posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:39 AM
I understand where Reuters is coming from on this, but just in case they've forgotten, let me point out that we didn't invade Iraq because it makes
for a good news story. I'm not exactly sure why we did invade Iraq (I could name a few good reasons, and a few not so good reasons, but I don't know
which of them is -the- reason) but whatever the reason was, it has come to entail quite a bit of shooting and being shot at. This activity takes
precedence over providing a pleasant work environment for the carnage-mongers... um i mean reporters.
I'm not saying that the US Military has a right to twist news coverage for the purpose of deceiving the public, and if that is being charged then
it's another matter (and one which I can't possibly know the truth of). What I am saying is that for the average grunt, the list of priorities
probably looks something like this:
1. Don't get shot or otherwise killed.
2. Kill lots of bad guys.
3. Keep your weapon clean and serviceable.
4. Get to chow on time, and keep your canteens full.
5. Find a way to keep sand out of your most sensitive orifices.
6. Avoid arresting, detaining, or interfering with, or mistakenly shooting the carnage mongers.
I know these college educated weenies are used to looking down their nose at the blue collar types from whom they usually recieve undivided attention
as they churn out graphic media content, propaganda, and partisan spin- but when the blue collar guy is a grunt in a combat zone, the shock-jocks of
the newsmedia and their all-important pulitzer ambitions take a back seat to the items I listed as numbers 1-5, and rightfully so.
My advice: work on you communications skills, do things by the numbers, always inform the jarheads before pointing ANYTHING at them- even if you think
they'll know it's a camera.
If you do that and you still get shot at- well then maybe the US Military is doing it on purpose, and that's an even bigger story than the war
itself- so really it's a win-win situation.