# A friendly poll



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

A poll, if you will: 

How many members of this forum have family members fighting in the Middle East today?

I should add data for myself: Zero family members involved directly in the conflict.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Family = 0


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Do cousins count and is Afghanistan close enough for you? If so, one.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

no family, a bunch of friiends.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

No family members in the armed forces...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

My son-in law just returned from 15 months in Iraq in May.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

One - but not in the field, in an R&D lab.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

*One, until recently*

My wife's first cousin (the family lives about a 10 minute drive from us) in the National Guard was in Iraq and Kuwait until a couple of months ago, when they were rotated back home.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

At the current time, my small family has no one of military age.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

One of my motivations for asking the question is to learn whether any of these family members have, or can, offer their perspective on how things are going on the ground, from their experiences. 

It's easy for most of us, myself included, to wax philosophic about world events from the comfort of the Ask Andy easy chair, but it's another thing to have an M-16 (or whatever the kids are using today) tucked into your kit and then sent out into what must seem like a hot nightmare. 

Are any of these family members pissed off about the lack of WMDs found in Iraq? Or are they on board for the haul because the president pointed and sent them on their way (i.e. just doing their job, wherever the CIC says to go)?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> One of my motivations for asking the question is to learn whether any of these family members have, or can, offer their perspective on how things are going on the ground, from their experiences.
> 
> Are any of these family members pissed off about the lack of WMDs found in Iraq? Or are they on board for the haul because the president pointed and sent them on their way (i.e. just doing their job, wherever the CIC says to go)?


This would seem to be seeking an agenda, not getting "perspective" from those on the ground.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

> Are any of these family members pissed off about the lack of WMDs found in Iraq? Or are they on board for the haul because the president pointed and sent them on their way (i.e. just doing their job, wherever the CIC says to go)?


Are you under the impression that WMD's have not been found in Iraq?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

From that Right wing propoganda rag known as the Washington Post....
NOTE: Even while making a point that much has not been found they are reporting that there are STILL attempts to make WMDs.

Also... do a little digging and you will find that a number of chemical weapon stores have been found that date back well before the war began.

*Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered*

*Post-Invasion Cache Could Have Been For Use in Weapons*

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A18

BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.....


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

No family members. But we spent a long evening recently with a friend, a young Captain, who's stationed in Baghdad. His wife's stationed in Afghanastan. He was careful to refrain from politics, in general conversation. But made it clear through his responses and subtle facial expressions what he thought of the situation. 

Primarily, he indicated that they were accomplishing a LOT more good than was being reported, especially as it pertains to rebuilding and building (where there never was any) infrastructure, schools, etc. He says they're always amazed in the "mess" to see (on TV) how different the reporting is from reality. He said some of the young guys would be offended, at least mildly getting their feelings hurt (for lack of better word) because the news implied that they were failing, when in reality they were accomplishing much. The older guys have grown to expect and ignore it. They understand the old adage that "dog bites man" is not news. In other words, the exceptions are going to get coverage, rather than the rule.

The other pointed question I asked him was in regards to body armour. This one actually elicited an eye-roll. He said that while there does exist some stronger stuff out there, that what they are using as "standard issue" is more than sufficient and effective. And that many of those who are complaining that they "had to buy their own" aren't even in combat roles to begin with.

We also discussed how the general public's historical perspective is so warped now that they expect things to happen and fast and clean as it does on a video game, then it's Game Over. Reality, of course, is very different. I'll try to think of other things we talked about. But those were the ones that popped into my head when you asked the first question.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

BertieW said:


> One of my motivations for asking the question is to learn whether any of these family members have, or can, offer their perspective on how things are going on the ground, from their experiences.
> 
> It's easy for most of us, myself included, to wax philosophic about world events from the comfort of the Ask Andy easy chair, but it's another thing to have an M-16 (or whatever the kids are using today) tucked into your kit and then sent out into what must seem like a hot nightmare.
> 
> Are any of these family members pissed off about the lack of WMDs found in Iraq? Or are they on board for the haul because the president pointed and sent them on their way (i.e. just doing their job, wherever the CIC says to go)?


thats another question - I spent 3 years on the ground in a light infantry unit during a conflict, and then several years in reserves, as well as some time involved in supporting some conflicts in a civillian contractor capacity.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> From that Right wing propoganda rag known as the Washington Post....
> NOTE: Even while making a point that much has not been found they are reporting that there are STILL attempts to make WMDs.
> 
> Also... do a little digging and you will find that a number of chemical weapon stores have been found that date back well before the war began.
> ...


Did you read to the fourth paragraph, Chuck?

"Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> One of my motivations for asking the question is to learn whether any of these family members have, or can, offer their perspective on how things are going on the ground, from their experiences.
> 
> Are any of these family members pissed off about the lack of WMDs found in Iraq? Or are they on board for the haul because the president pointed and sent them on their way (i.e. just doing their job, wherever the CIC says to go)?


