I dismissed this article because:
1. it refered to our men as brain-damaged, an extremely unprofession term
2. it said there was an epidemic, something that was not documented in the article
3. it inferred this problem is something new, 'shell shock' has been around for the last 90 years
4. it attemped to cash in on 'feelings' by utilization of a comparison of one injured troop to Michelangelo, is this a tactic of a blanced report, or dare I say it, a leftist ploy of propaganda
I think this article is just one more ploy to get us out of Iraq by any means possible. Therefore I think it is a transparent insult to our troops, by an organization (A.P.) that has done nothing to advance the well being or reputations of our troops since they first entered Irag. This is the same organization that called panties on the heads of terrorists, abuse. This is the same organization that reports of attrocities regularly, reportedly at the hands of our troops. Still, you think this organization in this instance is trying to help our troops, and my record indicates to you that I don't care about the troops.
You read my comments and somehow figured that I didn't respect the troops or care if they got proper treatment. I'm not sure how you think this article was going to make sure they were going to get proper treatment, but evidently you did. And by extension, my comments on the thread would prevent them from getting that treatment? Whew!
Let's look at your responses to my questions.
1. Before this report, had you ever heard of the A.P.?
1. Yes
Okay good
2. Before this report, have you ever seen the A.P. print a news flash that was favorable to our troops?
2. Irrelevent
Don't you think it might be relevant that the A.P. has seldom if ever posted anything favorable to our troops? Wouldn't a no answer here have been cause for at least some concern about what the true goal of this article might be? What if this were merely one more propagandist article focused to kill support for the war? Would you still think this article was supportive of injured troops and our troops still in the field, or would you see it as exploitive for reasons of sedition?
3. Just how many reports of good things our troops are doing in Iraq, have you seen?
3. Only silly DOD press releases that orgasim over the latest tree planted or school built (ignoring how 5 months later its fallen apart due to disrepair on the Iraqis part or destroyed by a $100 RPG)which IMHO and as I’ve stated several times are just as harmful to our war effort as media bias.
Why would you think a tree planting or school opening could only be propaganda? Are you infering that there is no real tangible value to providing an educational resource for Iraqi children? So what if five months later one of the schools is destroyed? Do we simply quit trying to help the Iraqis and their children? Many other schools weren't destroyed. Isn't that a good thing? You seem to equate the DOD on the same par as dedicated marxist supporting propagandist organizations. Is that what you meant to do? Here you've also stated that those who destroy (infrastructure) in Iraq (terrorists) are just as harmful to our war effort as media bias. Anotherwords, you think media bias and terrorism are just about equally destructive to our war efforts. Despite this, you have done everything you can to twist my objection to what I think is a cleverly worked piece of leftist propaganda designed to kill the moral of those supporting the war from our homeland.
4. Which news source do you think is more reliable, A.P. or the DOD, since you brought the DOD up?
4. Neither. Both have agendas.
Once again, you are saying that the DOD cannot be trusted any more than an acknowledged marxist organization that shares an agenda with Osame Bin Laden, namely to get our troops out of Iraq.
5. Where did you see me say the A.P. had done anything treasonable?
5. You’re claiming they’re anti-American which is the same thing
I claimed that they were a propagandist organization. I did not use the term treason. I do think it rises to the level of sedition, but I haven't used that term prior to this post either.
6. Where did you see me say these troups shouldn't get care?
6. You’d prefer to see the story swept under the rug with the inevitable consequences that they would NOT receive the attention and care they’ve earned. The disgrace at Walter Reed bears out that lighting a fire thanks to the press helps the troops.
Please point out to me where the above article made the charge that our troops are not getting medical care. I don't believe that charge was made, so the premise that this article is going to help the troops at all, is rediculous.
7. Where did I say I thought any information should be bottled up?
7. See #6
A resoned report about troops and 'shell shock' would have been welcomed, but that's not what this is. This is an article that refered to our wounded as being 'brain-damaged' a very charged, inaccurate and unprofessional term. It also stated that there is an epidemic of these types of injuries. Once again, this is a very charged and inaccurate term. Epidemics are related to infectious diseases, not instances of injury. I do see it used improperly quite often, but that doesn't excuse it's use here. The inference is that there are more of these types of injuries than seen in any other wars. Except for one opinion that was mentioned, no studies were provided to verify that claim. Despite your overlooking the use of the reference to one of history's most beloved artists, I do find propagandist value in that tactic. What it infers is that we are sending off our "Michaelangelos" to war, destroying a whole genertion of talent. That is demeaning to our President and a transparent attempt to use the injuries to our troops as a wedge issue to get us out of Iraq.
8. Do you think the current injuries to our troops are worse than the injuries in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam or the Gulf War?
8. Irrelevent - those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan deserve the best care. Period.
Well I happen to think it's quite relevant if A.P. is mischaracterizing the injuries to our men in the current war, so as to use the issue as a wedge to get us to adopt Osama Bin Laden's number one goal. As for our troops getting the best care, that's a straw issue you've raised continually. Nobody but nobody has expressed the opinion here that our troops shouldn't get the best possible care. Period.
