It's not the job of the media to build morale and resolve, what you're thinking of is propaganda maybe?
Should the media balance every report of a plane crash with stories about all the planes that landed safely? No they shouldnt, because troops getting killed in these kind of numbers (25 over the weekend?) is not normal. It is abnormal. It is news.
Would you honestly prefer that the deaths weren't reported?

No, I think that when troop surges of 20,000 are reported, along with "high" casualty figures of 5 per day, most people can work out that 95% of troops arent dying out there.

Of course I can see media bias. I'm not saying "the" media bias because there is more than one. every outlet has it's own slant, whether you can see it or not.
I don't hate America. I've made my home here before, and I'm doing it again now.

Nope. Since when do we start defining terms to our liking? Patriotism is now defined as questioning the government?!?!?! Actually, patriotism is defined by Merriem Webster as "Love and devotion to one's country". How we come to those ends can be debated. But the anti-war left sure has a funny way of showing it. I might as well cheat on my wife to show her that I love her. :doh:

And no, I fail to see how you can support the troops if your doing everything in your power to demoralize the nation's support for their actions, doing everything in your power to hinder their Commander in Chief, and redefining established terms to fit the agenda of political malcontents like you've attempted in this thread. "To some of us, "Support the Troops" is alot more than lip service. At least you've admitted it is an empty term to you.

It's not the job of the media to have an agenda, yet they do in this case. It's the anti-war agenda unfortunately. And it's totally antithetical to America's success. And yes, the media should balance out the bad with the good. That's what I would prefer. A balanced and total view of the news for the purposes of informing the citizens. They aren't doing that now. And thus, they are a hostile media.

In addition, we have a major political party (Democrat)working towards America's defeat. And not being subtle about it. Yet claiming they support the troops. How foolish to believe them. Whether they want to admit it or not.

:lol: This is really boyond a joke now....

What I said: What you said I said:Nuff said. The rest is just the rantings of a right winger, who believes anyone who disagrees with him is unpatriotic and wants his friends (3 dead in my case) and countrymen to be killed, and for America to fail. It's a chumps way out. It's baseless. And most of all, it's the most fundamentaly un-American thing an American can do.

Im out on this one. Once it becomes personal (and irate, apparantly..) , theres rarely a sensible discussion to be had...

There is no single outlet with a single agenda. I thought I went over this. Would you call Fox News' slant anti-war?

Not every situation has an equally balanced "good" and "bad" side, so how could this new medium you're talking about be anything but biased? Take the case of a serial murderer. "Sentenced to death. Killed grannies. Nice haircut."

Of course you're out on this one. But I only said things based on what you said. You said "Support the Troops" is an empty phrase to you. You tried to redefine patriotism into a definition that doesn't exist. Nobody said you can't question the government, but that does not define what a patriot is. Look in a dictionary. I'm only going by what the Democrats say, how the media behaves in it's reporting, and questioning your arguments as fundamentally flawed and confused. There is honest dissent, but the Democrats don't provide that. When you have Democrats bickering for months about needing to change tactics and for Bush to admit mistakes....then he does that....then the Democrats nail him for it and move the goal posts....that's not honest dissent. That's partisan BS. And it hurts the country. That is not patriotic. If they were honest, they would give him credit for it, and give his new strategy a chance to work. They've already declared it a failure and the implementation hasn't started. You can't see it? OK. Enjoy the land of intellectual dishonesty.

Nope, you actually twisted my words at every possible turn, but Ill just leave them as they are for anyone to see. Thats fine with me. Somehow, it even seems fitting, or expected, perhaps.

Have a nice day.

Pray tell where you get 1% casualty rate from? I'd say it's a bit more than 1%.

U.S. Deaths: 3060
Wounded No Medical Air Transport Required: 16,164
Wounded - Medical Air Transport Required: 6,670
Total: 25894

UK Deaths: 130
Other: 123

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/PieCountry.aspx

Edited

Change that to Bi-Partisan. Watch any news to include Fox if you want.
He admitted mistakes when the American public voiced their disgust and you were still going on about what a great job he was doing.

Umm.:hmm: It's been a Democrat congress for less then 30 days. What about the other 5 years?

These questions seem fair, highlighting the difference between using a polling organisation such as GlobeScan, and a biased network asking it's own questions.

Depends on how you count it. But if you look at all troops deployed, rotated to both theaters of major conflict, it adds up to around 1% of deaths. It was just in a CENTCOM report. If you look at Iraq and take a single rotation of 130,000 troops, of course that number will reflect a higher percentage. And of course adding wounded (permanently or less serious) makes the picture bleaker.

