Posted on 08/25/2007 8:30:41 PM PDT by DakotaRed
By the co-author if the June 7, 2007 NYT op-ed Defeat’s Killing Fields.
"Not everybody would regard it as a badge of hon-our to be cited favourably by President Bush in a speech about Iraq, but it happened to me last week when Bush warned that the consequences of leaving Iraq precipitously could be a bloodbath even worse than happened in Indochina after the American defeat in 1975. Alas, I think he is right."
********************
"I have always thought that those of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath."
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
but kerry said nothing happened after we left viet nam!
Kerry said we were all war criminals, rapists, murderers and monsters too. He lied!!!!!
We don’t call him Hanoi John for nothing ;-)
The horrors we see committed on a constant basis are committed expressly to influence the industry of journalism.
Journalism is the tool by which our enemy spreads defeatism, despair, divisiveness and dissolution of will to resist.
In just about every measurable way, most journalists are every bit as much the enemy as the jihadi bomb makers.
To do [Vietnam] all over again in the full knowledge of what followed would turn an aberration into a pattern of behavior. And as the Sirik Mataks of Baghdad face the choice between staying and dying or exile and embittered evenings in the new Iraqi émigré restaurants of London and Los Angeles, who will be America's allies in the years ahead?Professor Bernard Lewis' dictum would be self-evident: "America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend."
In the conceit of those who think that nothing actually matters except PR, arrogance is not a vice but a virtue.
What WE’LL see are 25% interest rates and a complete inability to purchase gasoline....
At the end one New York Times headline read: "Indochina without Americans: for most, a better life". Such naivety was horribly wrong, and I have always thought that those of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath.
To be "horribly wrong" and "humbled" is one thing, but it's pathetically inadequate in the face of the Khmer and Vietnamese millions who were killed post-1975. Not to mention the millions more Vietnamese who were sent for 3 year re-eduction sentences in tropical gulags. And the many tens of thousands who succumbed to disease and exhaustion due to the utter non-existence of hospitals, doctors, and medicines.
Most revolting were the millions of deaths by starvation, under a cruel and disastrous socialist economic system which turned the world's second most productive rice bowl (the Mekong Delta) into an infertile and unyielding bitch. (According to my wife, it was years of nothing but potato, yucca, bananas, and whatever could be obtained on the black market at risk of prison).
And then we have the despicable John Kerry, "I've met a lot of people today who were in those education camps who are thriving in the Vietnam of today."
Yeah, they weren't that bad John. Except for those who were tortured, or were crippled for life, or were executed, or who died of malnutrition, disease, or beatings.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said...."The shedding of Muslim blood is allowed in order to disrupt the greater evil of disrupting jihad."
Just as the Khmer Rouge repeatedly said to its captive Cambodian victims, "To have you is no benefit, to lose you is no loss."
“In just about every measurable way, most journalists are every bit as much the enemy as the jihadi bomb makers.”
I disagree. Would you want a censored media? Would you want a media that did exactly what it was told? Isn’t a free media industry one of the cornerstones of democracy? Otherwise you have a dictatorship.
On the point of the thread, I think that the headline sums it up very well. We can all read and see what happened to indo-China after the US pullout. In the event of that occurring in Iraq then some very powerful players in the region would want to carve the land up for themselves, not to mention the Shia-Sunni split that is gaining pace.
When the primary means of distributing information to a nation’s citizens during a time of war becomes dominated by enemy sympathizers determined to use their media to “educated the citizens against this or any war” then it is broken.
It is a tool to spread defeatism, division and despair.
That is what we have in our traditional media at this time.
Disagree all you wish and attempt to draw non relevant parallels as your heart desires.
That you continue to trust this media that we currently have and not see it as needing to figure some way to police itself of betrayers and idiots, before the situation devolves so far as to demand policing from outside forces, says much about you.
I assume you are in agreement with our current media practice of using exaggeration, manipulation and selective reporting in order to achieve the agenda of assisting our enemy in defeating us.
While that practice is not all encompassing and completely uniform in application, it is ubiquitous enough to be sufficient for indictment of the industry and current policy within that industry.
I think his point on the media being every bit the enemy as Jihadists isn’t about censorship, but responsible journalism.
Journalists have a reponsibility to report the news, all of it, but with common sense. If they know something will benefit the enemy and undermine our own Troops, should they print that without any reporting of the good?
Should the media print everything they can that subvert ongoing efforts of protecting the people they are to be reporting to?
Having freedom of the press is essential to a free society, but that press should think about what they do and report news responsibly.
Freedom of the press is no reason to work so diligently to cause your own country to fail in war and run the possibility of ending your own freedom of the press.
Along with freedom comes many responsibilities to not abuse it at the cost of others.
I agree with many of your points, and appreciate the candour with which you have continued the debate.
You asked a couple of questions to which I have no solid answers:
“If they know something will benefit the enemy and undermine our own Troops, should they print that without any reporting of the good?”
Well no, but then only in a liliputian world is any media outlet utterly neutral and unbiased. One should take the media as a whole, to determine if a fair balance has been achieved.
“Freedom of the press is no reason to work so diligently to cause your own country to fail in war and run the possibility of ending your own freedom of the press.”
