US Military Launches YouTube Channel

Jenga717 writes "The US military has launched its own channel on YouTube, in efforts to shift the media's focus of Iraq from a negative to a more positive light, and to 'counter the messages of anti-American sites.' From the article: 'The footage is not picked specifically to show the military in a good light ... and is only edited for reasons of time or content too graphic to be shown on YouTube ... And while all the clips currently posted have been shot by the military's combat cameramen, soldiers and marines have been invited to submit their own clips.' The question is, where are they supposed to submit them? Starting 'on or about 14 May 2007', the Department of Defense will block troop access to Myspace, Youtube, MTV, and more sites, due to a 'growing concern for our unclassified DoD Internet, known as the NIPRNET'." More commentary below.

The troops will be unable to access these sites from any computer on the DoD network, yet are still able to access them from their home computers — which they can't use on the DoD network. So why the censorship? The DoD cites security reasons, but the Commander of Global Network Operations (DoD's Joint Task Force)"has noted a significant increase in the use of DoD network resources tied up by individuals visiting certain recreational Internet sites." The PDF released by the DoD reminds troops that this "benefits not only you, your fellow Servicemembers, and Civilian employees, but preserves our vital networks for conducting official DoD business in peace and war." Sounds like quite a sticky situation."

Interesting

They have done other things like this with other media formats - like Soldier Radio in the 50's.

Re:What the Anti-War/Anti-Troops Crowd wants...

What the anti-war and anti-troops (two distinct, sometimes linked groups with separate agendas) don't want is a source of public information that they cannot control or spin for their own purposes.

I'll bite...

Who is anti troops? The only people who are anti troops are the right wing nuts that want the troops to die because of their crazy religious beliefs. We all know that during Vietnam a lot of people WERE anti troops. It was a terrible thing but we moved past it. People understand not to blame the troops anymore. It's a really easy way to attack someone to say they are anti troops but it just isn't ever the case any more. By using this arguing tactic you are showing how morally bankrupt you are and how indefensible your position is.

Re:

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I am one of the troops and believe me there really are people who are still anti-troops. Some people do still freak out when we try to do normal everyday things. I've been called freak, monster, murderer, nazi, and baby kille

they are still responsible

A person is responsible for their actions even if they are just there to earn a living, just following orders, don't really believe in what they're doing, or secretly think that the Decider is a moron. If they torture someone, they're a despicable person,

Re:What the Anti-War/Anti-Troops Crowd wants...

Aside from the obvious example of Fox News, all other TV news outlets have a consistent negative slant on the efforts in Iraq.

Pardon my French, but these "efforts" are a fucked up mismanaged mess that have slanted all by themselves towards the negative - it's what happens when you roll into a country and toss the government that's been in charge for twenty years without any reasonable plan to end the power vacuum and restore order. What the anti-war crowd wants is for the Bush administration not to fuck this situation up, but it appears to be too late for that. The situation is a mess, it's been handled terribly from every point of view except the military one (I will give them credit - they've done an admirable job when they've had missions to accomplish, the only reason they didn't win the war yet is that the politicians forgot to pin down exactly what "win" would mean in this context, they just thought that things would magically heal themselves and it would be obvious). Yes, America has a badass army that can destroy whatever it wants with very little trouble; unfortunately it also has some mentally challenged leaders that forgot they would need to clean up the mess left by removing an active dictator from a country that's forgotten how to rule itself.

Iraq is no longer a war, after all. A war involves two organized armies having at it, as in with actual commanders and weapons; Iraq is just a bunch of idiots blowing crap up on the roads to scare the people trying to calm things down. We're now trying to quell an insurgency, which is exactly what the anti-war set warned would happen, and warned that we didn't have a plan to deal with. If I recall the response from the Bush administration was that the Iraqis would not do this because they would be so happy to be rid of Saddam. If that had been true, we would have stopped arguing this crap two years ago.