So can I just ask you, based on your 15 years of professional journalism, is this how one gains unbiased perspective? These two questions certainly scream to me, "I AM UNBIASED!" and do seem not agenda driven in the least. Yup, my feeling from the other thread just got 100x stronger.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> So can I just ask you, based on your 15 years of professional journalism, is this how one gains unbiased perspective? These two questions certainly scream to me, "I AM UNBIASED!" and do seem not agenda driven in the least. Yup, my feeling from the other thread just got 100x stronger.


What would be an unbiased question and how effective would it be? The purpose of a question is provoke a response, not a specific response but one more detailed than "yes" or "no" or a cliched response. Certainly that is the purpose in any interview -- journalism, job interview, police interrogation -- to probe beyond the superficial, get a more thoughtful or emotional response. People aren't stupid, and if you ask a loaded question they are not necessarily going to agree with it, they are going to disagree, and disagree quite strongly, if that's how they feel. What would be biased is printing only one type of response and leaving out the other side. A good question ought to provoke some passion one way or the other, it shouldn't be bland because you'll never get more than the minimum that way.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

There should be at least one question added to Bertie's enquiry to allow for the possibility of a positive response (in addition to the negative and neutral responses). For instance, "Do they believe in the mission and feel strongly that they are helping the Iraqi people?"


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

crs said:


> What would be an unbiased question and how effective would it be? ...


In the court of law, don't they call that a leading question? Asking a question in a certain way to get the desired response? Why not just ask an open-ended question if you want to get a true response. That IS what you're trying to report, isn't it?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> People aren't stupid, and if you ask a loaded question they are not necessarily going to agree with it, they are going to disagree, and disagree quite strongly, if that's how they feel.


IMO, answering a load question is stupid. This is all so basic, it pains me to bring it up to a professional.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

"Are you pissed off about the lack of WMDs?"

Guess I am just a simple civilian and I am going to have to leave that fancy book learning reporting stuff to you pros.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Jill said:


> There should be at least one question added to Bertie's enquiry to allow for the possibility of a positive response (in addition to the negative and neutral responses). For instance, "Do they believe in the mission and feel strongly that they are helping the Iraqi people?"


You wouldn't want something that can be answered yes or no like that. You'd want, "How has your work helped the Iraqui people?" Note that may also seem like a biased question -- you are seemingly making an assumption that his work has, indeed, helped the Iraqi people. But it will provoke a more detailed response than "damn right it has!" or "not a freaking thing, pal!"

Usually, a good journalist will research the subject so he can ask informed, relevant questions. But hopefully the line of questions after the first few will be unscripted. Ideally, you ask a couple provocative yet unthreatening questions and the interview takes care of itself -- the person has something to say and says it, and says it in a way uniquely his. His answers provoke questions you hadn't thought of. If the interview goes according to script, you know it's been a dog of an interview.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Jill said:


> In the court of law, don't they call that a leading question? Asking a question in a certain way to get the desired response? Why not just ask an open-ended question if you want to get a true response. That IS what you're trying to report, isn't it?


But it is not a court of law. No one is going to object if the person says "that's a sucky question and I'm not going to answer it" or refuses to give a yes-or-no to a complex question. The interview subject has as much power as the interviewer, unlike in court.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> You wouldn't want something that can be answered yes or no like that. You'd want, "How has your work helped the Iraqui people?" Note that may also seem like a biased question -- you are seemingly making an assumption that his work has, indeed, helped the Iraqi people. But it will provoke a more detailed response than "damn right it has!" or "not a freaking thing, pal!"


Again, I am just a simply civilian with no book larning ree-port-er type eddy-cation, but could one not ask:

"Has your work helped the Iraqi people, and if so how?"

This assumes nothing yet goes beyond the superficial.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Exactly, crs.

Take a breath, Wayfarer. Geez. I'm not saying I don't have my own ideas about this war. It should be clear by now I don't think it was a good choice. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing what others have to say about it, especially those in the best position to say something insightful rather than hyperbolic and knee-jerk, regardless of political persuasion.

And, last I checked, I'm not writing a news story on this forum, so whatever remarks I may include here are personal, not professional. No need for you to impugn my journalistic integrity and ability to file a story without thrusting my personal agenda onto the front page. Not that I'm too broken up over the remarks of an anonymous cyber pal, but still.



crs said:


> What would be an unbiased question and how effective would it be? The purpose of a question is provoke a response, not a specific response but one more detailed than "yes" or "no" or a cliched response. Certainly that is the purpose in any interview -- journalism, job interview, police interrogation -- to probe beyond the superficial, get a more thoughtful or emotional response. People aren't stupid, and if you ask a loaded question they are not necessarily going to agree with it, they are going to disagree, and disagree quite strongly, if that's how they feel. What would be biased is printing only one type of response and leaving out the other side. A good question ought to provoke some passion one way or the other, it shouldn't be bland because you'll never get more than the minimum that way.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Come on. This tired anti-intellectual nonsense is idiotic.

I spend a hell of a lot more time in my professional life formulating questions than I do for an online chatroom, engaging as this chat may occasionally be.

Consider the context, simply civilian, and don't be disingenuous.