I can only doubt that the media are actively trying to abolish the only law that lets them do their job as they see fit. Bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face, wouldn’t you say?
I doubt they realize that emboldening our enemies will ultimately lose their freedoms for them, but that is a very possible outcome should America fall under a despotic regime one day.
I see it as their hate is so great, they act without thinking or regard for the outcome.
Instead of focusing only on their freedom to publish, they need to focus equally on their responsibility.
Just my 2 cents.
Don’t forget that Kerry & Co supported the Khamer Rouge for years. Now they want to separate Cambodia and Laos from VNam. They act like they know everything until the truth is told and then do want to accept the consequences. Fact is Kerry has the Blood of millions of Asians on his hands.
Pray for W and Our Troops
“When the primary means of distributing information to a nation’s citizens during a time of war becomes dominated by enemy sympathizers determined to use their media to “educated the citizens against this or any war” then it is broken.”
Sorry, but a ‘free press’ can end up printing what you really didn’t want it to. i’m not agreeing with their reportage, but you can’t have a free press when its suits. Its either all or nothing.
“Disagree all you wish and attempt to draw non relevant parallels as your heart desires.”
Quite what this is referring to I dont know, so if you can illuminate your comment I would be most appreciative.
“That you continue to trust this media that we currently have and not see it as needing to figure some way to police itself of betrayers and idiots, before the situation devolves so far as to demand policing from outside forces, says much about you. I assume you are in agreement with our current media practice of using exaggeration, manipulation and selective reporting in order to achieve the agenda of assisting our enemy in defeating us.”
Do I trust the media ‘we’ have? I dont think I said if I did or didn’t, and to be honest, I dont know. Its not about trust, its about getting the facts you want from the report and doing away with any bias or editorial slant.
You assume to much, and your rush to find a conclusion that would tarnish my points has left gaps in your argument. You can therefore ‘assume’ that if you’re dumb enough not to be able to seperate fact from polemic, and reason from hyperbole, then I feel bad for you.
You in essence have just tried to call me a traitor, and I think my response has been mild considering what I would have done had you been my neighbour...
and they have been 2 cents well spent, and at the current exchange rate gave enough enough to get my pennies worth ;)
Your contention that things are fine as they are, even as our traditional media works to its utmost to sow defeatism, division and despair through many of its outlets, and pretending that this is in anyway acceptable during a time of war says all that needs be said about your understanding of the situation.
I need call you nothing.
Far too many of our media outlets are dominated by those who have given themselves over to supporting our enemy. This has been the case for at least a few decades. It wasn’t acceptable then and it is not acceptable now.
Freedom without accountability or responsibility is anarchy.
If you were my neighbor and we were discussing this issue, we would, most likely, be as you suggest.
Those who accept or give excuse for those who betray our own during a time of war are no different than the betrayers themselves.
Adhering to the propaganda of our enemy, whether that enemy be past or present, is never acceptable. Never. Not under any circumstance.
Those who apply their efforts to assist the enemy in achieving victory are betrayers. Always. No exceptions.
same, sh*t. different day.
“even as our traditional media works to its utmost to sow defeatism, division and despair through many of its outlets, and pretending that this is in anyway acceptable during a time of war says all that needs be said about your understanding of the situation.”
So yeah, basically as I suggested earlier, in times of conflict you would have the media subordinate itself to the Executive. Which, of course, doesn’t mean a free press does it?
“Freedom without accountability or responsibility is anarchy.”
Nope. Freedom with clauses, and the power of the executive to derive absolute power over the people isn’t freedom. Remember they are elected to serve we the people. They aren’t elected to serve OVER we the people.
“Adhering to the propaganda of our enemy, whether that enemy be past or present, is never acceptable. Never. Not under any circumstance.
Those who apply their efforts to assist the enemy in achieving victory are betrayers. Always. No exceptions.”
Only a Fool deals in absolutes. You aint listening, so I can’t be bovved tryin to educate. The world you want is a post-democratic, militaristic power, whereby the ruling party governs over the people, and not, in a crucial difference, FOR the people. The media is told to play along, and you find youself living in a pseudo-dictatorship. Freedom of the Press, whether you want to hear it or not, whether you agree with it or not, is an extension of the right to Freedom of Speech. In that case, you would want censorship over anything that could be determined to be against the interests of the ruling party. Sounds not alot like democracy does it?
As you said, same sh*t, different day.
You work your best to excuse treason and betrayal. You’ve made yourself clear here.
No one said ANYTHING about suborning the media to any administration in any way. All this is being demanded is that journalists do as their job description requires and print/distribute the actual truth and not filtered bullsh*t made to fit their agenda of supporting an enemy victory.
Please feel free to consider me your enemy. There is zero reason to back your demand that the degenerate and dysfunctional industry should be allowed to remain supportive of our enemy, past and present.
The industry will either find a way to police itself and maintain a standard of accuracy or, unfortunately, it will be made to do so from outside forces. This is how this always ends up. This is what simply allowing dissolution and devaluation to continue, simply out of habit, always brings about.
That is what folk, such as myself, are trying to work against. The eventual need for an outside force to police that industry. That reaction is what those like you will force into being.
By standing up to them and getting loud about it, the worm has begun to turn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.