From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Mon May 12 2003 - 07:37:33 MDT
In a message dated 5/11/2003 8:42:04 PM Central Standard Time,
mail@HarveyNewstrom.com writes: You said that I was disappointed that the
Army did not suffer some tragedy. This was insulting and totally out of
proportion to anything I have ever done or said or believed.
Harvey,
I think what you wrote clearly was disappointed that the media
allegedly (by you) was totally under the thumb of the Army and had not
reported the war honestly. To conclude that you were not on the side of the
American Army was not unreasonable. However you have said since that you
were not disappointed that the Army did not suffer some tragedy. Your word
is good enough.
However, how you can conclude that the Army as an organization
dominated the media is beyond me. We have evidence from the testimony of the
direct media involved that some of them were shilling for Sadaam. If we
watched the nightly news casts we know the media repeatedly forecast doom and
gloom. We also know that the forecasts didn't even come close to reality.
We also know from the reports that such glowing reports on our Army as
existed -- and there were some -- resulted from the attitude of the embedded
reporters toward the men and women they served among.
Well, surprise, surprise. We have known that is a natural reaction
for generations. After Vietnam it was reported that the Army wanted to know
what motivated men to go through the hell of combat instead of running like
crazy. They hired some very powerful psychologists to find the answer.
It turned out that when men serve together they become friends. The
ages and ages of human evolution have hard wired men so they will risk death
rather than see their friends killed. Those reporters were human and they
responded to the same process.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 12 2003 - 07:49:14 MDT