Wayfarer said:


> Again, I am just a simply civilian with no book larning ree-port-er type eddy-cation, but could one not ask:
> 
> "Has your work helped the Iraqi people, and if so how?"
> 
> This assumes nothing yet goes beyond the superficial.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Exactly, crs.
> 
> Take a breath, Wayfarer. Geez. I'm not saying I don't have my own ideas about this war. It should be clear by now I don't think it was a good choice. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing what others have to say about it, especially those in the best position to say something insightful rather than hyperbolic and knee-jerk, regardless of political persuasion.
> 
> And, last I checked, I'm not writing a news story on this forum, so whatever remarks I may include here are personal, not professional. No need for you to impugn my journalistic integrity and ability to file a story without thrusting my personal agenda onto the front page. Not that I'm too broken up over the remarks of an anonymous cyber pal, but still.


I am against the war and have never been shy to say so. However, if I wanted an answer lacking hyperbole and that was not knee jerk, I sure would not phrase my question, "Are you pissed off...." That is just me though, I claim no professional training in this area.

I smell an _ad hoc_ rescue here as everything set up so far was specifically designed for a hyperbolic answer and then crs explained that is the purpose of the question, to get "an emotional response." You guys just can not have it both ways.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

crs said:


> You wouldn't want something that can be answered yes or no like that. ...


 You mean like, "Are any of these family members pissed off about the lack of WMDs found in Iraq?"


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I'll look forward to any responses from military, if they care to offer. I'm less interested in wrangling with civilians over semantics.

Thanks for the comments above that touch on the substance of my original point, imperfectly phrased as it may have been this morning.

Cheers.



Wayfarer said:


> I am against the war and have never been shy to say so. However, if I wanted an answer lacking hyperbole and that was not knee jerk, I sure would not phrase my question, "Are you pissed off...." That is just me though, I claim no professional training in this area.
> 
> I smell an _ad hoc_ rescue here as everything set up so far was specifically designed for a hyperbolic answer and then crs explained that is the purpose of the question, to get "an emotional response." You guys just can not have it both ways.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Again, I am just a simply civilian with no book larning ree-port-er type eddy-cation, but could one not ask:
> 
> "Has your work helped the Iraqi people, and if so how?"
> 
> This assumes nothing yet goes beyond the superficial.


Sure, that'd work to a degree, but would probably evoke a less passionate response. My way, it relaxes the one side and gets him to open up and pisses off the other side and gets him to open up.

Again, I think bias in a question is irrelevant. What's important is that both voices are heard in the story.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> One of my motivations for asking the question is to learn whether any of these family members have, or can, offer their perspective on how things are going on the ground, from their experiences.
> 
> It's easy for most of us, myself included, to wax philosophic about world events from the comfort of the Ask Andy easy chair, but it's another thing to have an M-16 (or whatever the kids are using today) tucked into your kit and then sent out into what must seem like a hot nightmare.
> 
> Are any of these family members pissed off about the lack of WMDs found in Iraq? Or are they on board for the haul because the president pointed and sent them on their way (i.e. just doing their job, wherever the CIC says to go)?


Forgive me but your tone is a bit condescending. I don't have any family members participating in the war however I was in the Marine Corps for four years and take issue with this notion that these "kids" have just been thrown into a "hot nightmare." Yes its hot and yes I'm sure it is a nightmare however story upon story told in the media from the mouths of soldiers, sailor, airmen and marines returning from Iraq is that they believed in the mission (a few detractors aside). Even the ones that were wounded are looking for ways to get back to their units. There is a bond that develops between fighting men that cannot be explained and can only be experienced. However at the risk of sounding a movie line if I had to sum it up it would be duty and honor.

I understand the adolescent impulse to reduce the perception of the experience to what one only sees in the movies (Platoon, etc.) however these "kids" feel differently. I know because I was one of them once. As for their family members I assure you that they are just as supportive. For every Cindy Sheehan there are hundreds of others quietly, courageously and in a most dignified manner awaiting the return of their family members.

The world is an ugly place and sometimes we are called upon to perform a most unnatural act. Soldiers as well as Presidents take their duties seriously and understand the consequences so your notion that the President of the United States cavalierly points the way as he is having his morning cup of coffee is absurd. If you really want to support the troops and do right by them you will disabuse yourself of these notion, or at least not publicly pronounce them. I assure you the sentiments you express do much more harm than the desert sun.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

BertieW,

Your original question for the troops seemed to boil down to, "Are you pissed that you were lied to, or do you just blindly approve of whatever you're told to do/think?" I know that is how I would interpret the question if asked of me. I served in the USAF for five years, but never in a combat zone. I know three men who were directly involved in Iraq (one was my nephew) and I would not dream of asking them the question as posed by you. None has ever stated to me any ill feelings abou the conduct of the war or misgivings about its origin.

A third possibility might be that they are very aware of what is and isn't happening in Iraq and feel that their mission is justified...

That question would lead most (but not crs) to think that you ARE looking for specific answers to fit your agenda (or assumptions), even if you are not and are trying conceal your own feeling about the war.

