quote:

---

Originally posted by Den:
The Marine walked past other dead and wounded Iraqis. Found one and executed him. He then walked to the reporter and said "sorry". He didn't walk over to the reporter and say "phew that was a close one, I thought we were done for"

Did he do it because of the stressors, or did he do it for the "notch in his buttstock". I dunno but he made the wrong choice.

---

He did make a wrong choice. How did he know the Iraqi wasn't 'faking' but just now regaining consciousness?

That being said..he DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE HUNG OUT TO DRY. He should not serve prison time or even have a dishonorable discharge. This was done in the heat of the battle, and he had just had a bro die the other day right before that incident.

If there had been no cameras, we would never have heard of it. They should just take him off the front because his judgement is either suffering or very shaky, but beyond that I really couldn't see anything else that should be done. He made a mistake..just like the soldiers recently who felt they had no choice but to gun down a car that simply wouldn't not stop, leaving the children in the back seat orphans. And maybe they didn't have any choice. Maybe this Marine felt he didn't have any choice either..except in hindsight..but hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20, and at the time, you just do what you can to stay alive, and think about it later.

just my two cents.

I do think that those who were talking about a medal are way off the mark, though.

Amvet,

So, you were there and knew this guy wasn't faking and was just coming to? So, in your opinion, this Marine was faking it and lied? Nice to see you support those that are fighting! Shows a great deal about you!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amvet91Alpha:

If there had been no cameras, we would never have heard of it.

---

Is this the same as saying that we shouldn't allow reporters into Iraq with these soldiers as I've seen a few people say, because that is BS. If the service members over there are doing the right thing then the fact that a reporter is there telling the story would be a great thing, but the fact that the reporter in this incident reported what he saw we have to blame all reporters.

And your right the Marine should NOT be hung up to dry.

Gary:

I was in Iraq, I have gone "door to door", "house to house", I can't say though that I was ever put into that type of specific situation.

No, actually, I don't think we should not allow cameras. But what I am saying is that I am sure this is not the only time a situation like this has happened, but that since the camera was there we know about this specific instance. that is all.

Den,

Then I salute your service. Semper Fi!

My son is on his second tour in that place with the Marine infantry and has seen some nasty crap too!

How can you say this Marine made the wrong choice, you weren't there and thus, I give our side the benefit of the doubt having been in that situation a couple of times!

We've always had reporters with the troops. but in WWII and in Korea, they didn't forget they were Americans also and didn't go after the troops. In Vietnam and now, the reporters just want a story and most are not in support of the war or the troops and I have to take what they say and report with a grain of salt. That reporters view and what he thinks happened are not that of that Marine!

Gary:

I can absolutly give the benefit of the doubt. And I will, end of discussion from me. And give a hearty Semper Fi to your son from me. (if a Marine will accept it from a dirty soldier like myself). I'll be on my 2nd tour very very shortly.

As for the reporter thing check this out:
good reporting

Just a little background info on that link.

those are my guys doing all that hard work. I got the more fun job of going out on the town and finding, marking, and calling them in. yipeeee

Den,

Hell, my own brother was an Airborne grunt in Vietnam. My grandfather was an Army grunt. My two nephews was all Airborne grunts and the third was an Airborne Foward Artillery Observer guy! Love the Army. Spent some time working with Rangers and SF types. Loved it!

That was a real good link. Thanks! I guess you a FO?

lol

FO yea I guess you could say that

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Stanley:
We've always had reporters with the troops. but in WWII and in Korea, they didn't forget they were Americans also and didn't go after the troops.

---

Gary - You've a Bachelor's in History - How about a few references to back that claim up - also bearing in mind a different climate of censorship and difficulty with communications.

quote:

---

In Vietnam and now, the reporters just want a story and most are not in support of the war or the troops and I have to take what they say and report with a grain of salt.

---

Same here, Gary. Probasbly take a few days to come up with the citetions - but I'll be patient.

quote:

---

That reporters view and what he thinks happened are not that of that Marine!

---

Probably much less subjective, but that's a guess...

A Read for You

Den,

=Understand!!!!!

Ron,

First, I served in Vietnam and that time frame as you did. I know what went on with the media and you do to so don't play friggin games. The media of the Vietnam war was not a soldiers best friend, plain and simple.

As for WWII, the likes of Ernie Pyle is all one needs to say! he reported the war on both campaigns and never forgot he was an American and was worshipped by the troops! He was the forefront of embedded reporters of that day and set the example.