9. Do you agree that was one of the points in the article?
9. Again, irrelevent for our discussion
Well you don't have to agree. Folks can read the article and gleen from it that the claim was made that brain injuries were worse in this war than any other. I can see why you wouldn't particularly care that this case was made, but then it does impact our discussion whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
10. What particular value did the reference to Michelangelo add to the facts in this article?
10. Put’s a name to the statistics. Nothing sinister about that.
Would it matter if no statistics were provided? How can you put a name on something that didn't exist? And why go for the Michelangelo tie-in, unless you wanted folks to think we were killing off this generation's Michelangelos and other millinial greats. It's propaganda, pure and simple.
11. Do you or do you not think this may have been just a wee bit over the top, and a clear propaganda piece?
11. Not at all. I was unaware as to the severity of brain injuries that our troops are facing once back in the US. But then again, I’m not a bot partisan.
One doesn't have to be a bot partisan to check an article out and come to the conclusion that it's main goal was not to relate informaiton about our troops. The main goal of this article was to kill off the moral of U.S. Citizens who support this war, and reinforce the opinions of those who dispise it.
I do have two, possibly three more questions for you though.
Do you think we should have removed Saddam Hussein and moved 170,000 troops to Iraq in order to bring it under control?
Do you think we should pull our troops out now in as little time as possible? If not, how long should we give it?
Your excuses for dismissing this article are just that - excuses. Brain damaged as an “unprofessional term?” What? Are you by any chance a neuro surgeon? I thought not. An epidemic is defined by Websters as “affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time.” Seems the article makes the case pretty clearly on that score. The condition IS new precisely because battlefield medicine has advanced to the point where those who would have been killed by these afteraffects are now surviving. For you, average Joe Schmo, to call Dr. Schneider (who actually helps and cares for our troops) a liar in that respect is hilarious. As for it being a “leftist ploy of propoganda,” I’d advise you to leave the house more often. I see the news piece as a testament to the sufferings of those who have served in Iraq. Sorry its not like the warm and fuzzy DoD pieces you cherish but reality rarely is.
“Wouldn’t a no answer here have been cause for at least some concern about what the true goal of this article might be?”
Nice dodge but what exactly is FALSE in the article mentioned? Or are you only concerned that it doesn’t posses a spin you approve of?
“Why would you think a tree planting or school opening could only be propaganda? Are you infering that there is no real tangible value to providing an educational resource for Iraqi children?”
Because thats no way to quantify that we’re making headway over in Iraq. Its simply a silly numbers game that tells the average voter nothing about whats going on over there.
And when a news report comes out a few months later, which the DoD curiously doesn’t see fit to mention, about how the majority of those “civic projects” are a disaster, filled with corruption etc etc a person hearing that becomes even more disheartened and less supportive of our operations. The pieces of evidence that we’ll be succeeding in Iraq are intangible and its idiotic for the DoD to operate otherwise.
“Please point out to me where the above article made the charge that our troops are not getting medical care. I don’t believe that charge was made, so the premise that this article is going to help the troops at all, is rediculous.”
If it weren’t for stories such as this I’m pretty sure its safe to say the quality of care these troops would be getting would decline signifigantly. Walter Reed exposed some pretty ugly truths.
“What it infers is that we are sending off our “Michaelangelos” to war, destroying a whole genertion of talent. That is demeaning to our President and a transparent attempt to use the injuries to our troops as a wedge issue to get us out of Iraq.”
That’s what you, a Bush partisan, are infering. Not I. I read this article as mainly about the medical conditions that some unfortunate soldiers are going through. But thanks for proving my point that your main problem with the article is its possible negative affects on Bush’s polls numbers.
“Nobody but nobody has expressed the opinion here that our troops shouldn’t get the best possible care.”
Once more, if these types of news stories, such as the one about how the wounded were inundated with buercratic bs at Walter Reed, were to be hushed up as you wish, the consequence would be a lowered level of care. Put the conditions of the injured front and center, you can bet they won’t be forgotten.
“How can you put a name on something that didn’t exist?”
Several posters on this very thread have made it clear that it does exist. And the doctor referred to the patient as “Michaelangelo” not due to some nefarious scheme but due to patient’s interest in art. Your partisan lens skewed that translation.
“The main goal of this article was to kill off the moral of U.S. Citizens who support this war, and reinforce the opinions of those who dispise it.”
Which seems to be the only thing you really give a damn about. Not the troops, their families or what they’ve endured. Only Bush’s support levels. Disgraceful.
“Do you think we should have removed Saddam Hussein and moved 170,000 troops to Iraq in order to bring it under control?”
Yes to Saddam being removed from power. No to nation building idiocy.
“Do you think we should pull our troops out now in as little time as possible? If not, how long should we give it?”
Again, nation building in that hellhole is just plain naieve and dumb. They’re modern day barbarians. Simply kill anyone who threatens us or our allies and be on our way.
To return to the main issue, my point stands - your concern for the troops ends when discomforting news (which might have political consequences) begins. The troops only role in your eyes seems to be smile while being awarded their purple hearts then shut up and disappear in some dank VA hospital.