So we're screwed? Should we leave? Who knows...it doesn't appear that things are going very well, which I'm pretty sure even Bush admitted himself, and I really do feel for the Iraqis, so maybe it would be worth sticking it out a little longer to see if we can at least leave things slightly less dangerous than they are now. But as you get yourself all heated up about the anti-war leftist commie shitbag bastards with their patchouli douche and smokable underwear, don't forget this key fact - they were right. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. The entire justification for this war was mistaken, even if it was not an outright lie. Iraq was not even on the radar when it came to being a dire threat to the United States. I know the standard right-wing line from here: Saddam was a bad guy, are you saying it would be better if we left him in power? Well, no, I would never argue the world was better with him, yes, he was a real nasty leader. But there are a lot of bad guys out there. If we start wars with each of their countries just because they're bad guys...well, we just can't, for lack of resources, troops, and morale. There are too many places where we don't like the current leadership, and these kinds of missions do not tend to turn out well, either for our country or theirs. We don't have the energy as a nation to keep reliving the same military regime change nightmare over and over. And the fact is, without the WMD "proof" showing that Saddam was a clear, imminent threat, we would never have gone in because people wouldn't have supported it. Unlike politicians (real or armchair), most real people like to be extremely careful about sending their children off to war, so don't underestimate how totally messed up it is that thousands of our people have now died and killed because of a war that probably shouldn't have started at all.

So whatever...the point of this rant is that the Republicans in control of this war are the ones that messed up - it's ridiculous to point a finger at the media and scream "BIAS!" for reporting on it. You can try to spin this a

Isn't that the definition of....

"The US military has launched its own channel on YouTube, in efforts to shift the media's focus of Iraq from a negative to a more positive light, and to 'counter the messages of anti-American sites.'

Isn't that called "propaganda"?

Re:

Only if your a terrorist.

Bob Herbert:

...According to the most recent government figures, 37 million Americans are living below the official poverty threshold, which is $19,971 a year for a family of four. That's one out of every eight Americans, and many of them are children.

More than 90 million Americans, close to a third of the entire population, are struggling to make ends meet on incomes that are less than twice the official poverty line. In my book, they're poor. ...

The number of poor people in America has increased by five million over the past six years, and the gap between rich and poor has grown to historic proportions. The richest one percent of Americans got nearly 20 percent of the nation's income in 2005, while the poorest 20 percent could collectively garner only a measly 3.4 percent. [nytimes.com]

So, what makes America more secure? "Fighting" "terrorists", or using the 150 Billion to support those at home?

What's your point?

Poverty is one of America's most persistent and serious problems. The United States produces more per capita than any other industrialized country, and in recent years has devoted more than $500 billion per year, or about 12 percent of its gross national p

Re:

No. It's called responding to the propaganda that has been done by the media for the past 4 years.

Re:Isn't that the definition of....

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
"Mission Accomplished"
"Let Freedom Reign!"

Who is spouting unfounded propoganda, again?

Re:

"If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing"

Uh . . . I did watch any channel other than Fox during the first part of the war, and I was never put under the impression th

Re:

I'm sorry, I know that everyone here at slashdot disagrees with me, but luckily I have some karma built up, so I can say something like this.

You boot-licking Republican cocksucker, you think you have karma to burn? I piss on Steve Jobs in Apple threads, th

Re:Isn't that the definition of....

I'm sorry, but this is just blatent revisionism. The entire media fell in line with the Bush administration during the lead up to war. (The New York Times most notably.) During the invasion of they unquestioningly followed the official line. Anyone that challenged the official line was either thrown off the air (Phil Donahue most notably) or simply ignored. The media was played (The white house spreads the disinformation that Iraq has aluminium tubes to create a centrafuge, and then quotes that same story as support for what they're saying). Everyone got they're war on. The media thouugh, "I've got connections! I can get a Pulitzer! Explosions equal ratings!" The White House said, "My God! Our 9 year wet dream of invading Iraq has finaly come true!"

Of course the invasion worked. No one ever doubted that. The media never questioned the official line right up until Abu Ghraib. Then they said, "What the hell?" just like anyone reasonable person would. Then they decided to report that for all the talk of "supporting the troops," the solidiers didn't have enough armor. It's just that now the official line has diveged so much from reality, you can't ignore it. Do you honestly believe Tony Snow believes himself when he compares Baghdad to when Washington DC was the "murder capital?"