All one has to do is look at todays papers and TV news to see that those reporting on the war today do so, for the most part, in a view that puts the troops in a bad light and the war in a bad light and hell, even here there are those that give the enemy the benefit of the doubt against the troops, ie, this thread!

Ernie Pyle...a short excerpt:

NORMANDY BEACHHEAD: It will be several days before military security permits us to describe in much detail the landings just made in the long-awaited Allied Invasion of Europe.

Indeed it will be some times before we have a really clear picture of what has happened or what is happening at the moment. You must experience the terrible confusion of warfare and the frantic, nightmarish thunder and smoke and bedlam of battle to realize this.

So we will take up this short interval by telling you how things led up to the invasion from the correspondents' view point. THis column is being written on a ship in a convoy, crossing the English Channel, so that it will be ready to send back to England by dispatch boat as soon as we hit the beach.

When we secretly left London a few days ago, more than 450 American correspondents were gathered in Britain for this impending moment in history.

But only 28 of those 450 were to take part in what was termed the assault phase. I was one of those 28. Some of the rest will come over later, some will cover other angles, some will never come at all.

We assault correspondents were under military jurisdiction for the past month while waiting. We had complete freedom in London, but occasionally the Army would suddenly order us in batches to take trips around England.

Also, during those last few weeks we were called frequently for mass conferences and we were briefed by several commanding generals. We had completed all our field equipment, got our inoculations up to date, finished our official accrediting, ___ Supreme Allied headquarters, and even sent off our bedrolls 10 days before the final call. (We will rejoin them some time later on this side - we hope).

OF THE 28 correspondents in the assault group about two-thirds had already seen action in various war theaters. The old-timers sort of gravitated together, people such as Bill Stoneman, Don Whitehead, Jack Thompson, Clark Lee, Tex O'Reilly and myself.

We conjectured on when we would get the final call, conjectured on what assignments we would go with. And in more pensive moments we also conjectured on our chances of coming through alive.

We felt our chances were not very good. And we were not happy about it. Men like Don Whitehead and Clark Lee, who had been through the mill so long and so boldly, began to get nerves. And frankly I was the worst of the lot, and continued to be.

I began having terrible periods of depression and often would dream hideous dreams about it. All the time fear lay blackly deep upon your consciousness. It bore down on your heart like an all-consuming weight. People would talk to you and you wouldn't hear what they were saying.

The Army said they would try to give us 24 hours' notice of departure. Acally the call came at 9 o'clock one morning and we were ordered to be at a certain place with full field kit at 10:30. We threw our stuff together. Some of us went away and left hotel rooms still running up bills. Many had dates that night but did not dare to phone and call them off.

Comparing the media coverage of WWII to Vietnam or Iraq is like comparing apples and oranges, for so many reasons.

For starters, the public attitude. Convincing the public that we needed to fight WWII was a no-brainer after Pearl. Neither Vietnam nor Iraq can compare to that in the least.

Next, the size of the total operations. Even if WWII had been fought on just one front, it would still make Iraq and Vietnam pale in comparison.

9/11 was an attack against the American public at large. Peral harbor was an attack against a military target. The terrorist (Bin Ladens boys) declared war on the US and has been joined by the rest of the Mid-eastern terrorist in which Iraq (saddam and boys) were part of.

The Americas now, as in WWII, should not have to be sold on the need to fight this war, but yet they do and thus, the media should help, but for the most part, they are helping to keep the American public get behind the war!

What has the size of the operation have to do with anything? Also, this is a world wide war against terrorism as these terrorist are embedded all over the world!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Stanley:
9/11 was an attack against the American public at large. Peral harbor was an attack against a military target. The terrorist (Bin Ladens boys) declared war on the US and has been joined by the rest of the Mid-eastern terrorist in which Iraq (saddam and boys) were part of.

There is disagreement on the part about Saddam being involved in 9/11, with not even the Administration sticking to that claim when closely questioned.

The Americas now, as in WWII, should not have to be sold on the need to fight this war, but yet they do and thus, the media should help, but for the most part, they are helping to keep the American public (from) get(ting) behind the war!

(I edited your last part cause I think that's what you meant)

People always have to be "sold" on supporting a policy/action, and it is sometimes tougher than at other times. Take the War with Mexico for example. And it is not the media's job to sell an Administration's policies. Republican or Democrat, it is the Administration's job to convince the public, and it is the media's job to hold the gov't's feet to the fire. And nearly 70 percent of the public bought into Saddam being heavily involved in 9/11, at the start of the invasion, so the Administration was able to overcome any media "problems" in selling that.