I think that is the main objection of a couple of posters, if I may be so bold as to presume to speak for them. I know that is the first reaction i had, before I read anyone's response.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

See, now /this/ is the kind of response I was hoping for. This is the sort of reaction that would lead to inclusion in an article were I to be writing one on the subject...despite my personal feelings about the war. I do have the ability to respect the views/experiences of others, including those closer to the blood than myself.

Thank you for your comments, pt4.



pt4u67 said:


> Forgive me but your tone is a bit condescending. I don't have any family members participating in the war however I was in the Marine Corps for four years and take issue with this notion that these "kids" have just been thrown into a "hot nightmare." Yes its hot and yes I'm sure it is a nightmare however story upon story told in the media from the mouths of soldiers, sailor, airmen and marines returning from Iraq is that they believed in the mission (a few detractors aside). Even the ones that were wounded are looking for ways to get back to their units. There is a bond that develops between fighting men that cannot be explained and can only be experienced. However at the risk of sounding a movie line if I had to sum it up it would be duty and honor.
> 
> I understand the adolescent impulse to reduce the perception of the experience to what one only sees in the movies (Platoon, etc.) however these "kids" feel differently. I know because I was one of them once. As for their family members I assure you that they are just as supportive. For every Cindy Sheehan there are hundreds of others quietly, courageously and in a most dignified manner awaiting the return of their family members.
> 
> The world is an ugly place and sometimes we are called upon to perform a most unnatural act. Soldiers as well as Presidents take their duties seriously and understand the consequences so your notion that the President of the United States cavalierly points the way as he is having his morning cup of coffee is absurd. If you really want to support the troops and do right by them you will disabuse yourself of these notion, or at least not publicly pronounce them. I assure you the sentiments you express do much more harm than the desert sun.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Thanks, Relayer.



Relayer said:


> BertieW,
> 
> Your original question for the troops seemed to boil down to, "Are you pissed that you were lied to, or do you just blindly approve of whatever you're told to do/think?" I know that is how I would interpret the question if asked of me. I served in the USAF for five years, but never in a combat zone. I know three men who were directly involved in Iraq (one was my nephew) and I would not dream of asking them the question as posed by you. None has ever stated to me any ill feelings abou the conduct of the war or misgivings about its origin.
> 
> ...


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

*Ahh, this one I can answer*



BertieW said:


> One of my motivations for asking the question is to learn whether any of these family members have, or can, offer their perspective on how things are going on the ground, from their experiences.
> 
> It's easy for most of us, myself included, to wax philosophic about world events from the comfort of the Ask Andy easy chair, but it's another thing to have an M-16 (or whatever the kids are using today) tucked into your kit and then sent out into what must seem like a hot nightmare.
> 
> Are any of these family members pissed off about the lack of WMDs found in Iraq? Or are they on board for the haul because the president pointed and sent them on their way (i.e. just doing their job, wherever the CIC says to go)?


I talked with my wife's cousin when he got back from Iraq/Kuwait (see my prior post). According to him, the general attitude of the troops towards the American press is pretty negative. I was going to use the word "despise" but realize that is a little too strong, "disdain" would probably be closer.

According to him, the troops feel the media continually spin the actual events and put them in a negative context. They feel there is little accurate coverage of what the military is actually doing over there.

The other thing I specifically talked to him was the whole "lack of body armor" controversy, because that was a hot and heavy issue. That got him animated. He said the whole body armor thing was completely fabricated by the media and had no basis in fact. He said that in fact they had too much body armor. They were issued a complete set when they were transferred to the staging point in the U.S., and then were issued another set once they got to Kuwait.

He said the main issue was whether they had to wear the extra ceramic plates. As I understand it from him, there are different levels of armoring they are required to wear, depending upon how dangerous it is anticipated to be. A number of the troops apparently don't like to put the extra plates in, because they feel it makes them too heavy and limits their mobility too much. So he said if there's an issue, it's that some troops want to wear less armor, not more, because they think it's more dangerous with the lessened mobility.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Beresford said:


> The other thing I specifically talked to him was the whole "lack of body armor" controversy, because that was a hot and heavy issue. That got him animated. He said the whole body armor thing was completely fabricated by the media and had no basis in fact. He said that in fact they had too much body armor. They were issued a complete set when they were transferred to the staging point in the U.S., and then were issued another set once they got to Kuwait.


In 1915 a report begun to be circulated within British media of a "shell shortage" after a British offensive at Neuve Chappelle that did not meet its objective. David Lloyd George, at that time chancellor, wanted the resignation of Lord Kitchner for this incident. He began a campaign to discredit Kitchner. Lloyd George's real motive however was wanting a greater role in the War Ministry. In the end a Department of Munitions was created and Lloyd George was named as its director. 
In times of war the press and the people are very sensitive to such assumptions. I understand the press for making a big deal of it as 1) they really don't know what they are speaking of half the time, and 2) they need something to write about. I also understand the nervousness of the people. The thing that gets me are the politicians who deep down inside know better but still stoke the fires in order to score political points. It is downright disgraceful and demagoguery in the classical sense.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Interesting. And let's not forget that the press is often left hanging by administrative officials who are less than forthcoming with accurate information. Admittedly, sometimes such reticence can be rooted in concerns for "security," but at other times the practise seems to serve a political agenda.