But ya' know. What I really find sad, is that you almost seem to be salivating at these losses to prove some kind of point in how America is failing and all is lost. Is it your goal to make your fellow Americans who served think that they and their fellow soldiers wasted their times and lives? I currently have two friends over there. I just went to one of their weddings in St. Louis not too long ago. He volunteered to go back. And he also told me how absolutely bogus the media is on reporting about conditions on the ground. He said times were tough, but most guys in his unit are hoping that they get the resources and support to succeed. He said some don't like the way Bush is conducting it, and wish they could do things differently, but they felt their presence was needed, and running away would be the wrong thing to do. Despite Mother Nancy, and Ted the Red, alot of these people feel that what they are doing is worthwhile. So continue to demoralize, wring your hands, and salivate over American failure. You may get what you ask for. But you may not like what you get served.

He disputes your assertion that the casualty rate is 1%, where's this salivating going on?

In the paranoid corners of the brain, perhaps. :-?

OK. But when you go by this, it's around 1%:

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/million.html

And by the way, this is not a good news piece. This basically says we are stretching the military to the limit. One of the reasons I'm not too happy about the way Bush is conducting the war.

At any rate, it doesn't matter. The reason I use the term salivate, is because the anti-war crowd typically use casualty figures as a way to demoralize the nation into believing the war in total is a lost cause. It's almost obsessive. And at the same time, it's patently destructive to the war effort. Like it or not, we're there. And I find it sickening that the anti-war crowd, a few of whom may be honest in their dissent, are largely seeking to end the war as fast as possible at any cost. That's not going to end the problems. Leaving without achieving stability may make it worse. But they don't seem to think 5-10 years down the road as forward looking. They are like my 5 year old niece who want what they want NOW! Darn the consequences.

All poltical bull**** aside there is no easy answer, and neither side of the poltical isle can come up with one. We're stuck between a rock and a hardplace. Im no poltician or armchair general. Just a vet sitting in a cubicle. I see only three options:

1.) Find a poltical solution.

or

2.) Go full bore. If were going to follow a plan of "clear and hold" for counterinsurgency in iraq where going to need alot more the "20K additional troops stall tactic to dump the mess on the next president" bull****. Reinstate the draft, were talking to the tune of keeping 500 to 600 thousand combat troops incountry to hold areas once cleared.

or

3.)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tnamescape.jpg

Option 2 is out. This country will never accept a draft. Polticaly active mothers everywhere would flip out. That leaves option 1 and 3.

Look bleaker? Is that why you just count deaths as casualties? 1% makes it look brighter?
Use facts. A casualty is a KIA and a WIA.

Please point to where you trying to manipulate casualty numbers equals me salivating! The point I'm making is you don't tell the truth.
My goal is to replace incompetence with someone that knows what they are doing.

So now you think telling the truth is demoralizing and salivating over failure? Sorry! What concerns me is people like you who try to cover the truth and belch rhetorical propaganda to try and cover the failures instead of changing the course of action.
Congress hasn't been in session two weeks and you are already blaming congress for your failures of five years. Thats what happens when political idiots try to play general with people like you cheering them on. Thank god this isn't the second world war because we'd be speaking German.

Doesn't that about sum up the whole Iraq affair. Should have said that to this administration.

Well if you're concerned for the truth, total troop deployment to total casualty ratio should be your guide. And in that regard, especially compared to other conflicts, those numbers are pretty low. And my friend, all you do is dig for bad news. You seem to hope for failure. You seem to be somebody that is concerned for focusing on the bad to ensure that people lose the will to see things through. You aren't searching for the truth. Far from it. And I'm afraid you are going to get your way anyway. And there will be hell to pay because of it. The truth is, not all is lost. We have not lost yet. I'm concerned because the focus seems to be to get the American people to think we've lost. Demoralize them to the point of frustration.

And that's why I think your side is dangerous and ultimately will see to it that things will not only prolong, but we may have to face a stronger version of this same enemy down the road because of the lack of resolve now. And my concern in that is that there are people over there that need our support. Democrats will see to it that they died in vain. I say if you're going to fight, fight to win. If only the Dems had as much fighting spirit against the terrorists as they seem to have for Bush. You think Bush is incompetent, yet you're people don't even have an idea of what to do. Whether you like it or not, Bush is the CINC. And the fact that you guys seem to offer nothing other than criticism of Bush, I don't think you guys are up for the task. You guys want surrender. You guys don't want to face this enemy. And as such, your grandchildren may have to fight this war. Your lack of foresight will guarantee it. Indeed if this was WW2 and you people were around, the USA and the allies would be screwed.

Sea Demon I believe you are going to far. IIRC Brad has served his country, have you?