loughing my a** off

[Giancarlo]

Giancarlo is really a product of the propaganda machine in the US.

Care to elaborate? You can PM me if you wish...

I'm really curious to understand what 'the propaganda machine in the US' really is. I can assume you mean that by standing by my elected president and supporting the military I am a product of propaganda...but then again, we all know what happens when one makes an assumption.

So if it isn't too much to ask, explain the 'US propaganda machine' as best as you can. If you can cite sources, that would be great too. Perhaps then I can understand what you stated here:

Never read someone with such a lack of own thinking...

And please leave the ad hominems out. They have no place in an arguement.

[Giancarlo]

If any of you would like to start a Hate Bush/America thread, Giancarlo is the great satan thread, a US propaganda thread, war on terrorism thread, etc. - please do so. Hell, PM me when you do. I'll debate politics and question your values to your your heart's content - but attack you personally, cite poor sources, use my opinion as fact, and skew the discussion, I will not.

-Giancarlo

[allan]

If any of you would like to start a Hate Bush/America thread, Giancarlo is the great satan thread, a US propaganda thread, war on terrorism thread, etc. - please do so. Hell, PM me when you do. I'll debate politics and question your values to your your heart's content - but attack you personally, cite poor sources, use my opinion as fact, and skew the discussion, I will not.

cool down buddy i donno if u've noticed, but this thread was about some funny pics, and out of no where, it became a huge political debate
as far as i remember, this was a formula1 site, so i don't think it is really important to discuss this kind of stuff around here, right?
I hate america(the government, not people). So? who gives the s---? it's my opinion, and it considers me alone, not anyone else.
so plz, let's end this thread right here, right now...
nice weather today, eh?

[DaveKillens]

Having inbed journalists is a privledge that the US Gov grants the media. There are certain agreements concerning the broadcast of our fallen soldiers. The US military is sensitive to those lost and their families, thus they require the media to honor and respect the fallen by keeping things private. You can scream 'conspiracy' or '1st amendment' all you want, contrary to where you may come from, we are asked to respect the deceased.

I really have to comment on this statement. It is not disrespectful to show the body or coffin. For example, when a dignitary or famous figure is deceased, it is very common for the body and coffin to be displayed. For example, Ronald Reagan. What we have here is a military law that was put in place to conceal the dead. The TV audience of the Vietnam era saw coffins and body bags a lot, and that helped strengthen the anti-war movement.
The military says respect, I say cover-up.

[Giancarlo]

I really have to comment on this statement. It is not disrespectful to show the body or coffin. For example, when a dignitary or famous figure is deceased, it is very common for the body and coffin to be displayed. For example, Ronald Reagan. What we have here is a military law that was put in place to conceal the dead. The TV audience of the Vietnam era saw coffins and body bags a lot, and that helped strengthen the anti-war movement.
The military says respect, I say cover-up.

I understand what you are getting at, however you are comparing apples to oranges. I'll illustrate this as simple as possible:

Dignitaries, such as Ronald Regan, are elected officials.
Military personnel are volunteers.
Dignitaries that have had their body/coffin displayed died from natural causes. Examples: Regan and Ford.
Military personnel were killed protecting America and defending freedom.

The most recent account of showing a dead US military body involved the NY Times. They printed a picture of a serviceman who was in his last minutes of his life. He was shot in the head and there was little they could do except make him as comfortable as possible. To make matters worse, his name was printed with the article.

This is how his family learned of his death. There was no cover-up. Notifying the next of kin properly takes more time than e-mailing a picture. The military is sensitive for obvious reasons, however the NY Times does not show the same respect.

The family is outraged, to say the least.

Continuous showing of those killed in battle also sets a poor precedent. What's next? Showing murder victims or those who were killed in auto accidents? Showing the deceased w/o notification and showing them at the time of their death is a shameless act. I'm not sure what is the social mores of everyone else's culture, but in American privacy is, and should always be, a protected right. Now the media pushes the boundaries continuously with their reporting (which sometimes is a good thing) but in doing so - they go over the line from time to time. This would be one of those times.

Let the family grieve privately and let their fallen son be remembered for his contribution to his nation, not as the guy who got shot in the head.

In America, we do not flaunt the bodies or body parts of those who died defending our freedom nor do we show our servicemen jumping up and down rejoicing whenever a terrorist turns into pink mist. Those are the images of our enemies, or more specific: our targets, that are broadcast worldwide. It may be a great story, it may get great ratings - but America has different standards...like respect.

My friends who have served and are currently overseas can all agree on one thing: THEY HATE INBED JOURNALISTS! Like you and I, servicemen overseas have access to the news and are continuously disgusted by what is being told concerning the war on terror. They send me e-mails and links to blogs from their peers, all agree the media is skewing the story. Why you may ask? For the same reason why they ran a picture of a dying soldier - ratings.