Can't get into a pissing match today, but cheers.



pt4u67 said:


> In 1915 a report begun to be circulated within British media of a "shell shortage" after a British offensive at Neuve Chappelle that did not meet its objective. David Lloyd George, at that time chancellor, wanted the resignation of Lord Kitchner for this incident. He began a campaign to discredit Kitchner. Lloyd George's real motive however was wanting a greater role in the War Ministry. In the end a Department of Munitions was created and Lloyd George was named as its director.
> In times of war the press and the people are very sensitive to such assumptions. I understand the press for making a big deal of it as 1) they really don't know what they are speaking of half the time, and 2) they need something to write about. I also understand the nervousness of the people. The thing that gets me are the politicians who deep down inside know better but still stoke the fires in order to score political points. It is downright disgraceful and demagoguery in the classical sense.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Interesting. And let's not forget that the press is often left hanging by administrative officials who are less than forthcoming with accurate information. Admittedly, sometimes such reticence can be rooted in concerns for "security," but at other times the practise seems to serve a political agenda.
> 
> Can't get into a pissing match today, but cheers.


I know to the press there is no such thing as a legitimate "security concern", only attempts to cover up scandal. Such as when the press outed by governments tracking of OBL via his satellite phone, or the terrorist surveillance program. No wonder the government is less than forthcoming in certain cases.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I think crs already posted an editorial, written jointly by the LAT and NYT editors, on this point.

Your use of "the press" is rather useless as it is too vague. But then so is the war on terror, which can morph into anything we want it to.

I'm glad we have a free press working to keep the government honest. I would think most conservatives would be in favor of this, along with smaller government.



pt4u67 said:


> I know to the press there is no such thing as a legitimate "security concern", only attempts to cover up scandal. Such as when the press outed by governments tracking of OBL via his satellite phone, or the terrorist surveillance program. No wonder the government is less than forthcoming in certain cases.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I think crs already posted an editorial, written jointly by the LAT and NYT editors, on this point.
> 
> Your use of "the press" is rather useless as it is too vague. But then so is the war on terror, which can morph into anything we want it to.
> 
> I'm glad we have a free press working to keep the government honest. I would think most conservatives would be in favor of this, along with smaller government.


I confess to agree with your second point. Smaller government however is a vaguery as well.

I don't see how the term "press" in this context is too vague. I am referring to the press in the sense that they are a unique class.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I think some comment on the insight Beresford had to offer would be much more pertinent than quibbling.

Bertie, what do you make of the information offered that you requested?


----------



## G-man (Jul 6, 2005)

My son was over last year and is scheduled to go back in November of this year. He is Army, EOD(Explosive Ordnance Disposal).


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I think some comment on the insight Beresford had to offer would be much more pertinent than quibbling.


We do not know the specifics of the serviceman's duties. Wouldn't servicemen's opinions on the body armor vary according to their duties? I know for a fact that police are not of one mind on the topic of their bullet-proof vests, and the level of discomfort they are willing to put up with largely depends on which neighborhoods they patrol. Similarly, I consider my company-provided insurance more than adequate; of course, I risk little more than a paper cut in my work, while the guys running our large printing presses may have another opinion entirely since people have been killed or maimed doing that job.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> We do not know the specifics of the serviceman's duties. Wouldn't servicemen's opinions on the body armor vary according to their duties? I know for a fact that police are not of one mind on the topic of their bullet-proof vests, and the level of discomfort they are willing to put up with largely depends on which neighborhoods they patrol. Similarly, I consider my company-provided insurance more than adequate; of course, I risk little more than a paper cut in my work, while the guys running our large printing presses may have another opinion entirely since people have been killed or maimed doing that job.


So such standards should suit the individual?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> So such standards should suit the individual?


Well, military encompasses many occupations, no? I would say it's unlikely there's a one-size-fits-all. A man on the front lines would need more protection than a cook or someone running the PX, right?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> We do not know the specifics of the serviceman's duties. Wouldn't servicemen's opinions on the body armor vary according to their duties? I know for a fact that police are not of one mind on the topic of their bullet-proof vests, and the level of discomfort they are willing to put up with largely depends on which neighborhoods they patrol.


So then really, this whole thread is useless? Well, even more useless than the usual uselessness? I mean, it seems to me Beresford provided exactly what was asked for. Guess it comes down to me just being a dumb civilian again and not having decades worth of journalism experience?

Or could it maybe just be the opinion offered totally clashed with your world view? Nah, that would just be me being cynical.

Edit: I just want to add BertieW's own quote that elicited the response you are so marginalizing crs:



BertieW said:


> One of my motivations for asking the question is to learn whether any of these family members have, or can, offer their perspective on how things are going on the ground, from their experiences.