It's convient to say that no one know what's going on, but that's simply isn't true. There's a civil war on, and the situation in Iraq has steadily gotten worse. Hell, Cheney is over there in May 9th and says, "Violence is down fairly dramatically," And then an explosion rocks the very building. This week the State Department said that everyone going outside the buildings in the green zone needs to wear body armor. This is bad. 30 bodies a day are being found. That's the work of militia death squads. Four years ago, we didn't have those problems. The Iraqi Ministry of Education reports [alertnet.org] that only 30% of school aged children attend class, because they're parents fear for their safety. That's down from 75% last year. There's been a steady exodus [guardian.co.uk] of highly educated professionals from that country. We're talking doctors, teachers, people needed to maintain a cohesive society. McCain visits Baghdad and says, "Look I can walk though a market, and the generals don't need armor." He had 100 guards, armor, and attack helicopters with him, to walk through a market that mostly closed becaused no one wanted their picture taken with the Americans. The Army issued a statment saying that McCain was "mistaken" when he said Prateaus would go about Baghdad without armor. McCain didn't even belive himself.

This situation in Iraq is is bad. It is very very bad.

It's very convienent and comforting to believe that Fox is telling the truth, and everyone else is lying, but that simply isn't true. Even if you ignore the fact that Fox News has gone lockstep with the Republican party since its inception; you have the entire world media on one side, and then you have Fox News. Who you going to believe? Well obviously Fox, since everyone hates America, including a majority of Americans.

Fox News demostably has lousy coverage. Numerious media studies have show that people that primarily get their information from Fox News are grossly misinformed. But I'm sure that's just because reality has a well known liberal bias.

Re:

How the hell can someone justify modding the parent flamebait? If you disagree with what he says, then post your own freaking reply, don't be a coward and simply mod him down. If you don't like how our modding system works, go to digg. There's a reason we

Re:

Maybe no one defined the word propoganda to you when you were younger, but in general, propoganda is used to alter the perception of the public for a specific purpose, while reporting is stating what is going on in the world in as objective a manner as pos

Re:

The military just does what it's told.

Like put up Youtube sites depiciting military actions in a positive light?

Re:Isn't that the definition of....

Propaganda: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

I have tagged the article as such.

Re:

All but a very few posts on Slashdot fit that definition.

That depends on how you define it...

Propaganda is a funny word with a million connotations. Sure, this could be called propaganda, as could much of the reporting coming out of Iraq from various outlets.

Wars are hard to cover, and the mish-mash conflict/counter-insurgency that is Iraq is no exception. The problems are similar to those of any other big, contentious political conflict, such as elections, only now people are shooting each other, a reporter's access is often limited to a certain area and frequently only to one side, and the emotions run about 100 times stronger.

I like the use of the word "propaganda" in Spanish better, as a word used to describe any advertisement as well as its perhaps less savory meanings. Propaganda tries to influence people, yes, but it can play a role in informing people. A car ad, for example, informs me about say the gas mileage of a car and attempts to convince me to buy the car at the same time. The information regarding gas mileage is accurate and factual, but it is not simply handed to me straight - it's done in a persuasive manner.

News "reporting" has become more of the same, as the 24 hour networks seem to have a system where supposedly unbiased reports - and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're all biased - are viewed, and then commentary from a pundit whose main qualification is having an opinion is solicited, and this commentary runs just as long if not longer than the report itself. I for one am tired of hearing Jack Cafferty, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs (I particularly dislike Dobbs, but that's another post), Hannity and Colmes blabber on.

The problems are not simply ones of bias - it's a lack of depth, and this problem exists on the supply and demand sides as well. American news outlets have consistently cut back on international news for well over a decade now, and other than a few select cities worldwide most simply don't have correspondents overseas. The results of this problem could easily be seen in the recent Israeli-Lebanese (well, whoever exactly the other party was - it was pretty nebulous) conflict last summer. The major wire services, news outlets, etc. simply didn't have many reporters in Beirut to keep track of things. They flew out their usual talking heads and depended on the information of local stringers, who often have their own agendas and biases built in. A textbook example of this would be the Adnan Hajj photography controversy [wikipedia.org] - a local stringer who doctored photos and used misleading captions to get his point across.