What has the size of the operation have to do with anything? Also, this is a world wide war against terrorism as these terrorist are embedded all over the world!

---

For one thing, a small size operation cuts the number of stories down. In a large op, there's only so many stories that will fit into a newpaper or a newscast. The breadth and scope of D Day alone would dwarf Iraq and Vietnam combined, and it even dwarfed the rest of what was happening in those days backin WWII.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Stanley:

The Americas now, as in WWII, should not have to be sold on the need to fight this war, but yet they do and thus, the media should help, but for the most part, they are helping to keep the American public get behind the war!

---

Very few Americans had to be sold on the necessity to invade Afghanistan...

The Administration put forth it's reasons for going to war with Iraq, and we have certainly found it not to be the dire threat that we were told. The Iraqi's have not greeted us with flowers and the red carpet. The troop level was not down to 30,000 by September of 2003 as Rumsfeld predicted. The war in Iraq has been predicated upon false information, ill planning, and a complete misunderstanding of the situation by the planners.

We have built the largest American Embassy in the world in a third rate country - why??

Maps of the Iraqi oil fields, along with details of all their oil contracts were perused by the Vice President's secret energey task force back in April of 2001 - way before the attack of 9/11. We've not been told the whole truth - lied to, is more like it.

Here's the latest figures for the CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 14-18, 2005. Now, I know this won't reflect the view over at Mil.Com - but it's more in line with what the American public thinks.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

Approve Disapprove Unsure
ALL adults 40 55 5
Republicans 78 18 4
Democrats 13 84 3
Independents 33 59 8


It's not the media's job to "Sell the War" - That's the government's job. The media reports what the government does... Often getting information is like pulling teeth - this administration is pretty secretive.

And it appears that the government's not being too straight with us...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Stanley:
Ron,

First, I served in Vietnam and that time frame as you did. I know what went on with the media and you do to so don't play friggin games. The media of the Vietnam war was not a soldiers best friend, plain and simple.

---

Since when is the media supposed to be the soldier's best friend?? It's supposed to report the news.

quote:

---

As for WWII, the likes of Ernie Pyle is all one needs to say! he reported the war on both campaigns and never forgot he was an American and was worshipped by the troops! He was the forefront of embedded reporters of that day and set the example.

---

O.K....

quote:

---

All one has to do is look at todays papers and TV news to see that those reporting on the war today do so, for the most part, in a view that puts the troops in a bad light and the war in a bad light and hell, even here there are those that give the enemy the benefit of the doubt against the troops, ie, this thread!

---

Report war in a bad light... Well, you pounded ground - I didn't. I was somewhat under the impression that war was a "bad light" experience.

"Give enemy benefit of the doubt" - care to expand on that...?

i.e. this thread?? You mean we can't discuss things objectively?? Our troops never fugg up?? Wow!!!!

Ron,

Our troops ****-up? Yes they do, but not here in this situation! Sorry, but I'll go with the grunt on the ground here and will cover his six! Why? Cause I've been there in these situation before pounding the ground just like him and know what and how he thinks--Did this work for most of my career!

You want to sit here and judge him and say he ****ed up never having the experience, then go ahead, but it don't mean much!

Give the enemy the benefit---You are more willing to believe the Marine ****ed up than you are to say he did the right thing, thus giving the other side the benefit of the doubt!

Report the war in a bad light--I've received many letters and several phone calls from my son and several other marines in Iraq and guess what? They say that things aren't going as bad as the media has protrayed and that there are many, many good things happening in Iraq, but of course, to you my son and the other Senior Staff NCOs and a few Officers I hear from are lying cause they don't go along with your perception of the war.

Reporters are supposed to report the news, but today, they try to make the news!

At any rate, it has been a good discussion and debate with you!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gary Stanley,

Norman,

Where did I say anything about Saddam and 9/11? Don't believe I did!

I said that Saddam and his government of thugs were terrorist and were part of the group we,America, is at war with in the WOT.

Can you sit there in front of the forum here and tell me that Saddam had nothing to do what so ever with terrorism? He never used WMD? He never persued WMD? He never butchered his people by the thousands? He never tried to organize the death of President Bush I? He never sent money to the families of homocide bombers in Palestine? He never tried to invade two countries?

If you can tell the forum that he did none of these things, then you're right, Saddam wasn't a terrorist, but you know and I know you can't!