Perspective was offered from their experience. Clashed with what ya wanted to hear, was therefore attacked. EOS for me.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I think it's an interesting point about the body armour, in that it may be that it's the soldiers themselves who don't wish to be weighed down by the gear, rather than the lack of gear. If I'm understanding this correctly. I can well imagine how difficult adding, what, another 25 or 30 pounds to the kit could be in extreme desert circumstances, and how this might reduce mobility in ways that could be as lethal as going without the armour in the first place. I still find it difficult to believe, as Beresford writes, that this was an issue "completely fabricated by the media...with no basis in reality." Seems awfully tough to pull this off, imo.

Here are a few stories that seem to refute the claim that the soldiers had all the armour they needed, including quotes from Gen. Abizaid and Gen. Kern.

https://www.defensetech.org/archives/000601.html

https://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm

https://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_armor_060804,00.html

The other point that is interesting is the report of some soldiers holding the media here in disdain. I am curious what most of the military in the theatre there read/watch/listen to most of the time. Knowing that would provide additional insight into their reaction. It's especially interesting given just how embedded the U.S. journalists have been during much of this war. The argument in some circles was that such an arrangement could, if anything, tip the reporters' bias in favour of the military, rather than presenting a more objective view.



Wayfarer said:


> I think some comment on the insight Beresford had to offer would be much more pertinent than quibbling.
> 
> Bertie, what do you make of the information offered that you requested?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> Well, military encompasses many occupations, no? I would say it's unlikely there's a one-size-fits-all. A man on the front lines would need more protection than a cook or someone running the PX, right?


Absolutely, however such things as body armour are designed to specifications required for combat troops and then issued to everyone. Different service members may have opinions of their body armour as may many police officers and the same can be said of health care benefits. Is it legitimate to say that just because a few people hold a different opinion on such matters that this is a story?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I think it's an interesting point about the body armour, in that it may be that it's the soldiers themselves who don't wish to be weighed down by the gear, rather than the lack of gear. If I'm understanding this correctly. I can well imagine how difficult adding, what, another 25 or 30 pounds to the kit could be in extreme desert circumstances, and how this might reduce mobility in ways that could be as lethal as going without the armour in the first place. I still find it difficult to believe, as Beresford writes, that this was an issue "completely fabricated by the media...with no basis in reality." Seems awfully tough to pull this off, imo.
> 
> Here are a few stories that seem to refute the claim that the soldiers had all the armour they needed, including quotes from Gen. Abizaid and Gen. Kern.
> 
> ...


BertieW, so was the "friendly poll" just to gather information, as you posited, or was it to refute information you do not seem to like? Just wondering, no pissing match here. Just seems I was quite correct in there being an agenda, not a "friendly poll" to gather "experience from the ground".


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> Absolutely, however such things as body armour are designed to specifications required for combat troops and then issued to everyone. Different service members may have opinions of their body armour as may many police officers and the same can be said of health care benefits. Is it legitimate to say that just because a few people hold a different opinion on such matters that this is a story?


I suppose that would depend on what the norm seems to be among the people most affected by it. Is it just a few people? And, if so, are they a small number only because they are dwarfed by people who are relatively unaffected.

A neighborhood has a crime problem, wants an increased police presence. Town government and residents of other neighborhoods object -- they do not wish to reroute resources away from other neighborhoods or pay to hire police. They say there is no problem, residents are complaining about nothing. You think, well, how do they know? After all, they do not live there. 
Should we not listen to the neighborhood's complaint because they represent only 10 percent of the town? And within that neighborhood, too, not everyone is of one mind. Harry the Drug Pusher does not want greater police presence, nor does Martha the Hooker, nor does Jerry who has political aspirations and wants to suck up to the mayor nor do people who just hate the cops. You may not trust the statistics the town provides; clearly there is politics at play. So you send reporters to the neighborhood to see what it's like to live there, and you talk to lots and lots of people. Then you present the situation as best you can. Is it a scientific experiment that can't be argued about later? Of course not.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I answered your question I think.

Is it not what /you/ wanted to hear?

You seem to have the need to be as "quite correct" as you accuse me of trying to be. I'm actually genuinely interested in what the others have to say. I think my responses were measured and respectful, if still dubious given the handful of stories I offered after only a cursory look online.



Wayfarer said:


> BertieW, so was the "friendly poll" just to gather information, as you posited, or was it to refute information you do not seem to like? Just wondering, no pissing match here. Just seems I was quite correct in there being an agenda, not a "friendly poll" to gather "experience from the ground".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I answered your question I think.
> 
> Is it not what /you/ wanted to hear?
> 
> You seem to have the need to be as "quite correct" as you accuse me of trying to be. I'm actually genuinely interested in what the others have to say. I think my responses were measured and respectful, if still dubious given the handful of stories I offered after only a cursory look online.


BertieW, your response were indeed quite measured and respectful, but as you pointed out, dubious of the responses garnered. The thread title was "A Friendly Poll" from which I would think it was just a friendly gathering of information, which is what a poll is. However, it was pointed out by myself and others, this "poll" seemed to be slanted and/or have an agenda. This was debated; fair enough.