Keeping reporters overseas is expensive, and combat embeds - the safest method of transportation for journalists in Iraq - isn't exactly cheap, either. If you notice, television coverage in the U.S. is often interspersed with clips of combat and other footage from the Iraq conflict recorded during the invasion over four years ago. Or from the latest 12 - 24 hour embed a reporter did with a unit, which is hardly sufficient time to get to know things. Troops also hate these short embeds, something I say from personal experience not as a soldier but from long discussions I had with a French friend talking about his military experience in Afghanistan as a unit commander. Reporters often kept his group from getting the job done. After putting up with a few embeds, he told all those who followed that if fighting occurred they were on their own - and he sure hoped they brought weapons and ammunition.

But there's another reason for this lack of depth of coverage: Americans don't really care about what's going on in the world. Fewer than 20% of Americans have a passport at any given time, and I'd wager that 4 years into a massive troop deployment in Iraq more than 50% of the public still couldn't find the place on a map or identify its capital city. Americans tend to have strong moral feelings about war in general, good and bad, but few and far between are those actually informed. This apathy combined with the extremely

Typical work network rules

I understand that being deployed military is quite a bit different from working in an office, but there are many, many sites I can't get to from my desk at work that I can get to at home. If I try to go to somewhere the network gods say I shouldn't, I get

blatant censorship

the whole bit about footage too graphic for you tube... well by its very nature that is what puts the military in a bad light. sounds like propaganda to me.

on another note... I'm in the air force, and for quite some time the base network has blocked access to the following (though some of the blocks have since been rescinded):
1.e-bay
2.something awful
3.any flash content
4.any URL with the word "game" in it
5.any URL with the word "forum" in it
6.countless other harmless sites that don't come to mind right now

dont watch it then

just because the military puts up its own youtube channel doesnt mean you HAVE TO watch it. the right to speak/broadcast doesnt mean anyone will listen. keep that in mind

I'm not watching it ...

... until it has sleeping cats falling off TV's, narcoleptic dogs and drunk people doing the Macarena.

Re:

Is it ok if the videos are taken at gunpoint?

You mean rather than renting them?

Is that classified?

Here is a nice video from the good american army educating the Iraqi population?
Is that the kind of classified information we should not allow the marines to post?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c4_1176720508&p=1 [liveleak.com]

John Vai

Re:

Apparently, those are Afghan children, not Iraqi children.

Editorial decisions

The footage is not picked specifically to show the military in a good light ...

Oh really? So what is the criteria then? number of shots on target? cost to the taxpayer of munitions expended? rounds discharged per second?

Entertainment value?

I mean, c'mon, that's just such a silly statement. What other reason can the military ever have for releasing any media at all beyond terse official communiques?

Re:Editorial decisions

What other reason can the military ever have for releasing any media at all beyond terse official communiques?

I would think the purpose is obvious.

To recruit.

I've seen TV ads where an FPS turns into the US Army video - albeit a little "Saving Private Ryan" hue to it all - and then a "sarge" shouting about the real challenge.

The people who watch videos on youtube are the target recruiting age demographic.

Re:

If the purpose is to recruit, how can they not pick clips which show the military in a good light?

Are there blooper reels?

You know things like:

- accidently shooting your friend in the back

- blowing up children by mistake

- shooting at reporters as they wave the white flag of war... ect

I'm gonna post these i think

well better post some true history on what the usa and uk are up to then so i'd better link these vids on mp3's to the site!

Rory Bremner gives a hilarious and historical look at the history of conflict in Iraq.