[bhall]

...but America has different standards...like respect.

Ok, I'll wade in. After all, there's nothing more respectful than the truth.

First off, images of flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover AFB were allowed, as is the norm, in the beginning of the "war." Bush put the practice to a halt once initial polling numbers showed support for the "war" dropping.

Second, there is no "war on terror." It's a misnomer used to make U.S. actions seem justified and to make those against it to be seen as unpatriotic (see: O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, et al). Terrorism, by definition, is a crime. Federal crimes in America are investigated and prosecuted by the Justice Department through the FBI. The events in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal police actions (see: U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section Eight).

The United States created al-Qeada and the Taliban (see: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1978). Carter and Reagan used anti-Soviet forces, in the form of Islamic radicals, in what they viewed as a struggle against the U.S.S.R. in the Cold War.

The United States supported the Baath Party in Iraq and gave Saddam Hussein leverage in his fight with neighboring Iran. "Chemical Ali" learned his profession from, and was supplied by, the CIA (see: Iran/Iraq War).

The United States is engaged in a variety of propaganda operations throughout Iraq. The Pentagon has been paying untrained journalists to plant favorable stories in Iraqi newspapers. This is documented, however I've forgotten the source. Radio Free America is propaganda. But it's nothing new. Every country, to some extent, engages in propaganda.

I guess my point in all of this is that while 9/11 was a horrible event (which, incidentally, the CIA knew was going to happen), the United States, my beloved country, has used it as a justification for its imperialistic ambitions. And those ambitions go all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt; they, too, are nothing new.

Our president lied to get the country into "war." Our congress rolled over and allowed this "war" to occur. The media, fueled by greed for access, allowed unprecedented amounts of disinformation to be disseminated to the American people, and to the world. These are not respectful actions by respectable institutions. But yet again, these lies are nothing new (see: U.S.S. Maine, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, etc).

This is just how the big boy on the block acts. I've accepted it. But I don't respect it. And I sure as hell don't respect a man, our president, who has sacrificed the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers and untold thousands of Iraqi civilians for political gain.

[Ray]

Okay, I'm out of these dicussions! I'm too sad to hear things like the fact that my buddies were blown to smithereens for nothing and that the pictures or images not shown are a 'cover up'. Would you want to see the torn and mangled dead bodies of your best friends whom you love like family strewn all over news media for the sake of ratings? I don't, it's horrible on my well being, my life, and my emotions. So all of you that want to see dead bodies of 18-20 year old men killed for nothing go ahead. I won't look at the men I love so unceremoniously strewn out for everyone to gawk at while I cry inside. I will add no more further to these forums, if you would like to counter anything I have said feel free to PM me, otherwise I will keep my emotions to myself.

Everyone is no doubt an upstanding member of society, of that I am sure. The posts by (in no particular order or favoritism) Dave, Ciro, and Carlos make me a smarter person every day. But to have someone say on here that we should show the burnt bodies of those killed in war, no matter what countries they are a citizen of, is not good. Seeing dead bodies is a horrible thing, whatever your agenda for doing so may be. Seeing them in person and then paraded on nightly news the world over, is too much for me. So I will continue to learn more about the various nuances of F1 from all of you. No more politics for me.

[DaveKillens]

Wow, I didn't see the "mangled bodies" thing coming, that was totally outside of anything I was thinking.
Here in Canada, when a soldier is killed in service, we almost always see the sad TV and news coverage of the plane landing and the coffin being unloaded, with honors. A soldier dies, we know about it.
But if a marine dies in Iraq, his body is flown in quietly, the coffin is unloaded away from public eyes, and it's almost as if he never existed.
Of course when you treat the deceased you try to do it with class, dignity, and total respect. No one opens a coffin, spills the body on the tarmac and spreads body parts around. OK, get the message, it's got nothing to do with showing gore and the horror of war. I don't know where you got that idea.
I know that the practice of keeping the public away from any view of any coffins returning started during the times of Vietnam, when the Pentagon and leadership was becoming embarassed and uncomfortable with the almost daily coverage on TV of another planeload of coffins coming home.
And this policy of keeping everything hush-hush only applies to them. If a common person or famous official dies, it's a public affair. And when someone who serves the community is killed, that too is public. Heck, if a cop is killed, over a thousand cops from a thousand miles show up for the funeral. Same goes with a fire-fighter. But a soldier? Suddenly the rules have changed, and they pass on as if they never existed, but for the memories of their families.
That's all I have been trying to say. That the US administration does not want the public to be constantly reminded of the terrible cost of war, and try their best to keep the dead unobserved.
Ray, Giancarlo, and anyone else affected, if I caused you distress, I apologize. I never intend personal attacks. All I am doing is pointing out, and yes, attacking certain political events. I happen to have many freinds from the USA, and even more in the military. Good people all, they are not the bad guys.