Then Beresford offered *exactly* what you said you wanted. However, it clashed with the world view you and crs seem to have. Suddenly, it was no longer a poll, but a forum to refute said poll. So I did point out that my original surmise was correct, this was not a "friendly poll" but played out perfectly to the agenda I surmised on your part.

Hey, I could be 100% wrong. Maybe I do like to be "quite correct" but if you did not, why are you not only arguing with me but also refuting the only results of your "friendly poll"?



BertieW said:


> I'm actually genuinely interested in what the others have to say.


Listening does not involve offering opposing view points, refutation, being dubious, etc. It just involves soaking it all in, good, bad and indifferent. A good listener leaves you feeling like they agreed with everything you had to say. Clinton had that down pat.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> However, it clashed with the world view you and crs seem to have.


That's your biased opinion. I base my views on what I read in large, mainstream newspapers. I believe in them. I'm like a guy at Oxxford who wears an Oxxford suit, I believe in the product my company makes because I know exactly how it's made. I believe mainstream newspapers put more money into the product and are better craftsmen, therefore the source of my information is superior to other sources of information. It's not my "world view," it's what I read in the papers. If you don't believe mainstream newspapers, then the source of your information must be from organizations that lack the massive resources of a large, mainstream newspaper. Ergo, a more cheaply-made product.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> That's your biased opinion. I base my views on what I read in large, mainstream newspapers. I believe in them. I'm like a guy at Oxxford who wears an Oxxford suit, I believe in the product my company makes because I know exactly how it's made. I believe mainstream newspapers put more money into the product and are better craftsmen, therefore the source of my information is superior to other sources of information. It's not my "world view," it's what I read in the papers. If you don't believe mainstream newspapers, then the source of your information must be from organizations that lack the massive resources of a large, mainstream newspaper. Ergo, a more cheaply-made product.


I am sorry, what is my biased opinion?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I am sorry, what is my biased opinion?


You called it my "world view." It is not my world view or my opinion. I am guided by facts gathered by the largest, best-staffed, most trusted and most commercially successful news-gathering organizations in the world. You may have a "world view." I do not. If The New York Times and Washington Post were to run headlines in tomorrow's editions that proclaim "Bush Was Right About Everything," I would trust that they know what they're talking about because I know they would not do such a thing lightly. That is not a "world view," that is being open to information from the most trustworthy sources.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Not so much my world view as what many others have reported. I'm interested in sussing this out, whether or not little ol' me is proven right or wrong.

But to the point: So are you saying Generals Abizaid and Kern are too close to the situation to be unbiased?



Wayfarer said:


> BertieW, your response were indeed quite measured and respectful, but as you pointed out, dubious of the responses garnered. The thread title was "A Friendly Poll" from which I would think it was just a friendly gathering of information, which is what a poll is. However, it was pointed out by myself and others, this "poll" seemed to be slanted and/or have an agenda. This was debated; fair enough.
> 
> Then Beresford offered *exactly* what you said you wanted. However, it clashed with the world view you and crs seem to have. Suddenly, it was no longer a poll, but a forum to refute said poll. So I did point out that my original surmise was correct, this was not a "friendly poll" but played out perfectly to the agenda I surmised on your part.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

BertieW said:


> .... I still find it difficult to believe, as Beresford writes, that this was an issue "completely fabricated by the media...with no basis in reality." Seems awfully tough to pull this off, imo...


 Given the articles you posted, it does indeed seem as though it would be tough to "fabricate" this story. But it is the same thing I've heard from several servicemen, including the one I mentioned earlier. They claimed that at least in their respective positions, it absolutely was NOT an issue.



> The other point that is interesting is the report of some soldiers holding the media here in disdain. I am curious what most of the military in the theatre there read/watch/listen to most of the time. Knowing that would provide additional insight into their reaction.


 I think they have access to much of the same press that we do. I did ask our friend that, but I don't recall what he said. I'm sure there are those here who do know. But they obviously see TV and print when they're stateside, as well as having access to the internet, in many cases.



> It's especially interesting given just how embedded the U.S. journalists have been during much of this war. The argument in some circles was that such an arrangement could, if anything, tip the reporters' bias in favour of the military, rather than presenting a more objective view.


 I don't think that there were necessarily complaints of inaccurate reporting, as much as unEVEN reporting and or trying to stir up a story where one really didn't exist. Mountain out of molehills, because good news doesn't sell. Why report on the 200,000 of the brave and noble soldiers who are putting their lives on the line for strangers everyday, when you can drag 6 (0.0003%) people through the mud for putting underwear on some naked guy's head?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

BertieW changed the original premise from asking us to wanting to hear from the troops in the field.
https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm

CNN's exit polls showed that Bush won 57-41 of those polled who had EVER served in the military, clearly they weren't doing exit polling in Baghdad but taking the unscientific poll in the first the sample is pretty huge and a 4-1 margin might only be 3-1.

I haven't heard anyone make a serious argument that the military community at large thinks we need a Democrat as commander in chief yet.

So... for the anti-war folks who argue that Bush is risking the life of brave soldiers for a lie: Why is that the guys actually fighting the war, the guys who actually know exactly what the reality on the ground is, overwhelmingly support a guy who callously risked their lives for nothing?