1 Between Iraq and a Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by43joQLYj8 [youtube.com]
2 Beyond Iraq and a Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JCLwhwTmM [youtube.com]
3 Beneath Iraq And A Hard Place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipa8DuKyN6I [youtube.com]

Robert Newmans History of Oil:

1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Ecd6361Ls [youtube.com]
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZefONsT1E8 [youtube.com]
3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ0RX3vz-Og [youtube.com]
4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLxxybJWVRI [youtube.com]
5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsknJvrfSYA [youtube.com]


WE ARE NOT IN IRAQ FOR OIL !!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWiLshk6fSU [youtube.com]


an interesting lecture by Michael Ruppert: part on starts after brief music:The Truth and Lies of 9-11 A lecture by former LAPD narcotics officer, Michael Ruppert, held at Portland State University in November 2001. He explains how September 11th is connected with oil, gas, heroin, money laundering and the US stockmarket

1: http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug95-hour1mix. mp3 [dvlabs.com]

2: http://http.dvlabs.com/radio4all/ug/ug95-hour2mix. mp3 [dvlabs.com]

The war at home.

No one is even pretending that American mass media is for the dissemination of unbiased facts anymore. Read the article, read the slashdot summary... all of it contains biased wording.

I accept that this may be modded offtopic. It just pisses me off that everyone is pushing their agendas via a medium that has such potential to empower.

The media climate has reached a point where even if I were to put together a youtube series depicting the life of veterans after returning to the states, chronicling both their triumphs and their tragedies, the series would be politicized by all the f*cking pundits and bloggers and politicians to where very few people could view it without preconcieved notions about my own personal opinions about war, politics, and the state of our democracy.

Anyone else out there feel like you can't even trust what you see with your own eyes anymore? Do any other Americans out there feel like it is damn near impossible to speak directly to your fellow countrymen without having your words filtered through the opinions of the talking heads that fill their t.v. screens and babble out of their radios?

Regards.

Re:

It just pisses me off that everyone is pushing their agendas via a medium that has such potential to empower.

You're pissed off that people are using a medium with potential to empower, to empower themselves? Hmmmm. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Department of Government Duplication Department

Is there really some reason they needed this when they already have DVIDS [dvidshub.net]?

Where is the channel? Was it removed?

According to the article, the channel is named "Multi-National Force-Iraq", but a search on YouTube does not turn up anything.
The article states it is the 16th most subscribed channel on YouTube, but I don't see it anywhere in the top subscribed channel list.

Did the military or YouTube remove it?

Re:The truth

The only way to get positive feedback is to not exist, at least if you're in authority.
 
How many bad cops are there, really? But there are plenty of people that paint them all with the same brush. I'm not saying that the military is filled with righteous humanitarians who just get stuck in a rough spot every now and again. But the fact is that bad news sells and good news doesn't. When given the choice between bad news and good news, the bad news will win every time. That having been said, I don't think the DoD should be in the business of making sure their side of the story gets told. I know people over there now, and have few friends that have made it back. It's still a war, they're still in the military, and the story isn't going to be all rosy. Or all bad.

Re:The truth

To paraphrase Douglas Adams: 'Anyone who wants a position of authority should under no circumstances be allowed to do the job'

Re:Why the propaganda?

The military didn't come up with this hairbrained Iraq scheme you moron. The government did, and so far they have done a great job telling idiots like you what to think.

The military is a spiked club, they dont think they just do. And what they do is the will of the Executive and Legislative branches. If you have such a issue with the militarizes actions why dont you get off your fat ass bitching on a computer and let your state representative and the moron you voted into office KNOW that. And if they dont listen then you need to get every single person you know to vote them out.

The only people who we have to blame for this whole war disaster is the entire population of the United States. The republican supporters for being idiotic sheep, and the loony ass democratic supporters for doing a shit job and showing the idiotic sheep exactly what they are and coming up with a solution instead of just saying "the republicans screwed up." If the democrats had actually HAD a plan to get the troops out last election, there wouldnt have been a re-election of Bush.

Points of view

Even if the military is spreading propaganda, it is always good to listen to all sides in a debate. Even if you disagree with someone its a great idea to learn why they hold a certain belief. Once you understand someone's point of view, it is easier to per

Re:

If you think the generals aren't up to their ears in this fiasco, you're living in a fantasy land.

