soviet arms sales, Willingness to foment trouble in other local nations, actually as Mann explains “Iraq was a subject to which Wolfowitz would return over and over again during his career.” Not to mention Donald Rumsfeld, a Veteran from Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and now the Secod Bush Administration! Put these people togather and you get the Rebuilding America: Project for the New American Century, and I quote from Wikipedia: The PNAC is a controversial organization. Some have raised concerns that the project has been proposing military and economic domination of land, space, and cyberspace by the United States, so as to establish American dominance in world affairs (Pax Americana) for the future—hence the term "the New American Century", based on the idea that the 20th century was the American Century. Some analysts argue that the U.S. war against Iraq, commenced in March of 2003 under the code name Operation Iraqi Freedom, is the first major step toward implementing these objective.

"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power--Benito Mussolini "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
--Theodore Roosevelt, April 19, 1906

Add here Mister Rupert Murdoch and his War on Journalism with his Might Media Empire, and then you can ask yourself again, What is the Truth? The Enemy of the State? Enemy of the Corporations?

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- ABRAHAM LINCOLN, November 12, 1864

I wonder what would these WISE Man say about the Situation Today. I woder what mister Roosvelt would say or mister Lincoln, or Mister Kennedy.

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
--John F. Kennedy

Those are Wise words of Wise People. Now let's see what does the current US President have to Say - Two Things:

Quotes "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"
- President Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- President Bush, March 13, 2002

What a Honorable and Honest Man...

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders . . . All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."
-HERMANN GOERING, Nazi Gestapo

Yes it is very Hard to get to the Truth these Days. Its War For Truth. And you know how the saying goes? All is Fair in Love and War. I belive that your current goverment is capable of hiding and concealing alot of truths about war and they have showed that in the past.

I am not under no anti-war propaganda - maybe it is you that are under the influence of the PRO-War propaganda, I think they are doing a much better Job, considering that War is still very popular these days. But I still think that there is much good in America, I am not an America-hater as some people think I am.

There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America.
-William J. Clinton