Interesting question, isn't it?

For another look at it:

It's actually 4.2:1

The Story in the Washington Post postulates that the survey, while too much of a landslide to be doubted, may have under-represented short termers (younger, more prone to be Democrat) in favor of career military. That's an open question, frankly I don't know many kids who would swing by the local Moveon.org rally on their way home from volunteering to join the Marine corps but let's go ahead and assume that the survey had more officers who were not front line troops.

While anti-war, Pro-dem soldiers (all 13 of them) make the news the reality is that the military is conservative and believes more in the strategy laid forth by the Republican side than they do in the strategy (Is 'not your way! a strategy???) put forth by the left.

So Bertie - there's the answer. Not being snotty or argumentative and I won't pretend to tell you what it means but the fact of the matter is that the military as a whole disagrees with your premise that they were lied to.

NOTE: USA Today, Cnn and The Washington Post are generally seen as being extremely 'left' in the USA. I left out data from the right-wing rags.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> *That's your biased opinion. *I base my views on what I read in large, mainstream newspapers. I believe in them. I'm like a guy at Oxxford who wears an Oxxford suit, I believe in the product my company makes because I know exactly how it's made. I believe mainstream newspapers put more money into the product and are better craftsmen, therefore the source of my information is superior to other sources of information. It's not my "world view," it's what I read in the papers. If you don't believe mainstream newspapers, then the source of your information must be from organizations that lack the massive resources of a large, mainstream newspaper. Ergo, a more cheaply-made product.





crs said:


> You called it my "world view." It is not my world view or my opinion. I am guided by facts gathered by the largest, best-staffed, most trusted and most commercially successful news-gathering organizations in the world. You may have a "world view." I do not. If The New York Times and Washington Post were to run headlines in tomorrow's editions that proclaim "Bush Was Right About Everything," I would trust that they know what they're talking about because I know they would not do such a thing lightly. That is not a "world view," that is being open to information from the most trustworthy sources.


Again, I would just like to ask, what exactly is my biased opinion? Simple question. You said I have one, what is it?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW, not going to deal with my analysis of this "friendly poll"?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Again, I would just like to ask, what exactly is my biased opinion? Simple question. You said I have one, what is it?


You said I am offering my "world view." That is your opinion. I disagree. Enough.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Chuck Franke said:


> Not being snotty or argumentative....


Yeah really, I won't moderate, you stay outta my line of work here, m'kay?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I appreciate the thoughtful responses above and will consider them when I'm more able. Thanks to those who took the time to offer a civil bit of discourse.

I did find this link below worth sharing, not only because it directly concerns the Iraq war, but also because of some interesting points the author makes in the Q&A on this page (scroll down) about the reporters in the combat zone.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159420103X/

Also, a couple additional links, presumably not tainted by the so-called liberal nature of CNN, et al. This is more about the body armour.

https://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,80768,00.html

https://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,87152,00.html

Please note the third link, as I did research and read about those troops who did /not/ want additional bulky armour. I appreciate the poster here who introduced that concern, as it was one I hadn't encountered before.

One can also find an April 4, 2006, editorial in the (not liberal) Chicago Tribune on this subject, lamenting the administration's handling of the equipment in the war theatre.

Bon nuit, if I may.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Maybe the question that should be asked is 'Why have so many Democrates voted for this war?'

The Democrates in both houses, including Clinton, know a great deal more than the wimpy media does. They keep voting for it. So, why not ask them?

Another question is Why did it take about 7 years for the USA to keep the military in Japan and Germany and even longer in Korea? Hmm, is it a Republician that is getting most of the military out of Korea? What about the liberal left? If there so right- why didn't they?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I appreciate the thoughtful responses above and will consider them when I'm more able. Thanks to those who took the time to offer a civil bit of discourse.
> 
> I did find this link below worth sharing, not only because it directly concerns the Iraq war, but also because of some interesting points the author makes in the Q&A on this page (scroll down) about the reporters in the combat zone.
> 
> ...


So in the end what is your point? Military expeditions are incredibly large scale operations. How many times have you left home for a few days only to look back and wished you had packed a certain something. In any operation of this size shortcomings oversights are inevitable. Adjustments are made and the problem is rectified. This was the case here. If it makes you feel better to think the press had something to do with shedding light on this fine, go ahead and claim that. In the end it really doesn't matter.

I think the deeper issue is not body armour, up-armoured Humvee's, clean underwear or cotton vs. cotton/poly blend underwear. There are many who have an absolute opposition to this and any other armed conflict. However instead of coming out and going directly against the war they bite around the edges; body armour, long deployments, etc.

edit: By the way one of the articles you list liberally quotes a contractor who I'm sure is making money from selling body armour to rear echelon troops. I'm sure the polemic of "lack of body armour" suits him just fine. Personally I would trust DoD approved body armour in the end.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

To answer the original question, my husband works at Special Ops headquarters, so he's there in spirit.

He could be there in form tomorrow, to, should someone wish it.


----------