Re:See All of you!

The abuses are isolated. The enlisted men that are honestly "good guys" trying to to good in a bad situation are many and plenty. The crap reasons that we're over there is another story but the everyday soldiers bearing the brunt of it take it really well and do a lot of good. I agree its a fubar situation but the average enlisted guy dealing with it over there is doing a damn fine job.

Re:See All of you!

Thank you for invoking Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org].

Re:See All of you!

I would say it is safe to say that the number of soldiers handing out candy and flowers vastly outnumbers the numbers that are stacking up naked Iraqi's in pyramids.

Personally, I am sympathetic to the idea. Not every soldier that goes to Iraq raps a few women and then guns down some kids. Hell, the entire 'surge' is based around the idea of sacrificing more Americans to save more Iraqis. Right now US soldiers are setting practically undefended in outposts all over Baghdad instead of turtling up in their bases and air striking anything that looks threatening. The point of the shift in strategy was basically to put Americans more in the line of fire and restrain the force they can use so that fewer civilians die. They are focusing on civilian protection instead of force protection.

I don't think people fully realize what this means. We KNOW that more soldiers will die as we expose them in an effort to defend the civilian population. I am sympathetic that the army is a tad irritated at being called baby killers while everyone ignores the fact that they are paying in American blood to reduce civilian casualties inflicted by both collateral damage and intentional terrorist/sectarian attacks.

Now, it can certainly be argued that this is a complete waste of American lives. It can certainly be argued that we would be better off to saying we are sorry for kicking over their iron fisted dictator that kept them you line, write out a big check, and tell them good luck on not committing genocide against each other. That said, give the army some credit. They are being told to pay in their own blood to achieve some political objective. If they want to show that they do more then gun down civilians, let them. God forbid anything other then tragedy be reported from Iraq.

It's the IMPACT, not the number.

I would say it is safe to say that the number of soldiers handing out candy and flowers vastly outnumbers the numbers that are stacking up naked Iraqi's in pyramids.

Probably. But that doesn't matter.

The IMPACT of a single innocent child being killed by our troops outweighs a literal TON of candy and flowers being handed out.

The point of the shift in strategy was basically to put Americans more in the line of fire and restrain the force they can use so that fewer civilians die. They are focusing on civilian protection instead of force protection.

Meanwhile, comments from REAL military leaders ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/12/ap/natio nal/main2795082.shtml [cbsnews.com]
So dead women and children don't matter to the officers in charge.

We KNOW that more soldiers will die as we expose them in an effort to defend the civilian population. I am sympathetic that the army is a tad irritated at being called baby killers while everyone ignores the fact that they are paying in American blood to reduce civilian casualties inflicted by both collateral damage and intentional terrorist/sectarian attacks.

Again, read the above link.

The problem is that this is now an occupation. We are occupying Iraq. But we are still treating it as an invasion.

We need to switch our strategy to law enforcement now. No more bombings. No more tanks.

The war is over. We won. But we're still going to lose Iraq because we cannot understand that police work is not the same as calling in another bombing run.

That said, give the army some credit. They are being told to pay in their own blood to achieve some political objective.

And the fault of that is our government AND the military leadership.

Our troops WILL crack under pressure. We KNOW that. Yet we keep putting more pressure on them because we still believe that Iraq is a "war" when we are really an occupation force.

The military leadership refuses to tell the politicians "NO".

God forbid anything other then tragedy be reported from Iraq.

Iraq IS a tragedy.

We paint schools and then shoot the parents of the children because they're traveling too fast when they approach our road block. How is that anything other than tragic?

Our troops are PEOPLE, not machines. They cannot take the continued stress.

And now we're extending their tours.

Re:See All of you!

You make me sick. The number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines over there doing good things for the locals VASTLY outnumbers your disgusting stereotypes. Yes that shit happened and more than a few service members we upset by it too, because ignorant asshats like you start running around proclaiming that everyone is doing it. How much charity have you done for the people over there? I have known airmen that have setup donation programs for the kids out there for blankets, food, clothing. These men and women giving up their precious off duty time (which you have terribly little of out there) and their own money to reach out to the local community and help. I bet you don't know anything about the parts of northern Iraq where the locals have announced that for every American killed or kidnapped in their community they will hunt down and kill 100 of these little militia members running around causing problems.

I'm sorry for the 3 people you know that came back. I know a few that didn't come back, and I know hundreds who have been over there for months to years. I suppose the fact that I was there makes me a baby killing, civilian raping, prisoner torturing asshole too huh? Well I'm certainly glad that the people like you are far away from the field and with no weapons, the 15-20 iraqi locals riding on a flatbed doing random work on the base (trash, sandbags, etc) all started waving and smiling at our group on my first day there. I would much rather be surrounded by the people that see that the military is doing its best to try and help (far from the politicians goals).

Go watch your local news and see how many 'good deeds' type stuff gets reported, and then see how many murderous rampages and serial killings get reported, and how much coverage each gets. Then ask "gee, I wonder what more people watch and where they get their ratings". Then think for just one moment "I wonder if the news channels are doing the same thing with the war that they do with our local news, showing the most disturbing and horrific things for ratings and glossing over the mundane and good because noone pays attention to it".

Re:War Crimes Clips

Here, let me help you out a little. I happen to know the guys from the apache farmer video. Think about it for a second, it's night....late at night. How many people do you know work on farm equipment in the dark late at night? Also when we went out there after all of this you know what we found? Oh, wow missiles and rockets, the only reason that they didn't shoot at the Apache is that they didn't know where it was. When you can't tell the enemy from the guys that aren't the enemy bad shit happens. No, it's not right but it happens, just because you didn't hear about it in other wars doesn't mean that it doesn't happen either. Oh, and blowing up a Mosque we only do when there is good reason (think bombs) to do so. You're going to believe what you're going to believe no matter what someone tells you, but everything you see on Youtube and the TV isn't necessarily what the person showing it to you tells you it is. Also before you go waving around the Geneva convention about shit you may want to read it, I remember reading somewhere that if the enemy doesn't follow it you don't have to either and I do remember some videos of people having their head sawed off among other things. I feel for the Iraqis, as did most of my compatriots in Iraq but it's not our fault if shit happens... we cannot I repeat cannot tell the difference between the enemy from the innocents so some innocents do get caught in the crossfire. How about you blame the suits who put us there in the first place? I sure as hell didn't want to go and most people in the military are not the bloodthirsty sick fucks you seem to think we are. That's why I got out of the military, I saw way too much and couldn't stand the thought of my little girl never knowing who her daddy was. Nor could I stand to see another little girl dead in the street because some asshole decided to start shooting and grabber her to use as a shield. That made me equal parts angry and sick, I actually vomited when it was over and sometimes I have nightmare because of it. Oh, but you don't see those videos do you?! You also don't see the videos of the guys walking into a crowd of schoolchildren and then setting off a bomb hoping to get one or two soldiers do you? No, because you want to fervently to believe that the soldiers in the service are bloodthirsty animals to soothe your conscience for some strange reason. So you sir can fuck off and maybe try to get your facts straight.

Re:War Crimes Clips

"Or the Apache killing these unarmed men in a farmers field, working on a tractor."

I notice you selected the SNIPPED version. Here's a link to the full version.
Watch old boy play "hide the SA7", using his buddies and their equipment as cover. Note the whole interaction between the people, including the initial conversation by the car and the rapid ditching of the weapon in the field. I contemptuously defy anyone to link these behaviors to tractor repair. I work on ag equipment and tractors, and there is nothing among my parts stash or tool collection that is the size and shape of a handheld SAM tube. That is no grain drill section (note the dangling end cap when he runs), PTO shaft, or similar.

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001763.html [murdoconline.net]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wdJo-eoLxI [youtube.com] (search 'helicopter kills" and compare versions)

"Or executing a wounded Iraqi"

How would/do/have YOU act/acted when you suspect(ed) an enemy fighter may be "playing possum"?

h